May 14, 2003 (Washington, DC) - For the second time in two years, a review by the General Accounting Office has demonstrated that public comment and appeals process do not hamper hazardous fuel reduction efforts. This new GAO report, which the agency is expected to release to Congress today, finds that the overwhelming majority of projects go forward in a timely manner, even when questions are raised by citizens, industry, recreation groups, conservationists or other interested parties.

The GAO found that more than 95 percent of the 762 hazardous fuels reduction projects reviewed by the GAO -- covering some 4.7 million acres of federal forest lands -- were ready for implementation within the standard 90 day review period [724 out of 762]. These findings severely undermine efforts by Rep. Scott McInnis (R-Colo.) and others to short-circuit the existing process for public input regarding hazardous fuel reduction efforts on U.S. Forest Service and BLM lands.

"The GAO report shows that the process worked," said Marty Hayden, Legislative Director for Earthjustice, the nation's largest non-profit environmental law firm. "The overwhelming majority of projects get the green light to proceed in 90 days or less."

Rep. McInnis has introduced a bill that would reduce the ability of the public and the courts to challenge illegal or misguided projects. The current GAO report is the third independent study to undermine the bill's fundamental premise that lengthy review and appeals are hamstringing the Forest Service's ability to conduct fuel reduction projects, joining another similarly damning GAO report from 2001, and a study from Northern Arizona University released in April 2003.

"For McInnis it's three strikes and you're out," said Michael Francis, Director of the National Forest Program at The Wilderness Society. "As the latest GAO report and earlier studies show, McInnis is attempting to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Appeals are not the problem."

The report includes no evidence to support the Forest Service's contention that fuel reduction efforts have been obstructed by conservationists. More than 97 percent of the 762 hazardous fuels reduction projects reviewed by the GAO were not challenged by a single lawsuit, the report shows. In all, just 23 projects were litigated in court.

"The McInnis bill really distracts us from the important work of reducing fire danger in the Community Protection Zone," said Sean Cosgrove of the Sierra Club. "His proposal would put communities in more danger -- not less."

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

The McInnis bill is being debated today by the House Judiciary Committee, and is expected to be before the full House next Tuesday.

"The GAO report shows that the McInnis bill is a red herring," said Nathaniel Lawrence, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Job number one is protecting homes and communities from fires. The McInnis bill is worse than a distraction. It's slowing agencies and officials by embroiling them in pointless controversy."

"The GAO report confirms that Representative McInnis and the Bush administration should stop trying to cut the public out of the process and start protecting communities at risk from forest fires," added Tiernan Sittenfeld, Conservation Advocate for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

"It is astonishing that Rep. McInnis and the Bush administration's so-called Healthy Forest Initiative continue to blatantly ignore the true facts from the GAO -- as well as fire science -- on how best to protect communities and lives from wildfires," said Randi Spivak, Executive Director of American Lands. "They are underestimating the public's ability to see through their transparent agenda that caters to the timber industry and increases risk to communities."