The new guidance comes after decision made by Supreme Court last year, which identifies the wetlands, streams, rivers that subject to Clean Water Act. But environmental bodies are highly criticizing the decision for no clearly specifying the waters subject to EPA and Army Corps protection.

According to the new guidance non-navigable waters, streams, wetlands are under protection of EPA and Army Corps, and non-permanent waters, wetlands are under protection only if there is a "significant nexus" between the uneven stream and a traditional waterway and will be treated on case-by-case basis.

"We are committed to protecting America's aquatic resources under the Clean Water Act and in accordance with the recent Supreme Court decision," said John Paul Woodley Jr., assistant secretary of Army Corps. "This interagency guidance will enable the agencies to make clear, consistent and predictable jurisdictional determinations. The results, once posted on agency Web sites, will document how the scope of the Clean Water Act jurisdiction is being determined."

Bush Administration welcomed the new guidance. President's Administration wetlands policy has three key elements: policy of no net loss of wetlands, the program of restoration, enhancement, protection of 3 million acres of wetlands, conservation of isolated wetlands such as prairie potholes.

"The Bush Administration is committed to protecting wetlands and streams under the Clean Water Act and Supreme Court decisions," said Benjamin H. Grumbles, EPA's assistant administrator for Water. "We'll use our regulatory tools to meet the president's ambitious wetlands goals."

But the new guidance is not welcomed by environmental organizations. They say that the new guidance isolates single streams when making decisions about entire wetlands. This means that a single stream has a very little probability to adverse a large river. But scientists can prove that even a single headwater stream can have a bad impact on a large water body.

"We're really disappointed with the new guidelines," said Julie Sibbing, senior program manager for wetlands and agriculture policy for the National Wildlife Federation. "The court decision itself left some opening for interpretation, but it seems like the Bush administration took every opportunity to retreat from protection in any possible way they could, and we think they retreated unacceptably, even according to what the Rapanos decision said."

The critics also say that the new guidance ignores a combination of several streams, which can be dangerous for environment. For example, hypoxia, which is a environmental condition when wetlands lose dissolved oxygen and can lead to death of entire fish population. Only one stream can not bring hypoxia to a large water body, but a combination of several streams can be damaging for environment.

"The Administration's so-called guidance has done little to unmuddy the water," said Bob Perciasepe, COO for Audubon. "The only real solution is legislation. A perfect storm of government ambivalence, aggressive polluter activism and a split Supreme Court have subverted the original intent of the Clean Water Act and make it vital that Congress fix the problem." By Ruzan Harutyunyan for HULIQ