Newsletter No. 17----Dark Skies/Land History Part 2

Saving Dark Skies is worth some thought.  At one time, the preservation of dark skies was a consideration only in areas around observatories so that light scattering in the sky did not interfere with telescope operations. However, it has now become an issue of concern to fast growing small towns all over the nation where people no longer have a clear view of the night sky they once had.

Figure 1 Satellite view of the mainland U.S.

 If you enlarge Figure 1, you will see it will have taken only 75 years from the late 1950s to reach the projected light pollution density expected in the U.S. in 2025.  That is only 6 years from now.

The International Dark Skies Association (IDA) works with communities across the country to develop better lighting practices that cut the glare and sky scattering by focusing on task lighting and directing the light down rather than up and out. As an additional benefit is that our energy consumption is significantly reduced. The IDA is not against lighting it is simply for lighting that does the job in the best possible way.

Here in our area of Texas, the city of Dripping Springs was the first town to work actively to become a dark sky-certified place.  It has been followed by the City of Horseshoe Bay and the Wimberley Valley.  Nearby towns that have applied to become certified are Buda, Blanco and Fredericksburg.

The effects of light pollution comprise many aspects; following are some of the most important: Safety and Security, Light Trespass, Energy Waste, Nature and Human Health.

Safety and Security.  Studies have shown that poorly designed artificial lighting which floods an area does not prevent accidents and crime.  However, glare is a big problem.

Figure 2 Glare from unshielded lights

Imagine driving down this street at night.  The American Medical Association says, “Glare from nighttime lighting can create hazards ranging from discomfort to visual disability.”  When glare from bright unshielded light shines into our eyes our pupils constrict.  This can not only be blinding, it also makes it more difficult for our eyes to adjust to lowlight conditions when that becomes necessary.

It has also been shown that unshielded bright lights which create  hard, dark shadows make it easier for thieves to case a property and see their way to a safe get away.

Figure 3 Shielded and unshielded effects

Above (Figure 3) is an example of glare causing hard shadows.  This home’s backyard is lit up at night with a blinding light. When the glaring light is blocked  the figure can be seen in the doorway of the fence.   Probably not someone the homeowner would want to encounter in the dark.

Light Trespass. [1] Light trespass occurs when stray light shines onto neighboring properties. Light trespass infringes on the property rights of the neighbors who have unwanted light intruding onto their property. It can lower property values, reduce the quality of the nighttime environment and be a general irritant. Wouldn’t you want to have the full enjoyment of your property without being forced to live with unwanted light directed onto it?

To eliminate light trespass, shield and aim all lights on your own property so the illumination stays within your own property lines. If you can see the source of the light, that is the bulb or refractive lens, from a neighboring property then that light is committing light trespass.

Figure 3 Light trespass

These standing unshielded light poles are a good example of light trespassing into the windows of the adjacent apartments and home.

 Energy Waste

Figure 4 Light going up and out

 In the previous picture, (Figure 4) it is very apparent where much of the light is going.  How much better it would have been if the homeowner had purchased a shielded light and positioned it to light the driveway area.

Figure 5 Shielded lighting example

This homeowner has a light like the one above, (Figure 5) but they installed a shield on the light and probably were able to use a lower wattage bulb.

The following photo (Figure 6) shows that while this lighting fixture may add a nostalgic look to the area and be 40% productive, it is really an inefficient, costly and wasteful device being funded by the municipality’s tax payers.  

Figure 6 Tradeoff between fashion and useful

Preservation of the Night Sky 

With our current choices in lighting 80% of the U.S. population has never seen the Milky Way.  At Big Bend National Park, a Dark Sky Place (2012), one can now see the light pollution from El Paso 300 miles away. The following Texas Parks and Natural Areas also opted to become Dark Sky Places: Copper Breaks State Park (2014, Enchanted Rock Natural Area (2014), South Llano River State Park (2017) and Big Bend Ranch State Park (2017). 

Figure 7 The Milky Way

According to IDA “Experiencing the night sky provides perspective, inspiration, and leads us to reflect on our humanity and place in the universe. The history of scientific discovery and even human curiosity itself is indebted to the natural night sky.

Without the natural night sky we could not have:

·         Navigated the globe

·         Walked on the Moon

·         Learned of our expanding universe

·         Discovered that humans are made of “stardust “

Wildlife and Ecosystems

Figure 8 Confused Sea Turtle

Figure 8 shows an exhausted sea turtle that cannot find her way back to the water after laying her eggs, all  because of reflected artificial light which upsets the natural light’s reflection on the water. When the little turtles hatch, they will have the same problem finding the path to the sea.

Frogs won’t call for mates if there is too much light at night.  And, the 120 species of fireflies, each having a little different blink will only mate if they see their own species.  Small animals that hunt at night increasingly become prey and even night blooming flowers aren’t in sync with their pollinators. And the list goes on and on.

Figure 9 The well lit city

Cities like this one shown in Figure 9 with unregulated night lighting in the paths of migratory birds are lethal and need to join a “Lights Out” program.

Figure 10 Effect of Artificial light on crop growth

The red areas of these soy fields have already been harvested while the green areas under constant natural and artificial light have not yet ripened.

Human Health

Much research is now being done in the realm of light and how its wave lengths affect us.  We know how it can affect our

eyes, skin, immune system and sleep.  The last two have to do with our production of melatonin. Melatonin is a hormone made by our body’s pineal gland.  The eyes’ retina when exposed to light stimulates a nerve pathway to the hypothalamus in the brain which has a special center, the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN).  The SCN initiates signals to other parts of the brain that control hormones and other functions that make us feel wide awake or sleepy.  SCN signals melatonin production around 9 p.m. as long as there are no bright lights (think natural light from far away stars and moon.  Even a bright refrigerator light on for just 3 seconds can interfere with melatonin production). In the morning, with the advance of natural light, melatonin production slows to low levels for the day around 9 a.m. when SCN begins raising the body’s temperature and releasing stimulating hormones like cortisol.

Figure 11 Darkness and circadian rhythms

Some of us feel that our circadian rhythms are better served by choosing to stick to Standard Time or Daylight Saving Time and it looks like we Texans may someday be able to vote on our preference.

Figure 12 Color spectrum of various lights

One of the most interesting subjects we covered in the Dark Skies presentation at the San Marcos Library was the harmful effects of blue light and how to block it.  A glance at various web sites will show you inexpensive glasses that will save your eyes from blue light emitted by LED and fluorescent lights, tablets, phones and computer screens.

Land History---Part 2

We will pick up from Land History---Part 1 by covering some interesting additional findings.

We thought that there was a chance that one of the six land patent holders lived on the land rather than viewing the land as cash or using it as grazing land.  A check of the census of 1880 shows that the Reuben Pierce family lived in this immediate area, but where they lived is hard to determine.   Census takers usually went down the road from dwelling to dwelling so all we know from the census are the names of his neighbors, but those neighbors may have been miles apart.  Our local contact is reviewing the census sheets to see if he can find a clue to the location of the residence from his knowledge of the names next to the Pierce family. Right at the present, we would like to believe the Reuben Pierce family lived for a year or so on the tract which became part of BWR.  However, until a foundation or other physical evidence of a residence is found, this is only specultation.

Another bit of history shows up from probing the Pierce files.  It turns out that Reuben Pierce’s son Reuben married Callie Saunders daughter.  Yes, that’s the Saunders family featured in the previous newsletters.  Reuben II became a preacher and died rather young.  He and Callie II are buried in the Seguin Cemetery.

Figure 13 Pierce gravesite in Seguin

In the old days of wagons and dirt trails, many people married locally as there was little opportunity to meet others from outside the area where they lived.

Old USGS maps (Figure 14) show a few things relating to our lands that are interesting to note.  There were only one or two roads on the ranch, one was from the starred gate on Hugo road to the windmill on the Vinson property.  It wandered past Lake Bridlewood and crossed from one side to the other of BWR Drive in the track to the windmill.  Wait until the next drought and the cattle have the grass chewed down to see some of the old vestiges of the road. Also on the USGS map are what appear to be dashed lines representing the stone walls of the area. 

Figure 14 USGS Survey Map

Another way to see the evidence of the old roads is to use Google Earth and go back to the earliest view of the ranch that has the clarity and check the roads.  The road from the starred gate to the Eakin gate area is plainly visible.

The land survey map of the Heep Ranch prior to its sale shows a well casing in an area somewhere on the Stratton property. At this time, not much is known about this well, whether it was for water or for what other purpose.  Many years ago, we picked up the rumor that the developer was planning on dividing the 1676 acres into much smaller lots but when a test water well was found to be lacking in water, that plan was dropped in favor of selling the land in the configuration that we now enjoy.  The well casing may be that test well.  We will address that question when we meet with the elder Kutscher.

We plan to do more study of rock walls since stumbling onto some rock walls in the northern part of Hays County.  There, the word is that “English settlers” built the rock walls. There, the walls are laid up like one would lay up a brick wall.  All squared and no mortar—the joints are chinked with small stones for stability.  Some research on the subject indicates that there are two types of stone walls from the 1800s.   One kind is the squared, neat and tidy, and the other is referred to as a dumped wall.  We have the dumped wall.  The cause for the difference may be cultural or it may be due to the kind of stones found locally.  For sure it does take a stone of lamellar shape and our local rock is not that for sure.  More on this subject later if possible.

______________Sightings

You never know when you are about to make a good discovery, so you need to be alert to the clues.  We were talking to some Master Gardeners and Master Naturalists recently in Sattler and drifted on to the topic of the Austin Garden Plant brochure which everyone finds to be helpful.  We have always been on the lookout for a way to buy many copies to give to friends and neighbors.  They thought they had a box full of these guides they would sell us for a dollar a copy.  But then they said “you know its online now, don’t you?”  Well, we didn’t.   Now, the fact that it is online is better because with a touch screen you can enlarge the hi-def photos of the plants in the brochure to see some detail, and, you can access the information in the field. You can find it by searching for Austin grow green guide pdf. 

R & D

---

[1] From IDA

Newsletter No. 16-----Ranch Land History-Part 1

Ranch Land History—Part 1.  Nearly five years ago, we started the project of detailing the history of the land that made up the ranch that became our community.  We did not make much progress then, but now we have returned to the task to make another pass at it.

Tracing the history of land can be accomplished by starting with the first deed (Land Patent) and working forward in time or by starting with the last deed (current owners) and working back in time. We decided to start with the Land Patents because that would give us the names of the surveys which would be helpful in the search back in time from current owners to previous owners. New surveys almost always reference the Land Patent survey name.

The Spanish Government granted a huge amount of land to Impresarios to encourage settlement of the area which was to become Texas.  However, none of the individual grants  existed in Hays County.  Furthermore, if there was individual ownership in the area of Texas, most of those claims were erased following the revolutionarywar with Mexico.   So, we started with the Republic of Texas, the government formed by Texans following the revolutionary war with Mexico ca. 1836. 

Texas, not unique in this regard, adopted the principle of a capitalistic democracy in that useable land was best in the hands of people and not held by the government.  Soon after the Republic was formed land became available as a donation, as a homestead, or as a purchase. Donations of land in the amounts of 1280 or 640 acres were made to veterans for their effort in the war with Mexico. Interestingly enough, land grants were not offered to Confederate veterans of the Civil War.  However, those Texans that fought on the Union side in the Civil War were offered land grants in Texas, but none took up the offer. 

In addition to grants to individuals, much land went into the school funding system and to railroad companies as an inducement to build rail lines into the state.  This granting process occurred over many years as the state government passed various laws granting land.  All of that is a separate topic.  As a sidelight, Texas is the only state admitted to the Union that was allowed to keep its public lands rather than relinquish the public lands to the Federal Government.   Thus, all granted land was issued from the Republic or the State of Texas.

When land ownership is officially transferred from the government to a public or private entity, the new owner is issued a Land Patent. A land patent can be viewed as a “first deed”.  Land could be acquired by three methods: A donation to an individual for military service, by preemption (homesteading) or by purchase. When a person is given land for service to the country, it starts with a Certificate which can then be used to claim a tract of land. The Certificate was like cash.  It could be sold, donated, transferred to heirs, just like cash if the land is not wanted by the recipient.

Claiming the land resulted in the issue of a Patent on that land. The basic record of a land patent is the survey to establish the location of the land.   Thus, every land patent has an attendant survey in the name of the grantee.  One can understand that in the early days of a newly formed government, this was the easiest way to reward public service, because cash was in short supply. Printing paper money was tried in the new Republic, but the paper money soon lost much of its issue value.

Typically, veterans of the Texas Revolutionary War received Certificates for up to 1280 acres (a section of land is 640 acres).  The amount of land varied between 640 and 1280 dependent on the class of the reward.  The class of the grant depended on when the person arrived in Texas.  Early settlers and service in the military received the greater number of acres.  Figure 1 shows a copy of the Certificate given to Gideon Bowditch for 1280 acres of land some of which makes up BWR.

 

Figure 1 Gideon Bowditch Certificate

The land that makes up our community came from six land patents.  Five of them were grants to veterans from the War with Mexico and one was for homesteading. 

They six tracts are as follows:

  §  Jesse Huffman--  640 acres in 1841

  §  Reuben Pierce-- 160 acres in 1871

  §  Willis Moore--  114.5 acres in 1875

  §  Gideon Bowditch--1280 acres in 1841

  §  M. Andrews-- 1280 acres in 1875

  §  G. W. A. Colton--491.37 acres in 1875

Following are some notes about each of these holders of land patents:

§      Huffman and Bowditch were the first to claim their rewards.  The record indicates that heirs of Huffman held the land for some time (unknown at the present) and Bowditch sold his grant soon after receiving it.

§     Pierce was the only person who homesteaded his property.  It is not certain that he actually lived on his land, but he did convince the government that he satisfied the requirement of improving the land within the required three years.  The Pierce family sold the land they acquired in 1871 to Hayford in 1877 who then sold it to Cross soon after.

§      Moore’s heirs claimed his 640 acres, but only 114.5 acres was part of the six grants that make up our community.  The location of the balance to make up 640 acres is documented but we have not pursued that acquisition.  It could have been in another county. Willis Moore’s heirs claimed the property because he had perished in the fight at the Alamo.[1]

§      Colton was awarded 1280 acres and only 491 acres are located here.   It is interesting that the documentation of his award was in square varas, totaling 2,774,011, which works out that a vara is equal to 33 inches. Varas can vary in length and this causes some confusion in the record.

§  Andrews’ award was for early service but was not claimed until 1875 when it was then claimed by his widow’s attorneys and sold immediately.

It is important to spend some time in this newsletter on surveying because the surveyor’s tools and methods have changed dramatically over the last 150 years.

During land grant times, surveying was recorded by a method commonly called metes and bounds. Metes refer to the measurement part of a survey, that is the length and compass direction of a boundary line.  Bounds refer to the markers at key points such as corners or intersections with other surveys. The starting point for a new survey was usually defined off an adjacent survey.  So, if that adjacent survey contained errors, these errors would carry over into the new survey.  The corners were usually marked with some form of quasi-permanent evidence, such as a stone mound created by the surveying crew. Our expert contact in the surveying business (and also a descendant of one of the earliest settlers of Purgatory Springs) tells us that marker mounds can be just one big stone or a pile of smaller stones.  The mound was often cited by identifying an adjacent tree and blaze marking the tree and its direction and distance from the marker mound.  The lengths of the sides were measured in varas that varied from 33 to 46 inches depending on time and place.  The lengths were measured off with chains, and the direction of the boundary lines were measured with a compass, usually mounted on top of a transit.  Even today, with modern surveying equipment, the bounds markers, if found, hold sway over the metes. That’s because the opportunity for a recording error with metes is far greater than the opportunity for error in the marking of bounds.

Today, surveyors use GPS locating equipment that is precise to the inch to identify corners and lines of a tract of land.  How the legal system and the surveyors made the transition from the inherent inaccuracies in the 1800s to the precision of today is not only remarkable but amazing.  It is evident that there are many inconsistencies, but transfer of property from one person to another has the ability over time to reconcile and remove these inconsistencies from the record.

Figure 2 is a copy of a map from the records showing the boundary lines of the original land patents.

Figure 2 Land Grant Boundaries

This map is a bit difficult to see in this size, but you should be able to expand it for better viewing. The black lines are the land grant lines and the red line is the outline of our community hand drawn on top.  The blue printing identifies the Land patentee. The two tracts between Colton and Bowditch are the Moore and Pierce tracts. (We have marked them with a P and an M on Figure 3) The boundary between the Moore and Pierce tracts falls right under the notation of Bridlewood Ranches Drive.

Note how the Huffman tract does not meet the Bowditch tract and also note the green shaded slice of land between Colton and Pierce. The black lines are drawn on the current map by the General Land Office and reveal some of the inaccuracies of the original surveys.  The green shaded area is what is commonly called a vacancy.  That means that at the time of the survey this land was owned by the state as it was not included in any one patented tract.  We are sure that none of these mismatches of boundaries were intended by the early surveyors.

Figure 3 shows the same map as Figure 2, but now the Bridlewood Ranches roads are marked in purple.

  

Figure 3 Land Patent map with BWR roads added

While still working in the distant past, there are some historic artifacts from surveys and ranch activity that we should look for and inventory with an eye toward preservation.

Here is a list that comes to mind:

·        Survey corner mounds.  Years ago, we found the south corner mound of the Jesse Huffman survey in the Purgatory Creek drainage.  More than likely, the northwest corner mound is in the stone wall on the eastern edge of the Shallenberger property.  There should be many more marker mounds which we will list later.

·        Old ranch roads.  There was one road that entered the property just north of the present gate leading off Hugo Road (the gate with the big star) and went to the windmill on the Vinson property.  There were other roads, and they should be identifiable by inspection of the surface.  During dry periods and when the grass is heavily grazed, there appears to be a vestige of an old ranch road to the south of the road on the Jankowski property.

·        Windmills and their tanks.  There are two, or one and a half, that are standing.   We have asked Kutscher for some information on these mills.

·    Stone fences.  For sure these should be preserved and inventoried as they are probably 150 years old.  It is still uncertain who built these walls, but it is almost certain they were not built by slaves as most people believe.  Any of the history books of the area state that these stone walls were built in the late 1800s. Later, we will provide some information on where these walls should still exist.  For example, the stone wall that exists between lots 31 and 30 is the same wall that runs northwest and terminates at the Shallenberger line.  It was the western boundary of the Jesse Huffman Survey.

·        Earthen Stock Tanks. Except for a few, most of our stock tanks were built by earlier ranchers.  Lake Bridlewood is the most prominent old one, but there are others.

·       Other Evidence.  Old structures, concrete watering troughs (there is one on Lot 30 that was observed years ago) wells, and stone structures. 

Some may ask why bother with these old features and relics of the land that we live on.  The answer to that will develop with time.

Changing gears now to the present ownership and working back in time:  Here is what we know at this time:

Some current owners bought their tract from the developer (River Chase Ventures) others bought through resale.

Thus, here is the lineage as we know it now:

Present owners---total 1676 acres

*********

River Chase Ventures–total 1676 acres, acquired in 2002.

*********

Herman and Minnie Heep Texas A&M Foundation---two tracts totaling 1676 (more or less) acquired in 1992.

*********

Herman and Minnie Heep (one tract) and Conroe Drilling Company (other tract) ---totalling 1676 acres---acquired in 1947.

**********

Maurice Ruby and wife----two tracts totaling 1676 acres. Acquired in 1943.

**********

 G. Boozer acquired 1934

**********

T. Dix acquired 1932

**********

Jesse Posey acquired 1916

*********

Frank Posey acquired ?

*********

Additional record searches need to be made to determine the detail of land transactions in the time period from the issuance of the Patents to 1916 when Jesse Posey acquired the land.

Throughout this time period, the only homesteader was Reuben Pierce and it is possible that he lived on the land, but not proven—and if he did, not for long. More than likely, all of the land was used for grazing.  With that assumption we are always on the lookout for more records to determine if any of the 1676 acres supported a residence. However, that is doubtful.

Throughout these years the land was known successively as the Rocking H Ranch (aka Heep Ranch), the Ruby Ranch, and the Posey Ranch. 

There were several interesting bits of information that came from reading the many pages of the deed records.  One is that Herman Heep was the President of Conroe Drilling Company thus explaining this company’s involvement in the ownership of the ranch. 

Maurice Ruby had many dealings in Woodcreek, perhaps suggesting that he had a role in the development of that tract.

There are still some nagging details about the succession of owners prior to Ruby but that (hopefully) will come later in Part 2.

Meanwhile, providing there is sufficient interest, we could make an inventory of the historic features of the Bridlewood Ranches land. The documentation of historic features may well add value to the land in addition to adding interest to each tract.   

             

----Sightings---

The Slender-Leaf Hymenoxys flowers growing close to the ground have been very showy this spring.  Figure 4 shows one especially good tract of yellow spilling down a gentle hillside beyond the pond near the intersection of Hugo and Purgatory Roads.  Everyone notices that the dominant color in wild flowers is yellow, and for the last few weeks, most of the yellow has been hymenoxys.  But that is not always the case, because last year there were far fewer hymenoxys.

              Figure 4 Hymenoxys blooms at Hugo/Purgatory Rd.

For example, some of the yellow color has been replaced by the gaillardia which has a red center giving a dense field a definitely different color.

Then we decided to look even closer at what plants are showing the yellow color now and stopped to inspect the small yellow flowers near the BWR mailbox.  Wouldn’t you know it, a new (to us) yellow flower that was masquerading in among the hymenoxys. It was a Hudson Flax (Linum hudsonioides). It is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5 Hudson Flax

To top off the sightings is this shrubby plant we found growing in a wild area near our house.   It appears to be a Sumac---Rhus Aromatica. (Figure 6) It has a smooth brown bark, and a three petal leaf.

Figure 6 Aromatic Sumac

One last note on the importance of scientific naming of plants.  You may recall the Red Buckeye plant we found by Canyon Dam.  Buckeyes have rather unique leaves---five or so leaves all coming off one point of the stem.  Because we have always heard about the Mexican Buckeye, we decided to hunt for one of them.  We found one at a Master Gardeners booth at the Seguin monthly sale on the town square.  It sure didn’t have the typical buckeye leaf pattern, but we bought it anyway since we knew that it will produce a show of flowers in the spring.  

Figure 7 Mexican buckeye

Just a little bit of bookwork shows that the Mexican Buckeye is not a buckeye, but a member of the Soapberry family.  The scientific name of true buckeyes is Aesculus Pavia whereas the Mexican Buckeye’s scientific name is Ungnadia speciosa.  So, why did the Mexican Buckeye get the common name of buckeye?  Simply because the seed looks a lot like the seed of the real buckeye.

---

[1] Moore, 28, a Mississippi resident was listed as a Private, marksman at the Alamo who, “May have rode in with Bowie”.  He also fought with Chenoweth’s N.O. Grey Company at the siege of Bexar.  The report of Texas Alamo victims was reported in the Telegraph and Texas Register (3-14-1836) as supplied by couriers John Smith and Gerald Navan.