Forest fuel management: a spatial decision-support system developed by Rocky Mountain Research Station provides forest managers with the tools to effectively remove a build-up of fuels while adhering to principles of ecological multiple-use forest management and responding to public interests. Twentieth-century forest management practices of fire exclusion have caused a build-up of forest fuels that, combined with current weather patterns, threaten the ecological health of the Colorado Front Range. The year 2002 clearly demonstrated the potential for catastrophic wildfire in the area. During that year's fire season, the Hayman fire moved across 138,000 acres of the Pike National Forest, located south and west of Denver. The South Platte River watershed coincides with much of the Pike National Forest, and the urban and suburban populations of Denver - currently in an apparently deteriorating drought situation - are dependent on the South Platte watershed for their water supply. The Hayman and other wildfires in recent history put the forest's health and water quality in jeopardy. Of course, the Pike National Forest is not alone in being confronted with these difficult circumstances. In recent years, forest health as it affects the occurrence of catastrophic fire has become a well-publicized, central issue for forest-management decisions across the United States. And, although the remedy for the buildup of forest fuels may seem straightforward, forest managers may not have the proper planning tools to effectively remove fuels while adhering to wider principles of ecological multiple-use forest management, responding to public interests, working within budget, and planning transportation. In reducing fuels, several issues must be considered, including minimizing insects and disease, mitigating any sedimentation or smoke produced by forest treatment activities, reducing road density, and managing wildlife habitat. In meeting these objectives several questions must be addressed: Is it possible to determine locations that would most effectively lessen the risk of stand-replacing fire? Are treatments in those locations consistent with other objectives? Can costs be offset by incidental biomass or other utilization?