Datasets:
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
June 18, 2003
MEMORANDUM
Division of Historical Resources David J. Olson, Director
TO:
Greg Thorpe, Manager Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: (cid:9)
David Brook
SUBJECT: (cid:9)
Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report, Replacement of Bridge No. 165 on SR 1362 over Big Horse Creek, B-4015, Ashe County, ER02-8494
Thank you for your letter of May 6, 2003, transmitting the survey report by Circa, Inc.
We concur that there are no properties within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) that are eligible for listing in the National Register.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: (cid:9)
Circa, Inc. Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
bc: 'Southern/McBride
County
ADMINISTRATION RESTORAT1QN . SURYEridtcPLANNING
Location (cid:9) 507 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC (cid:9) 515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC (cid:9) 515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC (cid:9)
Mailing Address 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4617 4613 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4613 4618 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4618
Telephone/Fax (919) 733-1763 • 733-8653 (919) 733-6547 • 7154801 (919) 733-6545 • 715-4801
(cid:9) HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 165 ON S.R. 1362 OVER BIG HORSE CREEK ASHE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T.I.P. NO. B-4015 STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2712401 FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1362 (1)
Prepared for:
Wetherill Engineering, Inc. 559 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 164 Raleigh, NC 27606
Prepared by:
Circa, Inc. P.O. Box 407 Durham, NC 27702
April 2003
a-44
OiU s cc Are)A-Ad-uArL_ t_)csx) r
S • (0 .2143
Bridge No. 165, T. I. P. No. B-4015 Ashe County
Replacement of Bridge No. 165 on SR 1362 over Big Horse Creek Ashe County T.I.P. No. B-4015 State Project No. 8.2712401 Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1362 (1)
Management Summary The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 165 on SR 1362 over Big Horse Creek in Ashe County. The project involves the replacement of the existing one-lane bridge with a two-lane structure. There are two alternatives for the new bridge. Alternative 1 entails the realignment of SR 1362 and the construction of a new structure on the upstream side of the existing bridge. Alternative 2 entails the realignment of SR 1362 and the construction of a new structure on the downstream side of the existing bridge. Alternative 3 entails the replacement of the existing bridge with a new structure, in same location. It is anticipated that traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
Circa, Inc. conducted the intensive survey by automobile and by foot in January 2003, covering one-hundred percent of the Area of Potential Effects (APE). Circa photographed, mapped, and evaluated every property over fifty years of age within the APE. Those properties considered worthy of further analysis were researched and evaluated in January 2003.
In addition to the field survey of the project area, Circa reviewed the survey files, as well as National Register and Study List files, at the Survey and Planning Branch of the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office in Raleigh. Background research was also conducted at the Ashe County Courthouse in Jefferson, the Ashe County Public Library in West Jefferson, and in a meeting with one of the property owners.
Circa staff delineated the APE, which includes parcels immediately adjacent to the present bridge and those impacted, physically or visually, by any of the proposed alternatives. One property over fifty years of age, the Graham-Brooks Farm, was identified within the APE. While the house itself is not within the APE, a corner of the 31.6-acre parcel lies within the APE. Therefore, the property was evaluated as part of this report.
Properties Listed in the National Register or the North Carolina State Study List:
None
Properties Evaluated and Considered Eligible for the National Register:
Circa, Inc. (cid:9)
i (cid:9)
4/1/2003
Bridge No. 165, T. I. P. No. B-4015 Ashe County
None
Properties Evaluated and Considered Not Eligible for the National Register:
Graham-Brooks Farm
Circa, Inc. (cid:9)
ii (cid:9)
4/1/2003
Bridge No. 165, T. I. P. No. B-4015 Ashe County
Table of Contents
Management Summary (cid:9)
Table of Contents (cid:9)
List of Figures (cid:9)
List of Plates (cid:9)
Project Description (cid:9)
Methodology (cid:9)
Brief History of Ashe County (cid:9)
Historical and Architectural Contexts (cid:9)
Property Evaluations
Graham-Brooks Farm
Bibliography (cid:9)
i
iii
.iv
.v
1
5
7
9
12
19
Circa, Inc. (cid:9)
iii (cid:9)
4/1/2003
(cid:9) Bridge No. 165, T. I. P. No. B-4015 Ashe County
List of Figures
Figure 1. Project vicinity map (cid:9)
Figure 2. Location of Alternatives 1 & 2 (cid:9)
Figure 3. Location of Alternative 3 (cid:9)
Figure 4. The ideally sited Appalachian house (cid:9)
Figure 5. Graham-Brooks Farm site plan (cid:9)
2
3
.4 11
15
Circa, Inc. (cid:9)
iv (cid:9)
4/1/2003
Bridge No. 165, T. I. P. No. B-4015 Ashe County
List of Plates
Plate 1. Graham-Brooks Farm - main house facade (cid:9)
Plate 2. Graham-Brooks Farm - main house facade & north elevation (cid:9)
Plate 3. Graham-Brooks Farm - setting (cid:9)
Plate 4. Graham-Brooks Farm - outbuilding 1 (cid:9)
Plate 5. Graham-Brooks Farm - outbuilding 2 (cid:9)
16
16
17
17
18
Circa, Inc. (cid:9)
v (cid:9)
4/1/2003
Bridge No. 165, T. I. P. No. B4015 Ashe County
Replacement of Bridge No. 165 on SR 1362 over Big Horse Creek Ashe County T.I.P. No. B-4015 State Project No. 8.2712401 Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1362 (1)
Project Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 165 on SR 1362 over Big Horse Creek in Ashe County (Figure 1). The current structure, completed in 1960, consists of a timber floor on I-beams with a substructure of timber posts and caps. Bridge No. 165 is classified as structurally insufficient by the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit, scoring a sufficiency rating of 44.1 out of a possible 100 in 1999.
The project involves the replacement of the existing one-lane bridge with a two- lane structure. There are two alternatives for the new bridge. Alternative 1 entails the realignment of SR 1362 and the construction of a new structure on the upstream side of the existing bridge; alternative 2 entails the realignment of SR 1362 and the construction of a new structure on the downstream side of the existing bridge (Figure 2). Alternative 3 entails the replacement of the existing bridge with a new structure in the same location (Figure 3). It is anticipated that traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
Purpose of Survey and Report
The historic resources survey was conducted to identify all historic resources located within the area of potential effects (APE) (Figures 2 & 3). This survey and report are part of the environmental studies conducted by NCDOT and documented by a categorical exclusion (CE). This report was prepared as a technical appendix to the CE and is part of the compliance documentation required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. Section 106 of the NHPA states that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed in, or potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation should be given an opportunity to comment on the proposed undertaking. This report is on file with NCDOT and available for review by the public.
Circa, Inc. (cid:9)
1 (cid:9)
4/1/03
Bridge No. 338, T. I. P. No. B-4013 Ashe County
'4
1309 kP
Torseaut R2
Wee
13-10
1310
ra•
ce •
A
1308
La
1310
1107
:..1397
Creek
41;
-60gVOTOR
1315 f
98'
OISTANC; Ill NILES
SR 1320 (ROARING FORK ROAD) REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 338 over ROARING FORK CREEK
6-4013
Ashe County, North Carolina
PROJECT VICINITY
Fioure 1
Circa, Inc.
2
4/1/2003
(cid:9) (cid:9) HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 165 ON S.R. 1362 OVER BIG HORSE CREEK ASHE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T.I.P. NO. B-4015 STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2712401 FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1362 (1)
Prepared for:
Wetherill Engineering, Inc. 559 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 164 Raleigh, NC 27606
Prepared by:
Circa, Inc. P.O. Box 407 Durham, NC 27702
April 2003
BEGIN PROJECT
NATE
IUiUIN I. Lai EcT ALTERNATE 2
A PI'
BR; HORSE CR EEK ROA D
17,62
RIG HORSE CREEK
\ I FER
‘1,TER.:.\ TI (cid:9)
I
RU; HORSE CREEK
RIG IIOR`-;I: (cid:9)
I(EEK 1(0 \
SR (cid:9)
'
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 156 OVER BIG HORSE CREEK ON SR 1362 ;13IG HORSE CREEK ROAD)
ALTERNATE
PERMANENT ALIGNMENT
ALTERNATE 2
/ PERMANENT ALIGNMENT
ALTERNATE 1 PERMANENT BRIDGE
ALTERNATE 2 PERMANENT BRIDGE
Ashe County, North Carolina
\ ERIAL MAP WITH BUILD
ALTERNATIVES 1 & 2
FIGURE 2
SCALE 1' = 75'
1EGIN PROJECT
ALTERNATE 3
111 (cid:9) POI( (cid:9)
\I
I 5 (cid:9)
1)1. 101 R
Sit 1.3b2
BIG HORSE CREEK
END PROJECT
ALTERNATE 3
BIG HORSE CREEK ROAD
r REPLACEMENT OF
BRIDGE NO. 156 OVER BIG HORSE CREEK ON SR 1362 tI3113 HORSE CREEK ROAD)
Asko County, North Carolina
AERIAL MAP WITH BUILD
ALTERNATIVE 3
FIGURE 3 SCALE 1' = 75'
PERMANENT ALIGNMENT
TEMPORARY DETOUR
PERMANENT BRIDGE
TEMPORARY BRIDGE
Bridge No. 165, T. I. P. No. B-4015 Ashe County
Methodology
This report was prepared in accordance with the provisions of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Technical Advisory T 6640.8A (Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents); the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological and Historic Preservation (48 FRR 44716); 36 CFR Part 800; 36 CFR Part 60; and the Survey Procedures and Report Guidelines for Historic Architectural Resources by NCDOT. This report meets the guidelines of NCDOT and the National Park Service.
This survey was conducted with the following goals: (1) to determine the APE, which is defined as the geographic area or areas within which a project may cause changes to the character or use of the historic properties, if any such properties exist; (2) to identify all resources over fifty years of age within the APE; and (3) to evaluate these resources according to the National Register of Historic Places criteria.
The methodology for this project included a field survey and background research of the project area and the region. The field survey was conducted in January 2003 to delineate the APE (Figure 3) and identify all properties within the APE greater than fifty years of age. Every property over fifty years of age was photographed, mapped, and evaluated.
Background research was conducted at the Survey and Planning Branch of the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office in Raleigh. This research indicated that there are no resources within the APE that have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the State Study List. Background research was also conducted at the Ashe County Courthouse in Jefferson, the Ashe County Public Library in West Jefferson, and in a meeting with one of the property owners.
Circa, Inc. (cid:9)
5 (cid:9)
4/1/03
Bridge No. 165, T. I. P. No. B-4015 Ashe County
Summary of Survey Findings
Bridge No. 165 spans Big Horse Creek, a tributary of the North Fork of the New River, in the northern portion of Ashe County, 2.5 miles north of the town of Lansing. The bridge carries SR 1362 over Big Horse Creek at a 45-degree angle between two curves in the road.
Bridge No. 165 was built in 1960 and consists of a timber floor on I-beams with a substructure of timber posts and caps. The bridge was not evaluated as part of this study as it is under fifty years of age and not associated with a significant type of design or movement in bridge construction.
One property over fifty years of age, the Graham-Brooks Farm, was identified within the APE. While, the house itself is not within the APE, a corner of the 31.6-acre parcel lies within the APE. Therefore, the property was evaluated as part of this report.
Properties Listed in the National Register or the North Carolina State Study List:
None
Properties Evaluated and Considered Eligible for the National Register:
None
Properties Evaluated and Considered Not Eligible for the National Register:
Graham-Brooks Farm
Circa, Inc. (cid:9)
6 (cid:9)
4/1/03
Bridge No. 165, T. I. P. No. B-4015 Ashe County
Brief History of Ashe County Note: This section adapted from "Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report, Replacement of Bridge No. 281 on SR 1358 Over Big Horse Creek, Ashe County, TIP No. B-4014."
The project area is located in the northern portion of Ashe County, in the northwest corner of North Carolina. The county is approximately 3,000 feet above sea level, on the west side of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Because of the mountain barrier, Ashe County became known as one of the "lost provinces" of North Carolina. Prior to the Good Roads Movement of the 1920s, Ashe County was relatively isolated from the eastern part of the state. However, trade was possible with the neighboring states of Virginia and Tennessee due to the numerous passes through the Stone Mountains, the north-flowing New River, and the extension of the Norfolk and Western Railway from Virginia in 1915. Despite its relative isolation, Ashe County was unique among the mountain counties of western North Carolina because of its rolling, rather than rugged, terrain and its fertile farmland, well watered by the New River and its tributaries. Because of these conditions, Ashe County has remained overwhelmingly agrarian throughout its history.
Named for Governor Samuel Ashe, Ashe County was created in 1799 after settlers arrived in the area from the Shenandoah Valley to the north and the North Carolina Piedmont to the east. Sited at the base of Mount Jefferson, the county seat of Jefferson was incorporated in 1803, but has remained small in part because the county's gentle topography and good farmland encouraged settlers to disperse uniformly throughout the county. Small crossroads communities with stores, mills, and churches emerged to serve nearby farms, and the county developed few large towns. Located just a few miles south of the county seat, West Jefferson emerged in the early-twentieth century as the commercial center of Ashe County after a branch of the Norfolk and Western Railway was extended south from Virginia in 1915.
Since its founding at the end of the American Revolution, Ashe County has been rural, with more then ninety-one percent of its area designated as farmland into the late 1950s. Despite good farming conditions, insufficient transportation routes and the absence of ready markets stymied the development of commercial agriculture, and subsistence farms predominated in Ashe County until the early- twentieth century when the economy diversified somewhat. The early settlers cultivated rye, buckwheat, and corn. Eventually, these fields turned to grasses, which in turn supported livestock. In 1879, there were thirty-eight cattle traders in the county. Livestock production continued to be a profitable part of the agricultural economy through the twentieth century, and by the post-World War I period Ashe County was the leading producer of beef and dairy cattle in the Circa, Inc. (cid:9)
4/1/03
7 (cid:9)
Bridge No. 165, T. I. P. No. B-4015 Ashe County
state and the second largest producer of sheep. Ashe, along with neighboring Watauga and Allegheny Counties, has also been a major producer of wool and dairy products. Only since the 1920s has Ashe County joined other mountain counties in cultivating burley tobacco as a cash crop. By 1965 it had become the third leading producer in North Carolina.
Manufacturing has remained a minor part of the economy, employing less then nine percent of the county work force into the 1960s. Much of the manufacturing sector has been concentrated in the processing of agricultural, timber-related, and some textile products.
Because of its largely subsistence economy and geographical isolation, Ashe County was generally less affected by the Civil War than other regions of the state. Both Union and Confederate sympathizers were present, and clashes between the two groups were common. The county remained a Republican stronghold through the end of the nineteenth century in contrast to the rest of North Carolina.
In addition to agriculture, a number of minerals were discovered during the late- antebellum period, and several mining communities emerged by the mid- nineteenth century. In the 1870s, Ore Knob was a bustling boomtown for copper mining, leading the nation in the production of the metal. During its brief period of prosperity, Ore Knob was the largest town in the county. The community quickly declined with the closing of the mines in the 1880s and has since vanished. 'Throughout the nineteenth century iron was also mined, and a number of forges were established for iron production. Unlike Ore Knob, the town of Helton, which once boasted several iron mines and forges, survives although its iron production has long since ended. By 1884, Creston, with its grist and saw mills, tannery, and furniture and wagon factory, had emerged as the largest town in Ashe County.
Like much of western North Carolina, a seasonal tourist industry began to emerge in Ashe County by the end of the nineteenth century as wealthy families wanting to escape the summer heat began to "take the waters" at local mineral springs. Spa resorts such as Shatley Springs, Thompson's Bromine, Arsenic Springs (NR), and the Glendale Springs flourished with seasonal visitors.
In the 1970s, Ashe County found itself embroiled in controversy with a proposal by the Appalachian Power Company to dam the New River in Virginia, effectively impounding the river on the North Carolina side. Environmentalists succeeded in having the river designated as a Wild and Scenic River, and the proposal died. Since then, Ashe County has profited from the growing interest in outdoor sports, particularly rafting, and the river valleys of the county have Circa, Inc. (cid:9)
4/1/03
8 (cid:9)
Bridge No. 165, T. I. P. No. B-4015 Ashe County
become popular spots for vacation home construction. Despite these changes, the rural, agrarian way of life survives remarkably intact in Ashe County.
Architectural Context: Early-Twentieth Century Architecture and Farmsteads in Ashe County
The Blue Ridge Mountains served as a natural wall separating the New River Valley counties of Ashe and Alleghany from the rest of state until well into the twentieth century. As a result of this isolation, the region developed its own culture and economy, as well as its own building practices. In the 1970s, a proposal to dam the New River in Virginia, effectively flooding the New River Valley in North Carolina, created an immediate need for research and documentation of the region's built environment. In 1976, Davyd Foard Hood and Michael Southern conducted a reconnaissance level survey documenting approximately 100 resources in Ashe County. What was discovered through this work was a landscape and building pattern drastically different from that of the rest of the state.
The collection of structures that dominate the vernacular architecture of the New River Valley were built between 1885 and 1915. Two trends were occurring at that time that resulted in the rapid construction of farmsteads throughout the region. First, families were getting larger. The original settlers of the region were now welcoming their third and fourth generations and that resulted in the need for larger or additional housing. The second trend was a combination of an improvement in transportation routes and a change in local agricultural methods. With the improvement of transportation routes, including both roads and the introduction of the railroad, local farmers were able to get their products to distant markets. This changed the face of farming in the region from subsistence farming to cash crops or products such as tobacco, corn and large- scale dairying operations (Hood, 205).
Buildings constructed prior to 1885 were first of log, then frame construction. The majority of these structures were unadorned one or two-room houses. These houses were primarily one-story, but two-story interpretations were not uncommon. The simplicity of these structures was due to a more dominant need for function. Early settlers of the region came from Virginia and quickly built temporary structures to house their family, with the idea that a more permanent structure would be built at a later date. Often, when the more permanent house was built, the original home was converted to an agricultural purpose. As a result of this practice, both the Georgian and Federal styles of architecture are practically absent and the Greek Revival movement, wildly popular across the state, has only a few examples in the county (Hood, 205).
Circa, Inc. (cid:9)
9 (cid:9)
4/1/03
Bridge No. 165, T. I. P. No. B-4015 Ashe County
It was not until the building boom between 1885 and 1915 that elements of national building styles began to appear in the region's domestic architecture. While the improved transportation routes served to transport agricultural products out of the region, they also served to bring new materials in. The sudden availability of materials from sawmills, such as bargeboards, turned posts, balusters and moldings brought a new life to the local architecture and changed the local vernacular in both form and focus. In addition to the extensive ornamentation of houses, their plan began to take on more elaborate forms. Two-story houses, three-bays wide, became the preferred form, often with an ell off the back resulting in an overall a "T" or "L" plan (Hood, 210). Smaller, one- story houses also began to be built on larger farmsteads to house younger generations or farm hands and their families. These structures rarely incorporated the ornamentation present on the farmstead's main house.
What was more important than form or decoration, both during the region's early development and well into the twentieth century, was the location of buildings on a site. While the county's rolling topography and fertile soil defined the area as ideal for agricultural purposes, the bitter cold and often harsh winds proved challenging for the siting of residences and shelters for livestock. Furthermore, the remoteness of the region in its early settlement, required that each farmstead be self-sufficient. The lack of good roads or other reliable means of transportation in conjunction with long winters meant that families had to be able to exist on these farmsteads for long periods of time without outside sources of sustenance.
In order for farmsteads to be self-sufficient a compilation of outbuildings was necessary. Livestock barns, equipment sheds, smokehouses, spring houses, corncribs, granaries, woodsheds, root cellars, tobacco barns, and, of course, privies were all common structures. The collection of outbuildings and the size of each structure varied greatly from farm to farm, reflecting both the size of the family that subsided on it, and any specialization in crop or production. Outbuildings were predominantly log or frame structures until the late- nineteenth and early-twentieth century. The location of each of the structures on the farm related directly to its function.
The defining factors in selecting a site for a farmstead included access to water, slope, workable (farmable) land, rock outcroppings, vegetation cover, prevailing winds, and access to roads. Access to water was needed at the subsurface level for drinking as well as food storage and preparation. This water was often acquired from many of the region's springs as the use of wells was not common. Surface water was necessary for the provision of water for livestock and for the facilitation of crop farming. Attention to slope and prevailing winds and vegetation cover were necessary to protect the structures from severe winter Circa, Inc. (cid:9)
4/1/03
10 (cid:9)
Bridge No. 165, T. I. P. No. B4015 Ashe County
weather, and take advantage of sun exposure as a means of heat. Rock outcroppings and workable land directly relate to the ability to build structures on the site and plant crops nearby (Keber, 198-99).
As a result of this combination of factors, most farmsteads are built with the side of a vegetated mountain behind them to break the wind, and so the facade of the house is positioned to take advantage of as much winter sun as possible. Ideally, there is a source of surface water to the front or side of a property and adjacent to a stream or creek. The location of a farmstead's surface water source is synonymous with the location of its springhouse. The cold water trickling up from the ground was an ideal location for food storage. Meadows for livestock and fields suitable for crop farming were often located off either side of the main house or in front of it. Necessary outbuildings, such as livestock barns, equipment sheds, and corncribs were often built between the house and the meadows or crops. Also ideal is the location of a road nearby for accessibility to the local community and nearby church, weather permitting.
, vinter sun
4
wind break
spring
, View of crops Sz iVISLUre
row crops
stream
alluvial Hood plain
Figure 4. The ideally sited Appalachian house (Keber, 200.)
While the combination of all of these factors results in the "ideally sited Appalachian house," finding all of these elements in use on a modern day farm is a rarity. Changes in farming practices as well as the decline of the size of families living on these farms has resulted in the degeneration of these traditional farmsteads. That is not to say that examples do not exist. Many of these elements remain in many farms across the region today. It is finding an operational farm, with it full complement of outbuildings still functioning that is the rarity.
Circa, Inc. (cid:9)
11 (cid:9)
4/1/03
Bridge No. 165, T. I. P. No. B-4015 Ashe County
Property Evaluation
Graham-Brooks Farm
Date of Construction Ca. 1910
Setting The Graham-Brooks Farm is set on a rise in a turn of the Big Horse Creek, 0.5 mile north of Bridge No. 165. The 31.6 acre site is wooded and slopes down to Big Horse Creek where the remnants of an earlier bridge stand. The area surrounding the house and its outbuildings is severely overgrown as a result of the property being vacant for more than twenty years.
Physical Description The Graham-Brooks Farm is set into a hillside, adjacent to Big Horse Creek. The farm consists of a main house, built ca. 1910, and two outbuildings. Like many Appalachian farmsteads, the main house is built with the hillside behind it to serve as a wind break. In front of the house, the land descends to Big Horse Creek. SR 1362 runs in front of the house, across the creek. The property was accessed by from SR 1362 by a one-lane bridge that has fallen into the creek.
The main house of the Graham-Brooks Farm is a one-story, three-bay, single-pile, frame, hip-roofed dwelling with a one-story, gable-roofed ell at the rear. The main block of the house and rear ell have weatherboard siding, cornerboards, and exposed rafter tails. There is a three-bay, hip-roofed porch on the facade supported by replacement timber porch posts and an interior brick chimney towards the rear of the main block. All windows and doors have been removed, though their original unadorned trim remains. The roof of the rear ell is collapsing.
There are two outbuildings associated with the Graham-Brooks Farm. Both are simple frame structures with shed roofs and vertical planks forming the walls. The first outbuilding, the equipment shed, is located adjacent to the house on its north side and sits between the house and an open field. The second outbuilding is a larger, two-story structure and is set in front of the house, adjacent to the creek. This larger structure served as a livestock barn with a hayloft above.
Historical Background The Graham-Brooks Farm was originally part of a larger farmstead owned by William H. Graham and begun in the late-nineteenth century. The 31.6 acre tract that the house currently sits on was sold to Moody Brooks by the Graham family in 1951. The actual date of construction is not known. However, a conversation Circa, Inc. (cid:9)
4/1/03
12 (cid:9)
Bridge No. 165, T. I. P. No. B-4015 Ashe County
with the adjacent property owner, a descendant of William H. Graham, indicated that the house likely post-dates the Graham-Wilcox House, built in 1904 north of the APE. The Graham-Brooks House was likely built to house a child of William H. Graham's or, possibly, a farm worker. Given the information in conjunction with the form and roof style of the structure, it likely dates to ca. 1910.
Because agricultural records were not taken in Ashe County after 1880, there is no definite record of what was farmed at this location. The 1880 agricultural census indicates that Graham land holdings in the Piney Creek Township, the township in which the Graham-Brooks Farm is located, produced corn, hay, and over two-hundred pounds of butter. It is likely that similar crops were grown at this location, once established by William H. Graham in the late 1800s. Since the purchase of the property by Moody Brooks in 1951, he has passed and left the property to heirs that do not live in the area and were not available for comment.
Significance The Graham-Brooks Farm is a small, turn-of-the-century farmstead in Ashe County. Its location and setting are common among New River Valley farmsteads, but the number of outbuildings is small compared to most farmsteads in the region. The property is simple in form, and void of any decorative embellishments, exuding no special significance in the area of architecture. The farm and its associated buildings exhibit no significant elements of design, use of materials nor do they illustrate a significant type or style of workmanship. The farm's outbuildings remain intact but, like the house, lack integrity as a result of neglect. The house lacks original windows and doors, the roof of the rear ell has fallen, and the original porch posts have been replaced. The outbuildings are overgrown and are also on the verge of collapse. This stage of neglect diminishes the property's feeling as, and association with, a historic farmstead. For these reasons the property lacks the requisite significance and integrity necessary for listing, either individually or as part of a district, in the National Register of Historic Places.
Evaluation of National Register Eligibility The Graham-Brooks Farm is not eligible for the National Register under Criterion A (event) To be eligible under Criterion A the property must retain integrity and must be associated with a specific event marking an important moment in American History or a pattern of events or historic trend that made a significant contribution to the development of a community. Furthermore, the property must have existed at the time and be documented to be associated with the events. Finally, the property's specific association must be important as well. The Graham-Brooks Farm is not known to be associated with, or representative of, any specific event or pattern of events or historic trend that made a significant contribution to the development of a community. Circa, Inc. (cid:9)
4/1/03
13 (cid:9)
Bridge No. 165, T. I. P. No. B-4015 Ashe County
The Graham-Brooks Farm is not eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion B (person). For a property to be eligible for significance under Criterion B, it must retain integrity and 1) be associated with the lives of persons significant in our past, i.e., individuals whose activities are demonstrably important within a local, state, or national historic context; 2) be normally associated with a person's productive life, reflecting the time period when he/she achieved significance; and 3) should be compared to other associated properties to identify those that best represent the person's historic contributions. Furthermore, a property is not eligible if its only justification for significance is that it was owned or used by a person who is or was a member of an identifiable profession, class, or social or ethnic group. The Graham- Brooks Farm is not known to be associated with an individual or individuals significant in our past.
The Graham-Brooks Farm is not eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C (architecture). For a property to be eligible under this Criterion, it must retain integrity and either 1) embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; 2) represent the work of a master; 3) possess high artistic value; or 4) represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. The Graham-Brooks Farm and its accompanying structures do not represent a particular type, period, or method of construction, the work of a master, or possess high artistic value.
The Graham-Brooks Farm is not eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion D (potential to yield information). For a property to be eligible under Criterion D, it must meet two requirements: 1) the property must have, or have had, information to contribute to our understanding of human history or prehistory, and 2) the information must be considered important. The Graham-Brooks Farm does not have the potential to yield important information to contribute to our understanding of human history or prehistory.
Circa, Inc. (cid:9)
14 (cid:9)
4/1/03
Bridge No. 165, T. I. P. No. B4015 Ashe County
OMER. 4111•••• S S .11Mmo
Outbuilding #1
I Graham-Brooks
House
Parcel boundary
Figure 4. Graham Brooks Farm - site plan
Circa, Inc. (cid:9)
15 (cid:9)
4/1/03
Bridge No. 165, T. I. P. No. B-4015 Ashe County
Bibliography
Ashe County Tax Maps. Located in Ashe County Courthouse, Jefferson, North Carolina.
Hood, Davyd Foard. 1978. "The Architecture of the New River Valley." In
Carolina Dwelling: towards preservation of place, in celebration of the North Carolina vernacular landscape , edited by Doug Swain. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.
Keber, Robert. 1978. "Site Selection of Pre-1940 Mountain Houses." In
Carolina Dwelling: towards preservation of place, in celebration of the North Carolina vernacular landscape , edited by Doug Swain. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.
Bishir, Catherine W., et al. A Guide to the Historic Architecture of Western North Carolina. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999.
Wilcox, George. Interview with author. January 8, 2003.
Fearnbach, Heather. "Replace Bridge No. 334 on SR 1351 Over the South Fork of the New River, Watauga/ Ashe County, North Carolina, TIP No. B-3928." Raleigh: North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, Survey and Planning Branch, 2002.
Fletcher, Arthur L. Ashe County, A History. Jefferson, NC: Ashe County Research
Association, Inc. 1963.
Mattson, Alexander and Associates. "Historic Architectural Resources Survey
Report, Replacement of Bridge No. 281 on SR 1358 Over Big Horse Creek, Ashe County, TIP No. B-4014." Raleigh: North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, Survey and Planning Branch, 2000.
National Park Service. National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National
Register Registration Form. Washington DC: Department of the Interior, 1997.
Weaver, Clarice, ed. Heritage of Ashe County, Volume II. West Jefferson, NC: Ashe
County Historical Society, 1994.
Circa, Inc. (cid:9)
19 (cid:9)
4/1/03