F OR P UBLICATION



### UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

N O R T H W E S T E N V I R O NM E N T A L D E F E N S E C E N T E R , an Oreg on nonprofit corporation,

Plaintiff-Appellant
,

A M E R I C A N F O R E S T & P A P E R A S S O C I A T I O N ; O R

E G O N F O R

E S T I N D U S T R Y C O U N C I L , Intervenors
,

v

.

D O U G D E C K

E R , Oreg o n State F orester, in his official capacity ; S T E P H E N H O B B S ; B A

R B A R A C R A I G ; D I A N E S N Y D E R ; L A R

R Y G I U S T I

N A ; W I L L I A M H E F F E R

N A N ; W I L L I A M H U T C H I S O N ; J E

N N I F E R P H I L L I P P I , (members of the Oreg on B oard of F orestry , in their official capacities); H A M P T O

N T R E E F A R M S , I N C ., an Oreg on domestic business corporation; S T I M S O

N L U M B E R C O M P A N Y , an Oreg on domestic business corporation; G E O R G I A

P A C I F I C W E S T I

N C ., an Oreg on domestic business corporation; N o. 07-35266

D.C. No. CV-06-01270- GMK

ORDERN O R T H W E S T E N V T L

. D E F

. C T R

. V

. D E C K E R 2

S W A N S O N G R O U P , I N C ., an Oreg on domestic business corporation; T I L L A M O O K C O U

N T Y , Defendants-Appellees

.

On Remand F rom The United States Supreme Court

F iled Aug ust 30, 2013

B efore: W illiam A. F letcher and Ray mond C. F isher, Circuit J udg es, and Charles R. B rey er, District J udg e. *

ORDER

I n Northwest Environmental D efense Cente r v. Brown
, 640 F. 3 d 1 0 63 (9th Cir. 2011), we reversed the decision o f the district court dismissing plaintiff’s suit broug ht under the Clean Water Act. W hile our decision was awaiting review b y the U nited St a t e s Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection Ag ency amended the rel e v a n t regulation. See Revisions to Stormwater Reg u lations, 77 F ed. Reg

. 72,970 (Dec. 7, 20 1 2 )

. The Supreme Court reversed our decision, which had been based on the p r e a m e ndment regulation. I t did not address the amended regu l a tion. T he Court held, “The preamendment version o f t h e I ndustrial Stormwater Rule, a s perm i s sibly construed by the ag ency , ex empts discharg es of channeled stormwater r unoff f r o m log g ing

* T h e Ho n o rab le Ch arles R. B rey er, District J u d g e f o r th e U.S. District Co urt f o r th e No rth ern District o f Calif o rn i a, sittin g b y

d esig n atio n

.N O R T H W E S T E N V T L

. D E F

. C T R

. V

. D E C K E R 3

roads from the NPDES permitting scheme.” D ecker v. Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr. , 133 S. Ct. 1326, 1338 (2013).

The Court left intact o u r h o lding that “when stormwater runoff is collected in a sy stem of ditches, culverts, a nd channels and is then d i s ch a r g ed into a stream or river, there is a ‘discernable, confined and discr e t e c onvey ance’ o f pollutants, and there is therefore a discharg e f rom a point source” within the meaning o f the Clean W ater Act’s basic definition of a point source in 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14). Brown
, 640 F .3d at 1070–71; s e e D e c ker
, 1 33 S. Ct. at 1338 (“[ T] here is no need to reach petitioners’ alternative argument that the c onvey ances in q uestion ar e not ‘pipe[ s]
, ditch[ es]
, channel[ s]
, tunnel[ s]
, conduit[ s] ,’ or a ny other ty

pe of point

source within the Act’s definition of the term. § 1362(14).” (some alterations in orig inal)); Misic v. Bldg. Serv. E m ps. Health & W

elfare Trust
, 789 F .2d 1374, 1379 (9th Cir. 1 986) (holding that when “[ t] he Supreme Cou r t reverse[ s] this court, but on other g rounds,” it leaves u n change d the law o f this circuit on issues not reached by the Court).

The Court r emanded f

or “ proceeding s consi s t e n t w i t h [i t s] opinion.” Decker
, 133 S. Ct. at 1338. W e vacate the decision of the district court and remand to that court for proceeding s consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.