8.0 Conclusions
Of the seven targets identified in the remote sensing surveys as being potential cultural resources, five were eliminated as being potentially eligible for nomination to the National Register based on the analysis conducted on the remote sensing data sets. The targets tentatively identified as equipment associated with the 1985 drilling activity on Arch Rock (Arch-1), the length of cable (Harding-1), the sunken buoy (Harding 2), the small debris field (Blossom-2), and the small anchor and chain (Blossom-3) were each judged to be incapable of meeting one or more of the criteria of eligibility for nomination. The two remaining targets, Arch-2 and Blossom-1 are discussed below.
Target Arch-2 (anchor
and chain)
As a maritime cultural resource, the potential significance of an anchor is extremely difficult to determine, particularly on the basis of remote sensing data alone. Although changes in design and materials occurred over time, they happened very slowly, so a formal analysis of an anchor is of questionable value when attempting to determine its significance potential on a temporal basis. In this instance, the anchor’s archaeological provenience is probably more telling. If the target is, in fact, an anchor, it appears to be lying directly on top of the remains of Arch Rock, and therefore was probably lost there sometime after 1932 when the rock was last blown up. Consequently, it is unlikely that the anchor would be able to meet any of the four criteria of significance necessary for the resource to be eligible for listing in the National Register. Given the numerous anchors that apparently lie scattered around the rock (see Davis above), it would not be possible to ascertain whether this particular anchor in any way contributed to the broad patterns of our history (criterion a) or was associated with the lives of persons significant in our past (criterion b). As mentioned, given the generally uniform formal characteristics of anchors, particularly those of the 19th and 20th centuries, it is highly unlikely that this particular anchor embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction (criterion c), nor is it likely to yield information important to history or prehistory (criterion d). Consequently, as a maritime resource, target Arch-2, should it prove to be an anchor, would not appear to meet the criteria of eligibility for the National Register and need not be considered further.
Blossom-1 (barge)
To date, it has not been possible to identify the cultural feature that appears to be the remains of a sunken barge. It would appear from the relative sizes of the feature itself (125 x 30 feet) and the magnetic anomaly [(-)110/+60 gammas] that the barge is made of wood, with either metal fittings, or attached metal equipment. Despite rigorous efforts to identify the barge, its name has not been found and consequently it has proven difficult to obtain any information about its nature or the circumstances that sent it to the bottom, adjacent to Blossom Rock.
There are no records of the barge in either the California State Lands Commission Shipwreck Database, or in the archives of the J. Porter Shaw Maritime Library of the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has no record of the barge, other than an indication that the 12th Coast Guard District (San Francisco) reported it for inclusion in NOAA’s Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System (AWOIS) on November 6, 1986. In 1987, the 11th Coast Guard District absorbed the 12th Coast Guard District, and the records of the latter that are still available have provided no information about the barge. Neither the San Francisco Port Authority nor the San Francisco Bar Pilots Association has any record of the barge.
In the opinion of the Mr. Stephen Verry, Cartographer for the Hydrographic Survey Division of NOAA, it is reasonable to presume that, since the Coast Guard reported the barge as an obstruction on November 6, 1986, it did not sink much before that date (2001, pers. comm.). With that assumption in mind, WSA considers it unlikely that the barge would be able to meet any of the four criteria of significance necessary for it to be eligible for listing in the National Register.
Although the Coast Guard 11th District is still attempting to identify the vessel from the archives of the 12th District, in the absence of such concrete information or the assessment obtained by a diving investigation, it is not possible at this time to determine whether the barge is potentially significant. However, if the barge did sink in or about 1986, some tentative assumptions can be made.
Barges are somewhat pedestrian conveyances and, should this one prove to be of recent vintage, it is doubtful that it could in any way contribute to the broad patterns of our history (criterion a). Without an identity, it is not possible to determine whether it was associated with the lives of persons significant in our past (criterion b), although its probable modern-day utilization would likely preclude that. Given the generally uniform formal characteristics of barges, it is also unlikely that this particular barge embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction (criterion c), nor is it likely to yield information important to history or prehistory (criterion d).
Based on the research conducted to date, it does not appear that the data necessary to make a substantive determination of the barge’s potential to meet the criteria of eligibility will be forthcoming. In the absence of such data and in considering these assumptions, WSA considers it unlikely that the barge could meet the criteria of eligibility for the National Register.