On the recordDecember 2, 2015
Just to finish this, I would say that this is an unnecessary amendment because there are already two, if not three, different times that the notice to the surface owner already takes place: once to the public at large, twice to the surface owner in particular. Secondly, this is poorly written. I am afraid that it does not just refer strictly to Federal lands that the BLM controls, but this could apply to tribal lands and private lands. So it makes a mess in that regard. And, thirdly, it goes 1 mile away. The current law does refer to the surface owner and accomplishes the things that the proponent of the amendment wants to accomplish, so it is unnecessary. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
