APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
29a<br />
The core of the EPA and Forest Service argument<br />
was that “pest ... control” was one of the activities<br />
listed in the Silvicultural Rule as not constituting<br />
a point source discharge. We wrote:<br />
The Forest Service’s argument fails because<br />
the statute itself is clear and unambiguous.<br />
The statutory definition of point source, “any<br />
discernible, confined and discrete conveyance,<br />
including but not limited to any ...<br />
vessel,” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14), clearly encompasses<br />
an aircraft equipped with tanks<br />
spraying pesticide from mechanical sprayers<br />
directly over covered waters. The Forest Service<br />
cannot contravene the will of Congress<br />
through its reading of administrative regulations.<br />
Forsgren, 309 F.3d at 1185–86.<br />
We pointed out that the Rule characterized a<br />
pest control discharge as nonpoint only when it was<br />
“silvicultural pest control from which there is natural<br />
runoff.” Id. Dat 1186 (emphasis in original). If pest<br />
control activity resulted in natural runoff, that runoff<br />
was not a point source discharge under<br />
§ 502(14). But it was undisputed in Forsgren that<br />
aerial spraying of pesticide into streams was not<br />
“natural runoff.” We had no occasion to rule on, and<br />
did not discuss, whether silvicultural activities from<br />
which there is natural runoff that is channeled, controlled,<br />
and discharged through a “discernible, confined<br />
and discrete conveyance” is a point source under<br />
§ 502(14).<br />
We emphatically “reject[ed] the Forest Service’s<br />
argument that the EPA has the authority to ‘refine’<br />
the definitions of point source and nonpoint source