30 U.S.C. § 526 — Mining and Leasing Act operations

(a) Multiple use

When the same lands are being used for “mining operations” and “Leasing Act operations,” each operation must, as far as reasonably practicable, be conducted in a way that is compatible with this multiple use.

(b) Mining operations to avoid damage to mineral deposits and interference with mineral operations

Any “mining operations” carried out under rights granted by an unpatented or patented mining claim or millsite that is subject to a reservation to the United States of “Leasing Act minerals,” as provided in this chapter, must, as far as reasonably practicable, be conducted in a way that avoids damage to any known deposit of any “Leasing Act mineral.” Subject to subsection (d), the mining operations must also be conducted so that they do not endanger or materially interfere with any existing surface or underground improvements, workings, or facilities that may have been made for the purpose of “Leasing Act operations,” or with the use of those improvements, workings, or facilities.

(c) Leasing Act operations to avoid damage to mineral deposits and interference with mining operations

Any “Leasing Act operations” on lands covered by an unpatented or patented mining claim or millsite that is subject to a reservation to the United States of “Leasing Act minerals,” as provided in this chapter, must, as far as reasonably practicable, be conducted in a way that avoids damage to any known deposit of any mineral that was not reserved from that mining claim or millsite. Subject to subsection (d), the Leasing Act operations must also be conducted so that they do not endanger or materially interfere with any existing surface or underground improvements, workings, or facilities that may have been made for the purpose of “mining operations,” or with the use of those improvements, workings, or facilities.

(d) Damage or interference permitted by court

If the mining operator or the Leasing Act operator petitions a court with proper jurisdiction, and the court finds both of the following, the court may allow a particular use connected with one of the operations:

(1) The particular use cannot be reasonably and properly carried out without endangering or materially interfering with the other operation’s then-existing improvements, workings, or facilities, or with their use.

(2) Under the conditions and circumstances as they then appear, denying the particular use would cause more injury or damage than allowing it would cause to those then-existing improvements, workings, or facilities, or from interference with their use.

The court may allow the use only if the party or parties who would be injured or damaged are paid fair compensation. Instead of payment, the court may accept security that it finds adequate to ensure payment. The court must set the amount of compensation. It must be fair compensation for the injury or damage that could reasonably be expected at that time to result to the then-existing improvements, workings, or facilities, or from interference with their use, because the particular use was allowed.

(e) Information regarding operations to be furnished on request

When the same lands are being used for “mining operations” and “Leasing Act operations,” either party may ask the party conducting the other operation for information about the location, or “situs,” of improvements, workings, or facilities previously made on the lands. The party asked must provide copies of any such information it has, at the requesting party’s expense.

After a similar request, the party asked must also allow the requesting party, at the requesting party’s risk, to access those improvements, workings, or facilities at reasonable times for the purpose of surveying and checking them or determining their “situs.”

If a party’s failure, after a request, to provide the information, or that party’s denial of access, causes damage to or material interference with that party’s improvements, workings, or facilities, or with their use, the failure or denial releases the requesting party from liability for the damage or interference that resulted because of that failure or denial.

A party’s failure to provide requested information or access does not make that party liable to the requesting party for anything other than court costs and attorney’s fees that a court may allow the requesting party when enforcing these information and access duties through a court action.

A party’s duty to provide requested information under this section is limited to map and survey information then available to that party about the “situs” of improvements, workings, and facilities. Providing that information is not a representation that the information is accurate. This section does not define “mining operations,” “Leasing Act operations,” “Leasing Act minerals,” “mining claim,” “millsite,” or “situs.”