DOCSLIB.ORG

Bynum Hydroelectric Project FERC Project Nos

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bynum Hydroelectric Project FERC Project Nos ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE Bynum Hydroelectric Project FERC Project Nos. 14858-001, 4093-035 North Carolina Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ iii LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................. iv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................ v ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ................................................................................ 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 APPLICATION .................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER ......................................... 1 1.2.1 Purpose of Action ............................................................................................ 1 1.2.2 Need for Power ................................................................................................ 2 1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ................................ 5 1.3.1 Federal Power Act ........................................................................................... 5 1.3.2 Clean Water Act .............................................................................................. 5 1.3.3 Endangered Species Act .................................................................................. 6 1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act ....................................................................... 6 1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act .................................................................. 7 1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT ................................................................ 7 1.4.1 Scoping ............................................................................................................ 7 1.4.2 Interventions .................................................................................................... 7 1.4.3 Comments on the License Application ........................................................... 8 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ................................................. 8 2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................... 8 2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities ................................................................................ 9 2.1.2 Project History ................................................................................................. 9 2.2 APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL ............................................................................. 10 2.2.1 Project Description ........................................................................................ 10 2.2.2 Proposed Project Operation ........................................................................... 10 2.2.3 Project Safety ................................................................................................. 11 2.2.4 Proposed Environmental Measures ............................................................... 11 2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE ................................................................................... 12 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 13 3.1 General Description of the Area ......................................................................... 13 3.2 Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis ............................................................... 14 3.3 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives .......................................................... 14 3.3.1 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................... 15 3.3.2 Aquatic Resources ......................................................................................... 19 3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources ..................................................................................... 37 3.3.4 Endangered Species ....................................................................................... 43 3.3.5 Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics ........................................................... 46 3.3.6 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... 54 3.4 No-Action Alternative ........................................................................................ 56 i 4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS .................................................................... 57 4.1 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT ......................... 57 4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................. 58 4.2.1 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................... 59 4.2.2 McMahan Hydro’s Proposal.......................................................................... 59 4.2.3 Staff Alternative ............................................................................................ 59 4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES .................................................. 60 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. 67 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ................................................................................................ 67 5.1.1 Measures Proposed by McMahan Hydro ...................................................... 67 5.1.2 Additional Measures Recommended by Staff ............................................... 68 5.1.3 Measures Not Recommended by Staff .......................................................... 71 5.2 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS .......................................................... 73 5.3 FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... 74 5.4 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ..................................... 77 6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT .................................................... 77 7.0 LITERATURE CITED ....................................................................................... 78 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ...................................................................................... 83 ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of the Bynum Project. .......................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Bynum Project. .................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3. Annual flow duration curve for the Haw River at Bynum................................ 20 Figure 4. Plot of DO and water temperatures in the Haw River from 1997 through 2016. ............................................................................................................................ 31 Figure 5. Project vicinity recreation facilities. ................................................................. 48 Figure 6. Proposed hiking trail. ........................................................................................ 49 iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Mean monthly and annual flows in cfs on the Haw River just downstream from the Bynum Hydroelectric Project. ...................................................................... 19 Table 2. North Carolina water quality standards relevant to the Bynum Project. ............ 21 Table 3. Fish Assemblage of the Mainstem Haw River. .................................................. 22 Table 4. Special status aquatic species in the Haw River. ............................................... 23 Table 5. The percentage of days (top) and number of days (bottom) that mean daily flows exceeded the minimum inflow required for the Bynum Project to operate and provide the proposed minimum flow of 120 cfs or 240 cfs (March and April) to the bypassed reach. ............................................................................. 27 Table 6. Bynum Project dimensions used to calculate approach velocity. ...................... 33 Table 7. Swim speeds of nine representative species found in the Bynum impoundment. ............................................................................................................................ 34 Table 8. Target fish species in the Haw River typically used for entrainment analysis. 35 Table 9. Special status terrestrial species. ........................................................................ 40 Table 10. Parameters for the economic analysis for Bynum Project. .............................. 58 Table 11. Summary of the annual cost of alternative power and annual project costs for alternatives for the Bynum Project. ................................................................... 59 Table 12. Cost of environmental mitigation and enhancement measures considered in assessing the environmental effects of the proposed Bynum Project. ............... 61 Table 13. North Carolina WRC section 10(j) recommendations for the Bynum Project. 75 iv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS APE area of potential effects AMSL above mean sea level certification water quality certification °C degrees Celsius cfs cubic feet per
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Trading Path and North Carolina
    Journal of Backcountry Studies The Trading Path and North Carolina BY REBECCA TAFT FECHER Frontier is a subjective term, and one that has shifted and evolved over the years. North Carolina‟s piedmont and mountains originally were „frontier‟. The ever shifting frontier of North Carolina was explored cautiously, and with the help of the natives. In their explorations, and settlement of North Carolina, old native “trading paths” were utilized. Although some has been written about roads and paths into this area, most of the focus has been on the “Great Wagon Road”. A more fascinating look into the settlement of North Carolina‟s frontier is “the braided network of paths” and roads that make up what are referred to as the Great Trading Path.1 The label, in reality, referred to any number of different paths/roads within the state. This network allowed for the settlement of far flung areas in North Carolina, laying the ground work for where towns were formed, and providing a starting point for later roads throughout the state. Trade path routes were originally buffalo paths that then became Indian trails which were taken over by European explorers and settlers. Remnants of these old roads and trails have largely been forgotten as cars speed by, but can still be seen along many roads in this state. In many places, current roads overlay the centuries old paths. “The slender paths of aboriginal intercourse have been broadened and interwoven into the complex mazes of modern commercial lines”.2 Not only do these old roads represent our colonial beginnings, but they are a tangible part of our history that had a direct impact on where and how North Carolina was settled.
    [Show full text]
  • Commissioners Re-Elect Colin Mckenzie Chairman Dam Repairs
    PRESORTED STANDARD MAIL U.S. POSTAGE PAID Permit No. 14 Seven Lakes, NC 27376 U.S. POSTAL PATRON © Box Holder or Resident Volume 23 Number 3 Seven Lakes, North Carolina 27376 December 7, 2007 Dam repairs strain Ho-Ho-Ho! Westside budget by Greg Hankins the revenue question. Times Editor The Board is working with an Though members of the estimated cost of $300,000 for Finance Committee have been repairs aimed at stopping seep- busily sharpening their knives age through the top several feet and trimming the fat from the of the dam’s core. The work is Seven Lakes West Landown- expected to begin next fall. ers Association [SLWLA] Budg- et for Fiscal year 2008-2009, Expenses necessary repairs to the Lake With that major capital expense Auman dam make a dues on the horizon, Kirst said, the increase or special assessment Board and Finance Committee inevitable. The question is, how — which includes Kirst and for- best to share the burden of those mer SLWLA Treasurers George costs? Ellis and Lois Rocco — was That was the message deliv- looking for every opportunity to ered by Treasurer Kathy Kirst trim the 2008-2009 operating and President Jim Haggard at the and capital budger. A nip here Tuesday, November 27 SLWLA and a tuck there brought in a total General Meeting. Kirst detailed expense budget — before the the expense side of the draft dam repair — that, at $1,058,886, budget, while Haggard handled (See“Westside”p. 37) A spirited crowd turned out Tuesday night for the Annual Tree Lighting sponsored by the Five to seek seats Seven Lakes - West End Area Business Guild — including this shy young man and his bearded friend.
    [Show full text]
  • Town of Jamestown Ddeeeepp Rriivveerr Ttrraaiill Ppllaann
    Town oF Jamestown DDeeeepp RRiivveerr TTrraaiill PPllaann FINAL DRAFT – June 2010 Town of Jamestown Deep River Trail Plan FINAL DRAFT – June 2010 Piedmont Triiad Counciill of Governments – Town of Jamestown Deep River Trail Plan – The Jamestown Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee in cooperation with the Town Council and staff sponsored this plan. The Piedmont Triad Council of Governments (PTCOG) facilitated the planning & design process, assessed existing conditions along the proposed trail corridor and conducted interviews to determine the level of landowner interest and willingness to participate in implementation of the trail plan. PTCOG also provided design recommendations for local paddling trail access sites, local hiking trail access sites and alignments, and the conceptual alignment of a regional greenway trail. The Jamestown Town Council adopted the plan June 15, 2010. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee: Town Council: Marla Kurzec Chairwoman Keith L. Volz Mayor Fred Kelly Member Georgia N. Roney Mayor Pro Tem Tom Tervo Member Frank Gray Member Linda Schumacher Member Will Ragsdale Member Al Bartko Member R. Brock Thomas Member Will Ragsdale Member Larry Lain Member PTCOG Project Staff: Lynn Tice Alternate - New Paul M. Kron Planning Director Town Staff: Jesse Day Regional Planner Kathryn Q. Billings Town Manager Malinda Ford GIS Planner Matthew Johnson Town Planner Town of Jamestown – Deep River Trail Plan Page i Table of Contents Section
    [Show full text]
  • INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES • $52 Million • Classroom Resources Including Textbooks, Instructional Supplies and Equipment
    Investing in Infrastructure •Targeted, long-term investments •Historically low interest rates •Will not jeopardize our credit ratings •No new INSTRUCTIONALtaxes RESOURCES • $52 million • Classroom resources including textbooks, •Broad, bipartisaninstructional supplies public and support equipment 2 15 Years Since Last Bond Referendum INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES • $52 million • Classroom resources including textbooks, instructional supplies and equipment Note: Population data from OSBM and voter approved debt from the Department of State Treasurer. 3 Now is the Time INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES • $52 million • Classroom resources including textbooks, instructional supplies and equipment 4 Ample Debt Service Capacity INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES • $52 million • Classroom resources including textbooks, instructional supplies and equipment Note: General Fund revenue data reflect budgeted amounts (HB 97) for FYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 and OSBM estimates for FY 2017-18 to FY 2025-26. Debt-service payments based on NC Fiscal Research Division estimates. 5 INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES • $52 million • Classroom resources including textbooks, instructional supplies and equipment Note: Based on data from the 2015 DAAC Study by the NC Department of State Treasurer and HB 943 estimates from the NC Fiscal Research Division. Debt amounts include General Obligation debt and Special Indebtedness, but do not include capital leases and debt issued by NC Turnpike Authority. Projections assume four debt issuances over the next four fiscal years. 6 Focus on Education INSTRUCTIONAL
    [Show full text]
  • THE MOUTH of the HAW the NEWSLETTER of the HAW RIVER TRAIL PARTNERSHIP Fall 2015
    THE MOUTH OF THE HAW THE NEWSLETTER OF THE HAW RIVER TRAIL PARTNERSHIP Fall 2015 What is the NEW PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS TO EXPAND LAND TRAIL Haw River wenty-seven new property acquisitions have been added to the land trail route in Southern Trail T Alamance County, between Great Alamance Creek south of Swepsonville River Park and Cane Partnership? Creek on the Alamance-Orange County line. This stretch of river is over ten miles long and gaining land here requires the cooperation of several landowners. We have acquired The Haw River critical pieces to continue the Haw Trail Partnership River Trail (HRT) south from was formed with Swepsonville River Park and to create the goal of helping nearly four miles of contiguous HRT the public enjoy in the heart of Saxapahaw. The and conserve the existing Saxapahaw section will natural resources extend two miles downriver and one of the Haw River mile upriver, following the Church corridor. Road bridge and connecting to trails on Saxapahaw Island. Funding for the The Partnership is project came from a multi-year grant the result of a from the North Carolina Parks and signed Recreation Trust Fund. Memorandum of Understanding between ten SAXAPAHAW ISLAND governmental Haw River Trail – Saxapahaw Mill Race agencies agreeing PARK to work together for the e are pleased to announce preliminary plans for development of W Saxapahaw Island Park, a nature-based park that trails along the combines elements of community and family; art and river and culture; and play and learning with recreation. The park will conservation of feature hiking trails, gathering spaces, waterfront access, the river and lands and a nature play and learning area.
    [Show full text]
  • Feasibility Analysis and Preferred Trail Alignment
    Acknowledgements Randolph County Board of Commissioners David Allen, Chairman Kenny Kidd Darrell Frye, Vice Chairman Maxton McDowell Stan Haywood Randolph County Tourism Development Authority David Caughron, Chairman Ross Holt, Board Member Mary Joan Pugh, Vice‐Chair Luke Hollingsworth, Board Member Gail Morgan, Board Member Marianne Rowe, Board Member Barbara Gallimore, Board Member Tammy O’Kelley, Executive Director Rebecca Petty Moffitt, Board Member Amber Renee Skeen, Clerk to the Board Shawn Patel, Board Member Deep River Trail Task Force Perry Connor, Town of Franklinville Mary Joan Pugh, Task Force Chair Jay Dale, County of Randolph Smith Raynor, NC State Parks ‐ Regional Trails Specialist Jesse Day, Piedmont Triad Regional Council Amber Renee Skeen, Clerk to the Task Force Tom Jordan, Cedar Falls Community Jim Rich, A3 Healthy Communities Kerri Lindley, Town of Ramseur April Thornton, Randolph Hospital Foundation Trevor Nuttall, City of Asheboro Mac Whatley, RC Historic Landmark Preservation Tammy O'Kelley, Executive Director Commission Greg Patton, City of Randleman Mac Whatley, RC Historic Landmark Preservation Jim Plant, At Large Commission Consulting Staff, Piedmont Triad Regional Council Jesse Day, Regional Planning Director Elizabeth Jernigan, Assistant Planning Director Malinda Ford, GIS Manager Kelly Larkins, Regional Planner II Joe Furstenberg, Regional Planner Anna Leonard, Environmental Programs Coordinator i Deep River Trail Conceptual Plan Table of Contents Project Purpose and Goals ...............................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Glencoe & Sellers Falls Sections Saxapahaw Swepsonville River
    Shallow Ford Natural Area Glencoe & Sellers Falls Sections Swepsonville River Park Indian Valley Haw River Trail Swepsonville River Park: 2472 Boywood Road, Swepsonville Golf Course Great Bend Park Indian Valley to 2.3 mi k Glencoe Paddle Access Total Acres: 30 Cree Great Bend Park um at Glencoe Glencoe Paddle Access to 1.7 mi k Pl Glencoe Stoney Creek Marina Operated By: Town of Swepsonville e e !i !F !_ Historic District Highland Trail .8 mi r Ë (336)578-5644, http://www.swepsonvilletownof.net C Stoney Creek Island Trail .5 mi n i Marina Camping s Legend a Opened in 2006, this 30 acre park was one of the first on the Haw Haw River Paddle Access B Greenwood Drive Glencoe Î River Trail. Protecting over a mile of riverfront, the park also Shallow Ford 3.3 mi. Paddle Access Carolina Mill Road !i!F!¡!_ conserves one of the most historically important river crossings Loop Trail in Alamance County. The park offers nearly two miles of walking Indian Valley Stoney Creek Basin Creek . mi. Upper Access trails, fishing and camping. Camping is offered on a first-come, Paddle Access Marina Swepsonville-Saxapahaw Road Trail 2472 Boywood Rd. first-served basis. There are two entrances to the park. The !i !F!¡ !_ !i !F Swepsonville NC 21359 upper entrance allows access to the take-out for paddlers Highway 62 Hidden Hill 2.2 mi. coming downstream from Haw River and Graham. The lower entrance provides a put-in for paddlers heading downstream Trail B o yw to Saxapahaw or paddling up Great Alamance Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • Haw River Assembly #9: Haw River North Carolina Summary
    Photo: Haw River Assembly #9: Haw River North Carolina Summary Threat: Polluted runoff The Haw River is an important At Risk: Clean water and public health resource for more than a million people providing drinking water and The River recreation in central North Carolina. Unfortunately, rollbacks of rules The Haw River flows 110 miles from its headwaters in the designed to address water pollution north-central Piedmont region of North Carolina to the Cape threaten the health of local residents Fear River just below Jordan Lake Reservoir. The river and its watershed provide drinking water to nearly one million people and fish and wildlife. The North living in and around the cities of Greensboro, Burlington, Carolina legislature must act to clean Chapel Hill, Cary, and Durham. This 1700 square mile up this important river in order to watershed is home to a variety of fish and wildlife, including protect the water supply and a key blue heron, bald eagle, beaver, deer, otter, largemouth and recreational resource for major cities smallmouth bass, bowfin, crappie, carp, and bluegill. The Haw in North Carolina. also contains important habitat for the endangered Cape Fear shiner and an assortment of rare freshwater mussel species. Local residents appreciate the Haw for its outdoor recreational opportunities, including hiking, paddling, swimming, fishing, picnicking, as well as the solitude and quiet the river offers. The Haw River is the most popular whitewater paddling river in the North Carolina Piedmont Region, and Jordan Lake (a 14,000 acre reservoir) provides recreation for about 1 million visitors a year for boating, swimming, camping, and fishing.
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Trails State Booklet, Highlighting Progress Across NC and Setting the Stage for Next Steps
    PROJECT OVERVIEW December 2020 Kathryn Zeringue Jason Reyes Jake Petrosky Outline 1. Background & Network Development 2. Implementation Strategy 3. Public Engagement PROJECT BACKGROUND 2000-2020: Progress across the state for long-distance trails and local/regional trail networks. • 2016: NCDOT, in partnership with NC State Parks, releases the Great Trails State booklet, highlighting progress across NC and setting the stage for next steps • 2017: NCDOT Have you had a releases findings of chance to use this the Economic Impact Economic Impact of Shared Use Paths in NC report, making Report in your work? the case for https://itre.ncsu.edu/focus/ investment in trails. bike-ped/sup-economic- impacts/ INSPIRING STATEWIDE INVESTMENT 2019-2020: • Other states, like Florida, New York, Oregon, and Ohio announce and release plans for statewide trail networks. • North Carolina launches this project to build on past successes to develop the Great Trails State plan. One Network of Trails. One Hundred Counties. Connect communities to the great outdoors, while creating opportunities for transportation, conservation, recreation, education, physical health, environmental health, tourism, and economic prosperity. The Great Trails State For this project, “trails” refers to shared-use paths, also known as greenways, greenway trails, multi-use trails, side paths (along roadways), and rail-trails (along rail corridors). They could be paved or unpaved, but should support bicycling (as opposed to hiking-only trails). Limited on-road connections will be necessary
    [Show full text]
  • Cape Fear River Basin Action Plan for Migratory Fish
    Cape Fear River Basin Action Plan for Migratory Fish e Fe ap ar C R p i i v e h r s developed by P r a r t n e The Cape Fear River Partnership The Cape Fear River Partnership was formed in 2011 with a vision of a healthy Cape Fear River for fish and people. The partnership's mission is to restore and demonstrate the value of robust, productive, and self-sustaining stocks of migratory fish in the Cape Fear River. Building on the momentum of the newly constructed fish passage at Lock & Dam #1, this partnership of key federal, state, local, academic, and other organizations in the region is working together on this multi-year action plan. Using a broad range of tools and capabilities, we seek to provide long-term, habitat-based solutions for the most pressing challenges for migratory fish. The partnership strives to measure achievement of our mission our success with the following targets: increased fish populations (as measured by catch-per-unit efforts, improved age structure, and other techniques), increased recreational fishing success for shad, striped bass, and river herring (as measured by creel surveys), and a re-opened striped bass and river herring harvest in the Cape Fear River. The following organizations are members of the Cape Fear River Partnership: American Rivers (AR) Atlantic Coastal Fish Habitat Partnership (ACFHP) Cape Fear Arch Conservation Collaboration (Arch) Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) Cape Fear River Assembly Cape Fear River Watch (CFRW) City of Wilmington Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. (DC&A) Eagles
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Consumption Patterns and Mercury Advisory Knowledge Among Fishers in the Haw River Basin
    ORIGINAL ARTICLE Fish Consumption Patterns and Mercury Advisory Knowledge Among Fishers in the Haw River Basin Jill E. Johnston, Kate Hoffman, Steve Wing, Amy Lowman background Fish consumption has numerous health benefits, with fish providing a source of protein as well as omega-3 fatty acids. How- ever, some fish also contain contaminants that can impair human health. In North Carolina, the Department of Health and Human Services has issued fish consumption advisories due to methylmercury contamination in fish. Little is known about local fishers’ consumption -pat terns and advisory adherence in North Carolina. methods We surveyed a consecutive sample of 50 fishers (74.6% positive response rate) who reported eating fish caught from the Haw River Basin or Jordan Lake. They provided information on demographic characteristics, species caught, and the frequency of local fish con- sumption. Additionally, fishers provided information on their knowledge of fish consumption advisories and the impact of those advisories on their fishing and fish consumption patterns. results The majority of participants were male (n = 44) and reported living in central North Carolina. Catfish, crappie, sunfish, and large- mouth bass were consumed more frequently than other species of fish. Of the fishers surveyed, 8 reported eating more than 1 fish meal high in mercury per week, which exceeds the North Carolina advisory recommendation. Most participants (n = 32) had no knowledge of local fish advisories, and only 4 fishers reported that advisories impacted their fishing practices. limitations We sampled 50 fishers at 11 locations. There is no enumeration of the dynamic population of fishers and no way to assess the representativeness of this sample.
    [Show full text]
  • Burlington, Graham and Haw River, NC City
    — ALAMANCE LAUNDRY Gleaners and Dyers Telephone 560 I The First National Bank | I of Burlington, North Carolina i C Your money is safe when deposited with us—4% interest on savings 5 $ and time deposits TUs JH 5 Capital $ 60,000.00 % > Resources 1,300,000.00 5 i Officers i 5 W. W. liASLEY, President J. M. BEOWNING, Vico-Prest. ? J A. L. DAVIS, Cashier B. W. MALONE, Asst. Cashier J ^ I SERVICE % Dunng the 15 3rears of our life we have tried to emphasize f this one word in all its meaning- .? EVIDENCE llttAfI % We have grown from Capital of $15,060.00 in 1906, to over < ^'^«" 5 J $200,000. This i ^ ®^^ every line we can give you the best of service. t ftll— g Insurance, Loans, Real Estate § i ^ ALARfANCE INSURANCE & REAL i ESTATE COMPANY i < BurUngton, N. C. W. E. SHARP, Mgr. -J >. i Capital. ,.....,. ,....$300,000.00 i* J < Surplus and Profits 30,000.00 < This \ AlamanceBank&TrustCo. \ (The Bank with the Chimes) jj ^ i Oldest, Largest and Strongest in the County > ? % COLE'S DAIRY LUNCH ROOM Cleanliness and Prompt Service Our Motto — ; ,S' DIRECTORY rmm«t:«mt:mmmjm«mt««:::mm«« ._.—,+ ^Pickett, Fust Viee-Pres. ^os.; Wv^W. Brown, Sec. j ?as. ; W. R. Froshwatcr, ,l)('|)ai'tuuMit Library OF THE University of NortK Carolina Tiiis book was presented by Co»T^rr>eyoiauL oervice^ Co \2X-0.U Trust Co. j uenirai Loan i i Capital and Surplus $350,000.00 Burlington, N. C. Telephone 122 j { | We Pay 6 Per cent Interest, Semi-Annually j j DIRKCTOKS M.
    [Show full text]