Environmental organizations cheer decision
The federal government recently declined to appeal a U.S. District Court ruling that struck down a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit that would have permitted industrial aquaculture projects — also known as “fish farms” — in public ocean waters.
Nationwide Permit 56 did not apply to the Gulf, court documents make clear.
The decision followed shortly on the proverbial heels of the announcement that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had decided to issue a modified permit for an aquaculture facility that Hawaii-based Ocean Era plans to install in the Gulf about 40 miles off the Sarasota County coastline.
The outcome of the USACE case “is a major victory for a coalition of environmental organizations, Indigenous leaders, fishing communities, and public health advocates, led by Center for Food Safety (CFS),” the CFS announced in a May 27 news release.
“The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled in fall 2024 that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers unlawfully issued NWP 56, violating multiple environmental statutes and overstepping its authority,” the release continued. In a March 2025 decision, “the Court struck down the nationwide permit because of its legal infirmities,” the release added.
“This is not just a victory in court — it’s a victory for the idea our oceans are some of our last wild spaces and they deserve our protection,” said George Kimbrell, legal director at Center for Food Safety and lead counsel in the case, in the release. “We must learn the painful lessons of land-based confined animal feeding operations, not repeat them with ‘CAFOs [concentrated animal feeding operations] of the Sea,’ ” Kimbrell continued in the release. “The federal government lacks the authority to install an entire new aquaculture industry in our federal waters and with good reason: our oceans should not be caged.”
The release explained, “NWP 56 would have allowed industrial-scale finfish farming — floating net pens, cages, and other infrastructure — through a streamlined permitting process bypassing site-specific environmental review, endangered species protections, and public input.”
The release also noted that since the federal government “declined to appeal [the judge’s decision] before the June 16 deadline, the ruling becomes final precedent and cannot be overturned. The ruling also sets an important legal boundary: federal agencies cannot invent new authority to regulate or permit industrial aquaculture in U.S. waters — only Congress can.”
A Sarasota News Leader June 9 check of the docket in the records for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington found that the case formally was closed on March 17.
The USACE issued Nationwide Permit 56 eight months after President Donald Trump, in his first term, issued a May 2020 Executive Order that called for streamlining the permitting process for offshore aquaculture projects.
On Nov. 14, 2022, the environmental organizations filed their 92-page complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, in Seattle. Along with the Center for Food Safety, the plaintiffs were Food and Water Watch, Don’t Cage Our Oceans, Wild Fish Conservancy, Quinault Indian Nation, Los Angeles Waterkeeper, San Diego Coastkeeper, Santa Barbara Channelkeeper, Institute for Fisheries Resources, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, and Recirculating Farms Coalition. All of the parties were represented by the Center for Food Safety.
The news release from the Center for Food Safety included comments from James Mitchell, legislative director for Don’t Cage Our Oceans: “It’s refreshing when litigation can shut down backdoor, corner-cutting efforts to fast-track harmful forms of aquaculture against the will of American coastal communities.”
Mitchell added, “Instead of entertaining reckless efforts to advance harmful factory fish farms, we should instead focus on pathways to smart, sustainable fishing and aquaculture practices that actually benefit people who depend on the ocean. That kind of vision excites our members, who care deeply about clean waters, healthy seafood, and community-led decision making.”
Tyler Lobdell, staff attorney at Food & Water Watch, also was quoted in the release: “We are relieved that the court’s decision striking down the Army Corps’ misguided nationwide permit is final and settled.” He continued, “Our oceans are no place for harmful aquaculture practices — essentially factory farms at sea that pollute water and harm native ecosystems.”
A failure to comply with procedural safeguards
As the News Leader has reported, in a September 2024 partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, U.S. District Judge Kymberly K. Evanson explained that her review of Nationwide Permit 56 indicated that the USACE issued it “without fully complying with the procedural safeguards imposed by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).”
Evanson pointed out, “[T]o determine which projects are suitable for authorization on a general level via a nationwide permit, the Corps’ chief of engineers must conduct a predictive environmental analysis at the national level to determine whether the category of activities authorized by a proposed permit will be ‘substantially similar in nature and cause only minimal individual or cumulative environmental impacts’ over the permit’s five-year duration.” She cited the Code of Federal Regulations as her source for that information.
She further noted, “A determination that a proposed project will have ‘minimal impacts’ must comply with the Corps’ regulations, which require the Corps to consider certain public interest factors.” Again, she cited the Code of Federal Regulations. “The public interest review process also addresses mitigation measures needed to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for resource losses resulting from authorized projects,” she added.
Moreover, Evanson wrote, NEPA “requires federal agencies, including the Corps, ‘to analyze the environmental impacts of their proposals and actions.’ ” She was quoting a 2019 decision in another case in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Coal. To Protect Puget Sound Habitat v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
“Federal agencies must first complete an EA [environmental assessment] of their proposed actions,” Evanson continued. “If they cannot state in an EA that their proposed action will not have significant effects then they must go on to prepare a more detailed, comprehensive EIS [environmental impact statement].”
In a “decision document” that provided details of its “Impact Analysis” for NWP 56, Evanson wrote, the Corps acknowledged that “ ‘there will be environmental impacts’ ” caused by the operations of the finfish mariculture facilities authorized under the permit. Among those, she wrote, would be “the cultivation of non-native species at these facilities; the application of antibiotics, therapeutics, pesticides, and other chemicals; the release of unconsumed finfish food into the surrounding waters; and the release of waste products, such as finfish feces and urine, into the surrounding waters.”
“Although in this case, the Corps contends that it did not ignore the impact of aquaculture operations when conducting its environmental review because it referenced those impacts throughout the EA,” Evanson pointed out, “the Court is not convinced that simply disclosing the impacts is sufficient. A list of potential adverse impacts does not necessarily support the Corps’ conclusion that those impacts are nonetheless minimal.”