Dec. 30 (Bloomberg) -- California Attorney General Jerry Brown sued the Bush administration over claims it implemented new regulations dropping required scientific reviews of federal agency policies that may hurt endangered and threatened species.

Brown sued yesterday in federal court in San Francisco claiming the new regulations, proposed by the U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Commerce and approved Dec. 16, conflict with provisions of the Endangered Species Act, according to an e-mailed statement Brown sent today.

The rules allow federal agencies to pursue or permit mining and logging on federal land without review or comment of scientists on what effects the activities may have on endangered or threatened species and their habitats, Brown said in the statement. The regulations also drop a requirement that proposed federal projects measure greenhouse gas emissions, Brown said.

“The Bush administration is seeking to gut the Endangered Species Act on its way out the door,” Brown said. The regulations “circumvent a time-tested statute that for 35 years has required scientific review of proposed federal agency decisions that affect wildlife.”

Tina Kreisher, a spokeswoman for the Interior Department, said the agency doesn’t comment on pending lawsuits.

Independent of Brown’s suit, Kreisher said, the Endangered Species Act is a law that can only be modified by Congress. The new Interior Department regulations are, she said, a “roadmap for federal agencies on when they might be able to interrupt the consultation process” for new projects.

‘Off-Ramp’

There’s an “off-ramp” for such projects, which normally involve 10 to 20 steps, including comments from scientists, when the project meets one of any four requirements, Kreisher said.

Those requirements are: if the project doesn’t harm any endangered or threatened species; when the project is “entirely beneficial” to the species in question; if the project involves “global climate processes”; and if the impact on the environment is too small to be effectively measured.

Any project claiming the third exemption of global climate processes, Kreisher said, still falls under the Endangered Species Act and is subject to criminal and civil penalties if it is proven the climate changes directly harm nearby species or habitats.

“We’re saying in the global situation, when there’s nothing on the ground affecting a species in that area, but when it adds to global climate change in the atmosphere, is that a reason to go into formal consultation?” Kreisher said. “No it is not.”

Emily Lawrimore, a Commerce Department spokeswoman, didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment.

The case is California v. U.S. Department of the Interior, C08-5775, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).

To contact the reporter on this story: Joel Rosenblatt in San Francisco at jrosenblatt@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: December 30, 2008 17:28 EST