An investigation by congressional auditors shows that few projects to reduce wildfire threats were delayed for any lengthy periods because of environmental challenges.

Environmental groups said the conclusion contradicts Bush administration members and Republicans, who are trying to speed up the approval process for forest projects and limit appeals.

"This latest GAO (General Accounting Office) report shows without a doubt that efforts to protect homes and communities from wildfire are not being hampered by the public appeals process," said Matthew Koehler with the Missoula-based Native Forest Network. "In truth, it's Congressman (Scott) McInnis and the Bush administration who are hampering home protection efforts with their radical plans to spend scarce resources increasing logging in America's national forests."

McInnis' (R-Colo.) "Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003" came before the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday, and is expected to be voted on by the full house next week. Like the Bush Administration's "Healthy Forests Initiative," McInnis' bill claims "analysis paralysis" in slowing the Forest Service's effort to thin forests to prevent the types of catastrophic wildfires that raced through the West in recent years.

Environmentalists say McInnis' bill is merely a guise to dramatically limit citizen participation and undermine key environmental laws in an effort to increase logging in America's national forests. They say it focuses efforts on logging forests instead of thinning areas near homes on the fringes of National Forests.

"McInnis' bill is a problem looking for a solution," said Chris Mehl with the Wilderness Society in Bozeman. "It's a bait and switch plan that he says will protect communities, but actually just provides more subsidies for the timber industry, instead of giving communities money to protect themselves."

The GAO found that of 762 projects, only 180 were appealed. And of those 180 projects, 142 were processed within the standard 90-day review period. The other appealed projects took longer than 90 days because of staff shortages, a backlog of appeals, or to give the parties time to negotiate a resolution.

Of the 180 appealed projects, 133 went ahead without change, 16 proceeded with some modifications, and 19 were blocked. Twelve others were withdrawn by the Forest Service.

Environmental groups noted that overall, the report shows that 95 percent of the 762 Forest Service fuels reduction projects were ready for implementation within the standard 90-day review period.

"This shows that wildfire prevention efforts aren't being stopped by environmentalists," Mehl said.

However, of the 762 projects, 60 percent n or 457 projects — were "categorical exclusions." These exclusions are only for small projects that have only minimal environmental impacts, and cannot be appealed, only litigated.

The exclusions allow the Forest Service to log dead or dying trees on up to 250 acres, or cut live trees on up to 50 acres, without creating lengthy environmental analysis or environmental impact documents. The exclusions also can be used for removing trees that pose a hazard to public safety, or to stop insect and disease infestations.

Congressional republicans noted that if you take away these categorical exclusions, 59 percent of the projects that could be appealed were challenged, delaying projects to treat 900,000 acres of forestland. They added that a 90-day delay can make the difference when the threat of wildfire is imminent.

"This finding is nothing short of appalling, especially when you think of the catastrophic losses suffered in last year's horrific fire season alone," said House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, R-Calif. "These were not only losses of forest, endangered species and wildlife habitat, they were losses of human life and family property."

Still, the report shows that about three-fourths of the 762 projects that were reviewed went ahead without any challenges, which allowed logging or controlled burns on 3.8 million acres of national forests.

The GAO report contradicts a Forest Service report last summer that said almost half of treatment projects were appealed. In the first report, environmental groups were blamed for the delays.

The new report also supports an independent study by the Northern Arizona University's Ecological Restoration Institute, which said that the appeals process is used by a wide range of groups, and appeals have been on a downward trend since peaking in 1998.

The GAO report noted that the Forest Service chief can go ahead with treatment despite appeals if the project is deemed an emergency. The Forest Service did not use the exemption in the two years studied.

The study also said that just 23 of the 762 projects were challenged in court — 3 percent of the overall number. McInnis' legislation includes direction to judges and deadlines the court must meet when it is considering challenges to forest thinning projects to prevent the cases from bogging down.

What the study didn't address was the length of time the Forest Service is taking to put together projects before they are presented to the public. In the Helena area, the in-depth study needed to ensure that a project will withstand an appeal has been blamed for the lengthy times it's taken to put forth some projects. But Forest Service officials also readily acknowledge that type of scrutiny can lead to better projects.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.