DOCSLIB.ORG

San Lorenzo River and North Coast Watersheds Sanitary Survey Update

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
San Lorenzo River and North Coast Watersheds Sanitary Survey Update Santa Cruz Water Department in association with San Lorenzo Valley Water District San Lorenzo River and North Coast Watersheds Sanitary Survey Update February 2018 This Page Intentionally Blank 2350 Mission College Boulevard, Suite 525 Santa Clara, California 95454 650-852-2800 FAX: 650-856-8527 San Lorenzo River and North Coast Watersheds Sanitary Survey Update February 2018 Prepared for City of Santa Cruz 715 Graham Hill Rd. Santa Cruz, CA 95060 In association with San Lorenzo Valley Water District K/J Project No. 17680004*00 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ ix List of Figures................................................................................................................................ x List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................ xi Preparers ....................................................................................................................................... I Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... I Section 1: Introduction ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Study Area .......................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Watershed Sanitary Survey Requirements ......................................... 1-1 1.3 Objectives ........................................................................................... 1-3 1.4 Participating Drinking Water Utilities ................................................... 1-3 1.5 Report Organization ............................................................................ 1-3 Section 2: Watersheds and Water Supply Systems ................................... 2-1 2.1 Watershed Description ........................................................................ 2-1 2.1.1 Regional Hydrologic Setting ..................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Prior Studies............................................................................. 2-2 2.1.3 Significance of Storms, Droughts, Geology, and Baseflow .................................................................................. 2-3 2.2 Land Use and Water Quality ............................................................... 2-5 2.2.1 Land Use .................................................................................. 2-5 2.2.2 Residential ............................................................................... 2-7 2.2.3 Agricultural Uses and Animal Grazing ..................................... 2-8 2.2.4 Timber Harvests ....................................................................... 2-9 2.2.5 Mining..................................................................................... 2-11 2.2.6 Recreation .............................................................................. 2-11 2.2.7 Reservoir Sedimentation ........................................................ 2-12 2.3 Natural Conditions and Water Quality ............................................... 2-12 2.3.1 Soils and Geology .................................................................. 2-13 2.3.2 Faults and Seismic Activity .................................................... 2-15 2.3.3 Volcanic Activity ..................................................................... 2-15 2.3.4 Vegetation .............................................................................. 2-17 2.3.5 Wildlife.................................................................................... 2-17 2.4 Water Supply Systems Background .................................................. 2-18 2.4.1 History .................................................................................... 2-18 2.4.2 Santa Cruz Water Department (SCWD) ................................ 2-21 2.4.3 San Lorenzo Valley Water District (SLVWD) ......................... 2-21 2.5 Water Sources .................................................................................. 2-22 2.5.1 Santa Cruz Water Department ............................................... 2-22 San Lorenzo Valley and North Coast Watersheds Sanitary Survey for SCWD and SLVWD i y:\pw-proj\2017\1768004.00_santacruzwd-watershed sanitary survey\09-reports\9.09-report\feb-18-draft+final\for-022118-final\022118-wss-update.docx Table of Contents (cont’d) 2.5.2 North Coast ............................................................................ 2-22 2.5.3 San Lorenzo River – Intake in Santa Cruz and Tait Wells ..... 2-23 2.5.4 San Lorenzo River - Felton Diversion .................................... 2-23 2.5.5 Loch Lomond Reservoir on Newell Creek .............................. 2-24 2.5.6 SLVWD .................................................................................. 2-24 2.6 Water Rights ..................................................................................... 2-25 2.6.1 SCWD .................................................................................... 2-25 2.6.2 Other Utilities.......................................................................... 2-26 2.6.3 SLVWD .................................................................................. 2-28 2.6.4 Water Quantity ....................................................................... 2-28 2.6.5 Source Management .............................................................. 2-29 2.7 Facilities ............................................................................................ 2-30 2.7.1 Raw Water Reservoirs ........................................................... 2-30 2.7.2 Intakes/Conveyance Systems ................................................ 2-30 2.7.2.1 SCWD .................................................................. 2-32 2.7.2.2 SLVWD ................................................................ 2-32 2.7.3 Treatment Plants/Processes .................................................. 2-32 2.7.3.1 SCWD .................................................................. 2-33 2.7.3.2 SLVWD ................................................................ 2-33 2.7.4 Pipeline Data, Capacity .......................................................... 2-35 2.7.5 Satellite treatment facilities .................................................... 2-37 2.8 Emergency Plans .............................................................................. 2-37 2.8.1 SCWD .................................................................................... 2-37 2.8.2 SLVWD .................................................................................. 2-38 Section 3: POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES IN THE WATERSHEDS ............................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Survey Methods .................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Wastewater ......................................................................................... 3-4 3.2.1 Contaminants of Concern ........................................................ 3-6 3.2.1.1 Bacteria .................................................................. 3-8 3.2.1.2 Nitrate .................................................................... 3-8 3.2.2 San Lorenzo River Watershed ................................................. 3-8 3.2.3 Loch Lomond Reservoir Subwatershed ................................. 3-12 3.2.4 North Coast Watersheds ........................................................ 3-12 3.2.5 Significance ............................................................................ 3-13 3.3 Urban Runoff ..................................................................................... 3-13 3.3.1 Contaminants of Concern ...................................................... 3-15 3.3.2 San Lorenzo River Watershed ............................................... 3-15 3.3.3 Loch Lomond Reservoir and the Upper Newell Creek Watershed ............................................................................. 3-17 3.3.4 North Coast Watersheds ........................................................ 3-17 3.3.5 SLVWD .................................................................................. 3-17 3.3.6 Significance ............................................................................ 3-17 ii San Lorenzo Valley and North Coast Watersheds Sanitary Survey for SCWD and SLVWD Table of Contents (cont’d) 3.4 Agricultural Land Use ........................................................................ 3-18 3.4.1 Contaminants of Concern ...................................................... 3-18 3.4.2 San Lorenzo River Watershed ............................................... 3-18 3.4.3 Loch Lomond Reservoir Subwatershed ................................. 3-19 3.4.4 North Coast Watersheds ........................................................ 3-19 3.4.5 SLVWD .................................................................................. 3-20 3.4.6 Significance ............................................................................ 3-20 3.5 Grazing Livestock .............................................................................. 3-20 3.5.1 Contaminants of Concern ...................................................... 3-21 3.5.2 San Lorenzo Valley ...............................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • D.W. ALLEY & Associates Aquatic Biology
    D.W. ALLEY & Associates Aquatic Biology -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2006 Juvenile Steelhead Densities in the San Lorenzo, Soquel, Aptos and Corralitos Watersheds, Santa Cruz County, California Coastrange Sculpin Photographed by Jessica Wheeler D.W. ALLEY & Associates, Aquatic Biology Don Alley, Chad Steiner and Jerry Smith, Fishery Biologists With Field Assistance from Kristen Kittleson, Dawn Reis and Jessica Wheeler Prepared For the Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Department Government Center, 701 Ocean Street, Room 312, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Funding From the San Lorenzo Valley Water District, Soquel Creek Water District, Lompico County Water District, Cities of Santa Cruz and Watsonville and the County of Santa Cruz May 2007 Project # 200-04 340 Old River Lane • P.O. Box 200 • Brookdale, California 95007 • (831) 338-7971 TABLE OF CONTENTS REPORT SUMMARY...................................................................................10 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................31 I-1. Steelhead and Coho Salmon Ecology...................................................... 31 I-3. Project Purpose and General Study Approach ........................................ 34 METHODS ....................................................................................................35 M-1. Choice of Reaches and Vicinity of Sites to be Sampled- Methods........... 35 M-2. Classification of Habitat Types and Measurement of Habitat Characteristics.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
    San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 2019 Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 1: Governance ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Governance Team and Structure ...................................................... 1-1 1.2.1 Coordinating Committee ......................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Stakeholders .......................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2.1 Identification of Stakeholder Types ....................... 1-4 1.2.3 Letter of Mutual Understandings Signatories .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.1 Alameda County Water District ............................. 1-6 1.2.3.2 Association of Bay Area Governments ................. 1-6 1.2.3.3 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.4 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency ................................................................. 1-8 1.2.3.5 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District .................................. 1-8 1.2.3.6 Contra Costa Water District .................................. 1-9 1.2.3.7
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Study Appendix B
    Uvas Road at Little Uvas Creek Bridge Replacement Project Biological Assessment Biological Assessment Uvas Road over Little Uvas Creek Bridge Replacement Project (37C-0095/37C-0601 [new]) Near Morgan Hill, Santa Clara County, California 04-SCL-0-CR Federal Project Number BRLO 5937(124) Caltrans District 04 November 2015 Biological Assessment Uvas Road over Little Uvas Creek Bridge Replacement Project (37C-0095/37C-0601 [new]) Near Morgan Hill, Santa Clara County, California 04-SCL-0-CR Federal Project Number BRLO 5937(124) Caltrans District 04 November 2015 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Transportation and Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department Prepared By: ___________________________________ Date: ____________ Patrick Boursier, Principal (408) 458-3204 H. T. Harvey & Associates Los Gatos, California Approved By: ___________________________________ Date: ____________ Solomon Tegegne, Associate Civil Engineer Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department Highway and Bridge Design 408-573-2495 Concurred By: ___________________________________ Date: ____________ Tom Holstein Environmental Branch Chief Office of Local Assistance Caltrans, District 4 Oakland, California 510-286-5250 For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in Braille, large print, on audiocassette, or computer disk. To obtain a copy in one of these alternate formats, please call or write to the Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department: Solomon Tegegne Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department 101 Skyport Drive San Jose, CA 95110 408-573-2495 Summary of Findings, Conclusions and Determinations Summary of Findings, Conclusions and Determinations The Uvas Road at Little Uvas Creek Bridge Replacement Project (proposed project) is proposed by the County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department in cooperation with the Office of Local Assistance of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and this Biological Assessment (BA) has been prepared following Caltrans’ procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • San Lorenzo Urban River Plan
    San Lorenzo Urban River Plan A Plan for the San Lorenzo River, Branciforte Creek and Jessie Street Marsh Prepared by: City of Santa Cruz San Lorenzo Urban River Plan Task Force with assistance from Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program of the National Park Service Adopted June 24, 2003 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 3 Executive Summary 5 Chapter 19 Purpose, Context and Goals 1.1 Purpose of the San Lorenzo Urban River Plan 9 1.2 Goals and Benefits of the Plan 10 1.3 The Planning Area and River Reach Descriptions 10 1.4 Relationship to Existing City Plans 13 1.5 Plan Organization 13 Chapter 2 15 Plan Setting and Background 2.1 Physical Setting 15 2.2 Social Setting: Development of the City of Santa Cruz 17 2.3 The History of Flooding in Santa Cruz 18 2.4 Current Planning and the San Lorenzo Urban River Plan Task Force 19 Chapter 3 21 Riverwide Concepts and Programs 3.1 The San Lorenzo Riverway 21 3.2 Defining the Riverway: System-wide Recommendations 22 Chapter 4 23 Reach Specific Recommendations 4.1 Design Improvements 25 4.2 Site Specific Recommendations in River Reaches 29 Estuarine Reach 29 Transitional Reach 39 Riverine Reach 49 Chapter 5 55 Branciforte Creek 5.1 Area Description and Current Conditions 55 5.2 Reach Specific Recommendations for Branciforte Creek 58 Chapter 6 61 Significant Riverfront Areas 6.1 Front Street Riverfront Area 61 6.2 Salz Tannery to 64 Sycamore Grove Riverfront Area 6.3 Beach Flats Riverfront Area 71 Chapter 7 73 Plan Implementation 7.1 San Lorenzo River Committee 73 Recommendations 74 7.2 Project Phasing and Projected Costs 75 7.3 Funding Opportunities 75 Chapter 8 79 References Appendix A Lower San Lorenzo River and Lagoon Enhancement Plan Appendix B Jessie Street Marsh Management Plan PB SAN LORENZO URBAN RIVER PLAN The San Lorenzo Urban River Plan could Acknowledgements not have been developed without the dedication of the San Lorenzo Urban River Plan Task Force, City staff and the community.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Five Year Update 2017–2022
    CITY OF SANTA CRUZ Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Five Year Update 2017–2022 Hazard Mitigation is any action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from hazards. ~ Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (§206.401) Adopted by the City Council xxxx xx, 2017 Table of Contents APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................................... II MAPS AND FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................ II TABLES ................................................................................................................................................................ III HOW TO USE THIS PLAN ......................................................................................................................................... IV PART 1 — INTRODUCTION AND ADOPTION .................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................ 4 SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Birding Northern California by Jean Richmond
    BIRDING NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Site Guides to 72 of the Best Birding Spots by Jean Richmond Written for Mt. Diablo Audubon Society 1985 Dedicated to my husband, Rich Cover drawing by Harry Adamson Sketches by Marv Reif Graphics by dk graphics © 1985, 2008 Mt. Diablo Audubon Society All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means without prior permission of MDAS. P.O. Box 53 Walnut Creek, California 94596 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . How To Use This Guide .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Birding Etiquette .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Terminology. Park Information .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5 One Last Word. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5 Map Symbols Used. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 6 Acknowledgements .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 6 Map With Numerical Index To Guides .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 The Guides. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 Where The Birds Are. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 158 Recommended References .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 165 Index Of Birding Locations. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 166 5 6 Birding Northern California This book is a guide to many birding areas in northern California, primarily within 100 miles of the San Francisco Bay Area and easily birded on a one-day outing. Also included are several favorite spots which local birders
    [Show full text]
  • Castle Rock State Park 15000 Skyline Boulevard Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 867-2952
    Our Mission The mission of California State Parks is to provide for the health, inspiration and xquisite sandstone Castle Rock education of the people of California by helping E to preserve the state’s extraordinary biological State Park diversity, protecting its most valued natural and formations and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation. sculpted caves are among the treasured features within this California State Parks supports equal access. park’s vast wilderness. Prior to arrival, visitors with disabilities who need assistance should contact the park at (408) 867-2952. If you need this publication in an alternate format, contact [email protected]. CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS P.O. Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 For information call: (800) 777-0369 (916) 653-6995, outside the U.S. 711, TTY relay service www.parks.ca.gov SaveTheRedwoods.org/csp Castle Rock State Park 15000 Skyline Boulevard Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 867-2952 © 2011 California State Parks (Rev. 2017) C astle Rock State Park is a place of The Smead and Partridge farms were abundant solitude, wilderness, high cliffs, the largest operations on the ridge, with and sweeping vistas. Unique patterns on orchards of apples, pears, walnuts, and weathered sandstone, lush forests, and grapes. Near the park’s interpretive shelter, stream-fed canyons make up the park’s heritage trees planted in the early 1900s diverse features. still bear fruit. From one of the highest ridges in the Creation of the Park Santa Cruz Mountains, visitors enjoy Judge Joseph Welch of Santa Clara Valley panoramic views of Monterey Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Ohlone Culture by Robert Cartier
    An Overview of Ohlone Culture By Robert Cartier In the 16th century, (prior to the arrival of the Spaniards), over 10,000 Indians lived in the central California coastal areas between Big Sur and the Golden Gate of San Francisco Bay. This group of Indians consisted of approximately forty different tribelets ranging in size from 100–250 members, and was scattered throughout the various ecological regions of the greater Bay Area (Kroeber, 1953). They did not consider themselves to be a part of a larger tribe, as did well- known Native American groups such as the Hopi, Navaho, or Cheyenne, but instead functioned independently of one another. Each group had a separate, distinctive name and its own leader, territory, and customs. Some tribelets were affiliated with neighbors, but only through common boundaries, inter-tribal marriage, trade, and general linguistic affinities. (Margolin, 1978). When the Spaniards and other explorers arrived, they were amazed at the variety and diversity of the tribes and languages that covered such a small area. In an attempt to classify these Indians into a large, encompassing group, they referred to the Bay Area Indians as "Costenos," meaning "coastal people." The name eventually changed to "Coastanoan" (Margolin, 1978). The Native American Indians of this area were referred to by this name for hundreds of years until descendants chose to call themselves Ohlones (origination uncertain). Utilizing hunting and gathering technology, the Ohlone relied on the relatively substantial supply of natural plant and animal life in the local environment. With the exception of the dog, we know of no plants or animals domesticated by the Ohlone.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Status of Coho Salmon in Streams of the Urbanized San Francisco Estuary, California
    CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME California Fish and Game 91(4):219-254 2005 HISTORICAL STATUS OF COHO SALMON IN STREAMS OF THE URBANIZED SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA ROBERT A. LEIDY1 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 [email protected] and GORDON BECKER Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration 4179 Piedmont Avenue, Suite 325 Oakland, CA 94611 [email protected] and BRETT N. HARVEY Graduate Group in Ecology University of California Davis, CA 95616 1Corresponding author ABSTRACT The historical status of coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, was assessed in 65 watersheds surrounding the San Francisco Estuary, California. We reviewed published literature, unpublished reports, field notes, and specimens housed at museum and university collections and public agency files. In watersheds for which we found historical information for the occurrence of coho salmon, we developed a matrix of five environmental indicators to assess the probability that a stream supported habitat suitable for coho salmon. We found evidence that at least 4 of 65 Estuary watersheds (6%) historically supported coho salmon. A minimum of an additional 11 watersheds (17%) may also have supported coho salmon, but evidence is inconclusive. Coho salmon were last documented from an Estuary stream in the early-to-mid 1980s. Although broadly distributed, the environmental characteristics of streams known historically to contain coho salmon shared several characteristics. In the Estuary, coho salmon typically were members of three-to-six species assemblages of native fishes, including Pacific lamprey, Lampetra tridentata, steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss, California roach, Lavinia symmetricus, juvenile Sacramento sucker, Catostomus occidentalis, threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus, riffle sculpin, Cottus gulosus, prickly sculpin, Cottus asper, and/or tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Watsonville Historic Context Statement (2007)
    Historic Context Statement for the City of Watsonville FINAL REPORT Watsonville, California April 2007 Prepared by One Sutter Street Suite 910 San Francisco CA 94104 415.362.7711 ph 415.391.9647 fx Acknowledgements The Historic Context Statement for the City of Watsonville would not have been possible without the coordinated efforts of the City of Watsonville Associate Planner Suzi Aratin, and local historians and volunteers Ann Jenkins and Jane Borg whose vast knowledge and appreciation of Watsonville is paramount. Their work was tireless and dependable, and their company more than pleasant. In addition to hours of research, fact checking and editing their joint effort has become a model for other communities developing a historic context statement. We would like to thank the City of Watsonville Council members and Planning Commission members for supporting the Historic Context Statement project. It is a testimony to their appreciation and protection of local history. Thanks to all of you. Table of Contents Chapter Page 1.0 Background and Objectives 1 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Location and Boundaries of Study 1.3 Context Statement Objective 2.0 Methodology 5 2.1 Context Statement Methodology 2.2 Summary of Resources 3.0 Introduction to Historic Contexts 7 3.1 Summary of Historic Contexts 3.2 Summary of Regional History Before Incorporation 3.3 Summary of regional history from 1868 – 1960 4.0 Historic Context 1 - Municipal Development 17 4.1 Overview 4.2 History 4.2.1 Schools 4.2.2 Civic Institutions 4.2.3 Infrastructure: Water 4.2.4 Infrastructure:
    [Show full text]
  • June 14, 2018 RTC Meeting Handout for Item 22
    Agron Bioenergy 860 West Beach Street Watsonville CA 95076 Office 831 383 1300: Fax 831 786 8508 George Dondero Executive Director Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission 1523 Pacific Ave Santa Cruz, CA 95060 6/7/2018 Dear Mr Dondero, We are writing to you to express our serious concern about the status of the short rail line from Santa Cruz to Watsonville. The rail line is out of service as the operator cannot afford to inspect nor repair it. Rail is essential to our business, so we urge you to support the Sant Cruz RTC in approving Progressive Rail as the new operator of the short line so normal rail service can resume. Agron Bioenergy owns a multi-million-dollar Biodiesel plant on West Beach street in the disadvantaged city of Watsonville. The plant processes waste animal fats into fuel. Agron’s business plan relies on moving large amounts of freight by rail; the Agron site was purchased with the ability to spot 6 railcars for offload in mind. The anticipated rail traffic by late Q3 is around 20 railcars of raw materials a week. Agron’s plant is one of the largest biodiesel plants in California, and as such it supports both the reductions in criteria emissions and the reduction in greenhouse gases that are central to California’s emissions strategy for community and environmental health. Agron will reduce the overall carbon dioxide emissions in California by over 10000 metric tons in 2019. Agron anticipates producing 12m gallons of fuel; to be sold Watsonville. The fuel sales will bring extensive tax revenue to the city.
    [Show full text]
  • To Oral History
    100 E. Main St. [email protected] Ventura, CA 93001 (805) 653-0323 x 320 QUARTERLY JOURNAL SUBJECT INDEX About the Index The index to Quarterly subjects represents journals published from 1955 to 2000. Fully capitalized access terms are from Library of Congress Subject Headings. For further information, contact the Librarian. Subject to availability, some back issues of the Quarterly may be ordered by contacting the Museum Store: 805-653-0323 x 316. A AB 218 (Assembly Bill 218), 17/3:1-29, 21 ill.; 30/4:8 AB 442 (Assembly Bill 442), 17/1:2-15 Abadie, (Señor) Domingo, 1/4:3, 8n3; 17/2:ABA Abadie, William, 17/2:ABA Abbott, Perry, 8/2:23 Abella, (Fray) Ramon, 22/2:7 Ablett, Charles E., 10/3:4; 25/1:5 Absco see RAILROADS, Stations Abplanalp, Edward "Ed," 4/2:17; 23/4:49 ill. Abraham, J., 23/4:13 Abu, 10/1:21-23, 24; 26/2:21 Adams, (rented from Juan Camarillo, 1911), 14/1:48 Adams, (Dr.), 4/3:17, 19 Adams, Alpha, 4/1:12, 13 ph. Adams, Asa, 21/3:49; 21/4:2 map Adams, (Mrs.) Asa (Siren), 21/3:49 Adams Canyon, 1/3:16, 5/3:11, 18-20; 17/2:ADA Adams, Eber, 21/3:49 Adams, (Mrs.) Eber (Freelove), 21/3:49 Adams, George F., 9/4:13, 14 Adams, J. H., 4/3:9, 11 Adams, Joachim, 26/1:13 Adams, (Mrs.) Mable Langevin, 14/1:1, 4 ph., 5 Adams, Olen, 29/3:25 Adams, W. G., 22/3:24 Adams, (Mrs.) W.
    [Show full text]