The Megram Fire burned over 125,000 acres on two National Forests in northern California (Six Rivers and Shasta-Trinity) during the summer of 1999. Within a period of 73 days this fire burned through parts of a wilderness area, a Late Successional Reserve, a Roadless Area, a Research Natural Area, an Indian Reservation, various Riparian Reserves, several plantations, along with general Forest land. More than 100 miles of fireline were constructed within the fire area. Adjacent community structures were not directly impacted, but smoke impacts were severe enough for both a state and federal state of emergency to be declared. The resulting overstory mortality varied across the landscape from minor damage in previously treated shaded fuelbreaks to complete mortality in-areas that had extensive blowdown from a windstorm that occurred over the winter of 1995-96. In several areas complete mortality stretches for miles across the landscape. Now that the smoke has cleared, both short-term and long-term fuel treatment needs are evident across the affected watersheds. In the short-term, residual fuel from fireline construction and hazard trees along roads present the greatest fuel and safety hazard. In the long-term, the standing dead component presents the greatest fuels hazard, especially when interspersed with a tremendous ingrowth of shrubs and grasses over the next 3-12 years. Opportunities for fuel treatments abound, but questions of priorities, environmental conflicts, cooperative ventures, research possibilities, and implementation restrictions and mitigations can make the process a daunting task. For the Six Rivers National Forest portion of the fire, overall management guidance exists in already completed documents, including the Land and Resource Management Plan (1995), a Late Successional Reserve Assessment (1999), and two Watershed Analyses (Red Cap [1995] and Horse Linto, Mill, and Tish Tang [2000]). In addition, process considerations also need to include scheduling conflicts, tie-ins with previously treated stands, public input, and overlap with other non-fuel treatment projects. This paper presents a methodical process that moves us from these general guidance documents to potential landscape-level fuel treatment projects that can be further evaluated in environmental documents.