Dear Bureau of Land Management,

I strongly oppose the preferred alternative- alternative 2.  I do support the current plan (i.e. the "no action" alternative).

I have read through the summary of WOPR and sections regarding the alternatives proposed.  I have also walked through areas that would become TMA sites which contain old growth forest.  

My main objections to the alternatives are:

1. Surely, there is no reason to still clearcut our barely remaining old growth forest.  From my walks, there is clearly plenty of second growth that needs thinning and management.  For true sustainability in the long term, both ecologically and economically, clear cuts are not the best way to go.

2. The shrinking of riparian zones down to 25 feet is guaranteed to have impacts on erosion and fish habitat.  

Please consider a long term approach to management OUR public lands.  

Sunia Yang
6970 NW Cabernet Place
Corvallis, Oregon