The use of prescribed fire to achieve measurable objectives and to reduce fuel loading would result in beneficial impacts to fire and fuels management. Conversely, restricting the use of prescribed fire would result in primarily adverse impacts to fire and fuels management, such as the ability to reduce fuel loads. Limiting the use of prescribed fire may affect the ability of the fire and fuels program to meet fire management goals. Alternative B would restrict the use of prescribed fire the most, followed by alternatives D, A, and C respectively. Alternative C would result in the greatest beneficial impacts to fire and fuels management compared to the other alternatives. Alternative C would impose the fewest restrictions on the use of prescribed fire, resulting in the application of prescribed fire on a projected 80,000 acres over the life of the plan, twice as many acres of disturbance as alternatives A and D, and four times as many as Alternative B. Alternative D also emphasizes the use of prescribed fire to meet resource management objectives, but applies greater restrictions on its use compared to Alternative C.