Are you referring to inundated archaeological sites that would have been above the tide line when in use; or are you referring to sites that wold have been in the intertidal zone or what? If the former, then the viewpoint would be to whether the retain integrity and/or whether integrity can be discerned. A deflated site has less value (OK, hit on this) than a site that is inter-tidal in that there is a limited time period when it would be available for use.

But, if you're looking at riverine transport site such as docks, wharves and the like, then the comparative norm is how they relate to their simulacrums. If there is a database to compare the with, fine, but if not, then they're isolates and difficult to assess. If the latter, I would suggest hiring a bassboat with a good fish-finder rig that can record to a downloadable medium to see if yours if one of one, or one of hundreds.

Lyle Browning, RPA


On Nov 6, 2012, at 6:12 PM, Alicia Valentino wrote:

> We're doing NRHP evaluations of underwater historic archaeological sites
> (not shipwrecks) and are looking for examples of how the Section 106
> guidelines have been applied on other underwater sites--particularly in
> terms of debris scatters.
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> Alicia Valentino
> 
> SWCA, Environmental Consultants