[Scrooge]

NN, I think we're gonna have to have a TC social, with you as the guest speaker. When you mentioned extensive exploration in the area, were you talking about Troublesome Creek specifically, or about the Skykomish, Silver Creek, Monte Cristo area in general? I assume you've looked at the map of our recent "explorations". Where does what you've done fit in on that? ps - You're right about the TC gaging station. Polarbear posted a link to a site that listed all the stations that have ever operated in the state. If I read it right, the TC station was operational in the forties. Unfortunately, it's not the sort of information that tells us what to look for, or look out for, upstream. pps - Let's make it a Friday night social - so I can come.

[Dalekz]

Another source if information is the washington state div of geology. Their publication list can be found at http://www.wa.gov/dnr/htdocs/ger/pdf/publist.pdf Bulletin # 7 is interesting Geology and ore deposits of the Index mining distric by CE Weaver (1912) Or #36 Geology and ore deposits of the Sultun Basin by Carithers and Guard (1945). They are out of print but probably can be found in the U of W library. The Dept's "Washington geology" is a nice publication. You can sign up for it at this site http://www.wa.gov/dnr/htdocs/ger/pubs_ol.htm.

[Scrooge]

I'm headed for the library to pick up the first one, now. (I ordered it last week.) I'll follow up on the other two next week. THanks.

[Newt]

Scrooge.. Not sure how much I can add. I've been trying to remember but all this took place 35 yrs ago. Alot of water under the bridge so to speak. I was born in Startup and spent alot of time in that area and the Index area. Mineral City, Galena, TC. Not until lately have I spent anytime in the Monte Cristo area tho I rummaged the area a bit in the later 60's. There used to be a lot of trails in that area also. I had a habit of just following any path if there was one just to have a lookie see. I was mainly into bottle collecting and old mines. Bottles seemed to show up there. I didn't own a camera and most of my trips were look at the book, get up and go type. Like I said, I SHOULD know but the memory banks are not cooperating. Seems like most of the trails followed creeks. In a lot of cases they were obscure even at that time. Few roads if any. If something surfaces I will spill my guts. It was an exciting area and an exciting time for a teenager NN

[Newt]

Something I found. If you know of the publication it's from please let me know. I think it was a good book. http://www.home.earthlink.net/~batcher2/silvercreekmap.jpg NN:)

[lopper]

There's a duplication of that Silver/Troublesome 1897 mining claim map in the 1977 Majors/McCollum "Monte Cristo Area" book. Interesting how the old timers called Columbia Peak by another name....."Hubbart's Peak". That name is now in use by Scott Peak's large ridge-mate. Up the West fork of TC, the "Great Scott" claim looks like an appropriate spot for a basecamp of sorts. It would allow close proximity to the alleged "timber cones" (hinted at by Mr Terraserver). It would be really nifty to get up to the Twins that way, and to motor out onto the high-route dogleg towards Blanca. Maybe rubberlegs can be booked for route consultation services.

[Mike Collins]

Lopper, It is difficult to know exactly what the cartographer is identifying as Hubbart's Peak. Is it the peak immediately to the left of the "H" in Hubbart's or the large peak above it?He/she has left off key references such as Twin Lakes. What is identified as Hancock Gulch could be Quartz Creek on modern maps. That would place Hubbart's Peak exactly where it is today. I am somewhat familiar with the topography of that area having summited Scott, Hubbart, Columbia, Troublesome, and Silvertip. On the descent from Hubbart's I had the good fortune of happening upon what is called in legal parlance as a "witness tree". They are geographical landmarks for boundaries. Often these are associated with mining claims. The tree had numbers etched onto it where the bark had been stripped away. That would have corresponded with one of the mining claims indicated on the map by the frequent boxes. I wrote down the numbers but have since misplaced them. That could be used as a reference point for further research into exactly what the mapmaker was designating as Hubbart's Peak. I think it is premature to conclude that Hubbart's Peak as shown on the map is what we know today as Columbia.

[Damian]

My 1936 Wenatchee Nat Forest map shows the trail up the W. side of Troublesome Ck, ending due N. of Troublesome mountain. Hubbart Peak is consistant with today's location. Anyone know if it is still possible to hike Silver Creek all the way to Silver and Twin Lks?

[Mother Hubbard]

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~batcher2/silvercreekmap.jpg This very interesting 1897 map from by Webster Brown in Lawrence K. Hodges, "Mining in the Pacific Northwest," is reproduced in Harry Major's "Monte Cristo Area" book (p.124). Clearly Hubbart's Peak then applied to Peak 5558 at the head of the then labeled Molybdium Gulch and Hancock Gulch and Troublesome Creek. Today the "Hubbart Peak" words have drifted 1.4 miles south to Peak 5936. As Mike pointed out, it's very curious that Twin Lakes are not drawn in. Many of the "gulch" names used in 1897 do not appear on the current (1979/1982) 7.5' USGS Monte Cristo. Along the west bank of Silver Creek above Galena the modern map has lost what used to be Pole Gulch, Moore's Gulch, Lockwood Gulch, and Cascade Gulch. Up the east side Confederate Gulch (which now shows as Quartz Creek), Straight Up, as well as Hancock and Molybdium Gulches no longer show up. Trade Dollar Gulch once flowed into Mineral City, and it looks like Red Gulch was called Edison.

[Mother H]

If you don't register, you can't edit. Make that Molybdenum

[Scrooge]

The Silver Creek base map is confusing. What we call Hubbart's Peak, today, is the high point on the ridgeline about halfway between Scott's Peak and the peak(s) labeled Hubbart's Peak, just at the extreme point of that eastward bow. I take the peak "icons" above the name Hubbart's Peak to be the northern highpoint of the HP ridge on the left, and Twin Peaks above Twin Lakes on the right. Columbia Peak would be about the end of the ridgeline near Blanca Lake (which is shown too far north). - And yes, it would have been nice if the Twin Lakes were shown. The "real" Hubbart's Peak is much less impressive from the Silver Creek side than it is from Troublesome Creek. Add to that the fact that Pearsall is supposed to have had his view of the Monte Cristo mineralization from the summit of HP and it makes it seem likely that the northern point on the ridge is the peak the people in Mineral City called Hubbart's. Here's another clue. Lopper, you sent me this: "Golconda Claim. Loc: On TC east of Silver Creek. Property: 3 claims. Dev: 40 ft adit & open cuts. Troublesome Pass: Loc: At Troublesome Pass 1/2 mi east of Hubbart Peak. I thought the reference to a "Troublesome Pass" was interesting, never heard of it myself, have you?" As you recall, that confused me, too, because of the 1/2 mile figure. But, if we assume that they're referring to that northern point as Hubbart's Peak, then "Troublesome Pass" is the saddle between it and Twin Peaks. - A godawful place to put anything, as MtnGoat pointed out awhile back. Okay. Mike, where did you descend from Hubbart's Peak - and which peak? I would have said coming down anywhere on the east side involved a very long rappel, but all I've done is look at it from across the valley. If you can approximate the location where you found that "witness tree" (on a modern map) it would be very interesting, even if you can't find where you've squirrelled the exact coordinates. Progress.

[Mike Collins]

If you were to draw a line from the point where Quartz Creek intersects Silver Creek to Point 4450 on the map it approximates my route of descent from Hubbart Peak (Point 5936). I was always north of Quartz Creek. Based upon the above communications it does seem as if Hubbart's today is south of what it used to be called. Troublesome Pass would have to be that low point between Twin Peaks and 5558.

[Scrooge]

Thanks, Mike. I think 2DrX may be most intrigued by your "witness tree". It's in the Silver Creek Mining District, east of Silver Creek and north of Confederate Gulch/Quartz Creek. There are no claims in that section shown on the SCMD map, or reported in DWHM. It's possible that the prospectors marked the claim but never completed filing - or that they did and the records have escaped other searchers. From your description, that's a pretty precise line down the nose of the spur north of Quartz Creek, and dedicated mine buffs should be able to find it again (perhaps with the aid of a guesstimate of how far you were above Silver Creek). At any rate, it's a great example of what this History section is about, even if it doesn't do a lot for the Troublesome Creek sleuths. ..................... Mother Hubbard - Cartography ain't what it used to be. Cartographers used to attach names to places, making up the names if they had to. Now they're taking names away, even when the names are geographically and historically significant. Dumb! :angry: I'm gonna go through and add the various creeks and gulches to my maps. That way a few of us will still know where were talking about.

[Sawyer]

The Silver Creek trail still goes up to Poodledog Pass, then you can hike to Twin Lakes. There are two slightly confusing sections but most of the trail is remarkably intact.

[Newt]

Now Hodges book rings a bell. The others I don't remember ever seeing. NN