Comment on FR Doc # N/A

I assume Secretary Burgum is at least supportive, if not directly ordering the reviews in question, so perhaps my remarks should be delivered directly to him as well. Will the Department of Interior be soliciting comments on what Americans think about current mineral withdrawal regulations, timber extraction projects and their associated continued taxpayer-funded road building, potential data center planning and siting, clean up of abandon mines, and what role the Department should be assuming in reducing the impacts of, say, climate change, on our federal lands? Ya know, just so y'all can get a better feel for how the rest of us think about this stuff" to guide consideration of potential changes? As a friend likes to say, I may have been born at night, but not last night. Requesting such open-ended comments divorced from any specificity should be seen for what it is -- the opposite of an objective effort to address legitimate concerns with a current policy, instead of an effort to drum up justifications for Secretary Burgum's interest in putting his finger prints all over policies he wants to change. For these reasons changes for Manuals 6340, 6330, and 6320, along your "Wilderness Administration and Resource Stewardship; Request for Information" and "Wilderness Stewardship Policy Review" need to be tabled until and unless such time as there's a honest and serious proposal to address something, anything, specific of at least reasonable concern. And at the risk of sounding sentimental, I'll suggest a better approach would be to lead off with a credible economic analysis of the costs and benefits to the American economy from retaining wilderness qualities across the programs you're seeking open-ended input on -- stacked up against specific changes you may wish to propose. Respectfully, Dave Colavito