Chapter V: USS Arizona: The Management Experience
(continued)

To Preserve or not to Preserve?

The question of "to preserve, or not to preserve" underwater cultural resources has yet to be answered. Meanwhile, we are exploring methods of stabilization.

A principal reason for developing a submerged-cultural-resource management program for the USS ARIZONA and USS UTAH sites -- and Pearl Harbor in general -- is to clearly define strategies for site preservation. Options range from leaving sites alone (benign neglect) to sustaining the existing condition and integrity (preservation). A third choice is partial restoration, that is, removal of post-December 7, 1941 mooring quays, flagstaff and mooring chains. Doing nothing would, of course, eventually result in deterioration and destruction of the shipwreck.

Preservation decisions for the USS ARIZONA are complicated by a recognition that the sunken shipwreck is not only a resource of major historical significance, it is also a symbol to the American people of the beginning of World War II. Finally, it is the final place for honored war dead.

Memorial architect Alfred Preis, who was aware of the symbolic aspects of the USS ARIZONA, designed the structure to be symbolically linked to the shipwreck below. Although appropriate from a design and viewing standpoint, this linkage has become a cause for confusion for USS ARIZONA managers.

One pivotal point in managing the USS ARIZONA is determining the ship's period of historical significance. One view defines that period as a single day: December 7, 1941. Or the significant period could be considered the period from December 7, 1941 through the salvage operations, when temporary mooring quays were attached to the ship and Navy officials decided not to further salvage the vessel. But if the memorial structure is considered along with the ship, an option that we believe is inappropriate, then the entire memorialization process is also of significance. If viewed separately, should the memorial even receive consideration as historically significant? It is a unique design, but would seem of little actual historical significance in any other context.

It seems that we first need to define the memorial/USS ARIZONA relationship from a historic-preservation standpoint, then define the period of historical significance and decide whether to view it as a site or process. Once we have defined the significant period, we will be able to define the appropriate level of preservation.

The fact that the sunken ship is also a tomb containing the remains of more than 1,000 sailors and marines could be either an argument for preservation or an argument for nonintervention. The preservation view argues the need to protect the tomb's integrity, respecting it as the final resting place for so many; to allow deterioration may be considered disrespectful. The natural-deterioration view says doing any thing at all would disturb the grave site, and thus be disrespectful ("these sailors and marines have been declared buried at sea so let's let them rest in peace").

Another consideration that must not be overlooked is the environmental impact of the ship's deterioration. Oil continues to leak from the ARIZONA. If the hull were to collapse, an unknown quantity of additional oil would be released. The potential for a large spill does exist.

Regardless of the period of historical significance selected and the preservation option, the authors affirm the need for a continuing research project to monitor, document, analyze and determine the type, rate and cause of deterioration. Findings and recommendations of such research are needed not only to determine the ship's present condition, but also the appropriate treatment for a historic structure, a symbol and a vault for war dead. Also needed are ongoing data returns for monitoring future deterioration and determining the existing and projected rate of corrosion. A laboratory analysis of the ship's metal will be required to make such determinations.

Other USS ARIZONA management issues that remain unanswered include: (1) What to do about the rusting remains of the USS ARIZONA's superstructure that had been removed during the salvage operations and dumped on the nearby Waipio Peninsula in Pearl Harbor? (2) What to do about the mooring quays that were attached to the partially submerged USS ARIZONA during salvage operations in Pearl Harbor? (3) What to do about the nonhistoric flagstaff attached to the ship's masts? (4) What to do about the mooring chains between the hull and the memorial dock? and (5) What to do about the USS ARIZONA's original mooring quays?

It has been suggested that the remains of the superstructure, now mostly unrecognizable, should be taken to the site and dumped alongside, because they are considered to be part of the historic scene. But there are serious questions about this course of action: The materials were never actually located alongside the ship, and to put them there would be inconsistent with the historic context. An alternative may be to identify those pieces of particular interest for display in the USS ARIZONA Memorial Museum, leaving the rest in place with the stipulation that it is available for appropriate museum display, but may not be used for commercial gain.

Action on the mooring quays, which are attached to the ship fabric, is related to the question of what historic scene should be represented? What historic period should the USS ARIZONA's remains reflect -- the period up to December 7, 1941; or including the post-December 7 activities, such as the salvage operation in Pearl Harbor, and even the USS ARIZONA memorialization process it self? A decision as to which historic period the remains should reflect permits managers to recommend removal or non-removal of the mooring quays. Any future actions on the mooring quays should be based on future research regarding the physical state of the shipwreck's fabric. As a practical matter, removal of the mooring quays may cause more structural damage to the ship than leaving them, regardless of the determined period of historical significance.

Daily raising of the American flag on the memorial honors those who fought and died. Although that flag was not a part of the December 7, 1941 historic fabric, removing it would most certainly be politically sensitive. If it is determined that the period of historical significance includes the memorialization process, then the flagstaff becomes historically significant. One must also address the flagstaff's present influence on the ship's destruction, and related safety issues. It extends 50 feet into the air and is placing a great deal of stress on the rusting mast, which eventually will fail. This is accelerating the mast's rate of deterioration as well as creating a safety hazard. If the mast fails and the flagstaff falls, it could harm visitors and cause damage to the memorial structure. Alternatives include stabilizing the ship's mast (fill it with concrete?) or removing the flagstaff. One option is to attach the latter to the memorial and extend it down to the ship's deck. Another option is to allow it to remain attached to the mast and support it with ties to the memorial.

The weight-mooring chains are causing deterioration of the historic ship fabric. However, removal may be even more destructive. An alternative is to cut the chains at the edge of the deck so the weight is eliminated. The chain on the deck would remain in place. Chain removal is directly related to the dock. Prior to any action, the importance of the chains relative to the dock would have to be determined and a replacement alternative installed.

The USS ARIZONA's original mooring quays should have a distinct preservation plan. They could be maintained as they are (with the names of the USS ARIZONA and the USS VESTAL painted on their side), restored to their original December 7, 1941 appearance, or left alone. The question of replacement, should they collapse, also needs to be addressed.

Resource-management issues can be grouped into five main categories: (1) protection of the USS ARIZONA, (2) protection of the memorial, (3) protection of historic materials/artifacts and the museum collection, (4) protection of the water area (historic zone) surrounding the sunken ship and memorial, (5) protection of resources in or close to Pearl Harbor but outside NPS operational responsibility.

Lacking both authorizing legislation and a general management plan, decisions in management of submerged cultural resources should be based on the purposes for which the park was established, as defined in the Statement for Management (August 1983):

To preserve and interpret the tangible historical resources associated with the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. Of primary importance are the sunken wreck of the USS ARIZONA, which serves as the final resting place for the battleship's sailors and marines killed in that attack, and the large concrete memorial to all those killed in the attack, which straddles the ship.

The Interpretive Prospectus (October 1981), which sets the historical context for the entire park through identification of primary interpretive themes also provides guidance for resource management. The park's interpretive themes have been identified as:

1. The USS ARIZONA, its casualties and survivors;

2. The attack on Pearl Harbor; and

3. The importance of Pearl Harbor at the beginning of the war with Japan.

The prospectus continues:

The USS ARIZONA as a historic artifact derives much of its significance in relation to the attack on Pearl Harbor and in turn on the outbreak of war. The order of thematic emphasis ensues from the nature of a memorial and the necessity of placing primary emphasis on interpretation of resources at hand.

The prospectus suggests that the appropriate historic context for the ship should center on Dec. 7, 1941, which would limit interpretation primarily to resources that are presently on site (not adding to or deleting from the historic structure).

If full preservation is to be the appropriate level of treatment, then it follows that a historic structure report for the USS ARIZONA is needed. Some of the base line information is already in existence, derived from data obtained from recent projects run by the NPS Submerged Cultural Resources Unit between 1983 and 1988. The historic structure report is needed to evaluate the research findings and make recommendations for preservation of the USS ARIZONA.

The historic structure report should cover not only the appropriate treatment for the shipwreck itself (e.g., continued monitoring of the level and extent of corrosion/fouling, preservation techniques. and the need for a corrosion model), but should also address the need for artifact recovery from the shipwreck, and removal of the flagstaff, mooring decks, and mooring chains.

The nature and scope of the historic structure report's recommendations will assist park managers in deciding whether a historic structure preservation guide is warranted.

The purpose of such a guide would be to direct the needed maintenance activities to preserve and protect the USS ARIZONA, both as a historic structure (shipwreck) and as a tomb for war dead. The guide would be tailored to the specific preservation needs of the USS ARIZONA, and would provide information for orderly, timely and appropriate inspection, monitoring and maintenance. The guide would also provide the means to evaluate maintenance activities to determine gaps or weaknesses and to adopt corrective measures. As additional data are obtained, modifications or additions may need to be made in the guide.

Under present CRM guidelines, possibly the USS ARIZONA can not be regarded as a historic structure and therefore preservation treatment may be inappropriate. The memorial, however, does fit the definition of a cultural resource (NPS-28, Glossary, Appendix A, page 5) and should be regarded as more than just a structure. The memorial's reason to be is the USS ARIZONA -- it is inextricably tied to the ship. The relationship between the memorial and the ship becomes clear when one considers the chains securing the memorial boat dock to the shipwreck and the flagstaff, which appears to be part of the memorial but is actually attached to the ship's superstructure. We need more information to determine what effect these links have on the memorial and the sunken ship.

Periodic assessment of the condition of the memorial pilings is needed. An initial inspection, conducted with the Naval Facilities Engineering Command for the NPS in 1987, suggests the pilings are structurally sound. There may be a need to develop a separate structure report and guide for the memorial, or include the memorial structure as part of the report and guide for the USS ARIZONA. Since the two structures are so different, it may make sense to deal with each separately. The guide prepared for the memorial would serve as a reference for programming routine and cyclic maintenance, including the boat dock, the pilings, and so on.

It is unclear what our role should be in the documentation and preservation of other Pearl Harbor-related cultural resources (USS UTAH, battleship row mooring quays, possible downed aircraft or sunken mini-sub). The identification and documentation of such resources would seem to be the minimally acceptable effort.

The park needs to immediately program for a research project for continuous monitoring of the condition of the sunken hull and superstructure. As soon as sufficient data are obtained, the preparation of a historic structures report should be undertaken and, assuming preservation is recommended, a preservation guide should follow.

<<< PREVIOUS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTINUE >>>