In article .com,
wrote:

"In Friday's mapping, total protected river miles amount to one-fifth
the amount protected under a set of "critical habitat" rules issued in
2000."

Yep JD I read that but then I look at the other stats in the article

"Out of 23,630 Northwest stream miles occupied by threatened and
endangered stocks, the agency excluded 2,817 stream miles -- an increase
of nearly 400 miles over the area proposed for exclusion last year."

and

In Washington, private landowners gained exemptions for 381 stream miles
by signing habitat conservation plans, binding legal agreements to
protect streams through a variety of land use practices such as leaving
buffer zones of trees and vegetation.

and notes like this

Lohn said that exclusions were based first on the importance of habitat
for salmon. He said the agency only excluded streams with low
"biological value," such as those running through urbanized areas and
altered by dredging, channelization, erosion and pollution.

and I look at the whole picture and I'm just not convinced this is a
doomsday scenario but something that may well allow effort to be
expended where it matters. If we can get agreements with landowners to
plant riparian boundaries and such I'd rather see it than just blanket
federal rules for tens of thousands of miles or acres with no analysis
of where efforts can make a difference and one's of over regualation. In
the case of the Chesapeake (my local big body after my move east) we
would be far better of working with the chicken farmers on the eastern
shore to figure out how to create better borders for the farms, reduce
nitrogen fertilizer use and provide economic incentive to plant those
borders than to simply plop a federal regulation in. Just my 2 cents.

Allen

For all you that just assume the Administration is evil anyway, this
might be helpful http://www.buttafly.com/bush/index.php