q134/random_k2/random_2.md

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

www.hpo.dcr.state.nc.us

(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