## Facts

- NMFS issued 2002 annual catch limits for four Pacific groundfish species commonly marketed as “red snapper.”
- One species, darkblotched rockfish, was designated “overfished” and required a statutory rebuilding plan.
- NRDC and Oceana sued, alleging the 2002 limits violated the Magnuson–Stevens Act (as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act), the APA, and NEPA.
- The dispute centered on 16 U.S.C. § 1854(e)(4), which requires a rebuilding period “as short as possible” and generally no longer than 10 years unless biology, environmental conditions, or international measures dictate otherwise.
- The district court granted summary judgment for NMFS and fishing-industry intervenors.

## Issues

1. Whether NMFS permissibly construed 16 U.S.C. § 1854(e)(4) when setting the 2002 harvest limit and rebuilding approach for darkblotched rockfish.
2. Whether the darkblotched rockfish limit was “not in accordance with law” under the APA because it rested on an impermissible statutory construction.
3. Whether the 2002 limits for the other three species and NMFS’s environmental review complied with the Magnuson–Stevens Act and NEPA.

## Decision

- Reversed and remanded as to the 2002 darkblotched rockfish limit.
- Affirmed as to the 2002 limits for the other three “red snapper” species.
- Held the darkblotched rockfish limit rested on an impermissible construction of § 1854(e)(4) and therefore was unlawful under the APA.
- Rejected remaining challenges, including NEPA claims, as they related to the other three species.

## Legal Principles

- Under § 1854(e)(4), rebuilding plans must set a rebuilding period that is “as short as possible,” with a default maximum of 10 years unless specified statutory conditions dictate otherwise.
- Even when the 10-year maximum cannot be met due to the statutory exceptions, the “as short as possible” requirement remains operative and constrains the rebuilding period.
- NMFS may consider economic impacts in selecting management measures, but it may not set or extend the rebuilding timetable in a way that drains the “as short as possible” command of effect.
- Agency action based on an impermissible construction of the Magnuson–Stevens Act is “not in accordance with law” and must be set aside under the APA.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that NMFS violated the Magnuson–Stevens Act and the APA by setting the 2002 darkblotched rockfish limit using a rebuilding approach that failed to give controlling effect to the requirement that rebuilding occur “as short as possible,” while upholding NMFS’s 2002 limits and environmental review for the other three species.


Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 421 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2005)