C.F.R. » Title 43 » PART 7—PROTECTION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES › Subpart A—Uniform Regulations

43 C.F.R. § 7.14

Determination of archaeological or commercial value and cost of restoration and repair

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Archaeological value. For purposes of this part, the archaeological value of any archaeological resource involved in a violation of the prohibitions in § 7.4 of this part or conditions of a permit issued pursuant to this part shall be the value of the information associated with the archaeological resource. This value shall be appraised in terms of the costs of the retrieval of the scientific information which would have been obtainable prior to the violation. These costs may include, but need not be limited to, the cost of preparing a research design, conducting field work, carrying out laboratory analysis, and preparing reports as would be necessary to realize the information potential.

(b) Commercial value. For purposes of this part, the commercial value of any archaeological resource involved in a violation of the prohibitions in § 7.4 of this part or conditions of a permit issued pursuant to this part shall be its fair market value. Where the violation has resulted in damage to the archaeological resource, the fair market value should be determined using the condition of the archaeological resource prior to the violation, to the extent that its prior condition can be ascertained.

(c) Cost of restoration and repair. For purposes of this part, the cost of restoration and repair of archaeological resources damaged as a result of a violation of prohibitions or conditions pursuant to this part, shall be the sum of the costs already incurred for emergency restoration or repair work, plus those costs projected to be necessary to complete restoration and repair, which may include, but need not be limited to, the costs of the following:

(1) Reconstruction of the archaeological resource;

(2) Stabilization of the archaeological resource;

(3) Ground contour reconstruction and surface stabilization;

(4) Research necessary to carry out reconstruction or stabilization;

(5) Physical barriers or other protective devices, necessitated by the disturbance of the archaeological resource, to protect it from further disturbance;

(6) Examination and analysis of the archaeological resource including recording remaining archaeological information, where necessitated by disturbance, in order to salvage remaining values which cannot be otherwise conserved;

(7) Reinterment of human remains in accordance with religious custom and State, local, or tribal law, where appropriate, as determined by the Federal land manager.

(8) Preparation of reports relating to any of the above activities.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1997–2017 · leading case: United States v. Earl K. Shumway, 112 F.3d 1413 (10th Cir. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Earl K. Shumway, 112 F.3d 1413 (10th Cir. 1997). · cites it 7× “§ 470ii; 43 C.F.R. § 7.14 . Section 470ee of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the statute under which Mr.”
United States v. Quarrell, 310 F.3d 664 (10th Cir. 2002). · cites it 3× “The regulation governing this section is 43 C.F.R. § 7.14 , which is the regulation the district court turned to in Shumway .”
United States v. Wells, 873 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “3d at 679 (emphasis added) (quoting 43 C.F.R. § 7.14 (a)). Thus, “archaeological value,” rather than constituting a measure of actual loss, “is an effort to go back in time before the violation occurred and estimate what it would have cost the United States to engage in a…”
United States v. Hunter, 48 F. Supp. 2d 1283 (D. Utah 1998). · cites it 2× “” 43 C.F.R. § 7.14 (a) (1997). This intangible value “shall be appraised in terms of the costs of the retrieval of the scientific information which would have been obtainable prior to the violation.”
United States v. John Ligon, United States of Am. v. Carroll Mizell, AKA Cal Smith, 440 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2006). “14 (a); 43 C.F.R. § 7.14 (a) (emphasis added). “Archaeological value” is based on an analysis that “go[es] back in time before the violation occurred and estimate^] what it would have cost the United States to engage in a full-blown archaeological dig at the site” in order to…”
United States v. Shumway (10th Cir. 1997). · cites it 5× “§ 470ii ; 43 C.F.R. § 7.14 . Section 470ee of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the statute under which Mr.”
United States v. Ligon (9th Cir. 2006). “14 (a); 43 C.F.R. § 7.14 (a) (emphasis added). “Archaeo- logical value” is based on an analysis that “go[es] back in time before the violation occurred and estimate[s] what it would have cost the United States to engage in a full-blown archaeological dig at the site” in order to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.