The Army Corps of Engineers published a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document to address public concerns. However, the FAQ contains direct falsehoods, misleading statements, and critical omissions when compared to their own 94-page project plan (the "F9b Plan"). Below, we set the record straight by comparing their public claims to the facts found in their own documents.
Is the project's legal basis still valid?
USACE Justification: The entire project is required by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to offset the "harm" to bird habitat caused by dredging.
The Facts: The project's legal foundation is crumbling. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS)—the very agency that mandated this project—has proposed a rule change to rescind the definition of "harm" that includes "habitat modification." The FWS now states this definition "runs contrary to the best meaning of the statutory term 'take'."
The bottom line: The federal government is actively removing the legal requirement for this project. Continuing this destructive plan under these circumstances is illogical and irresponsible.
Will herbicides be used on the beach?
FAQ Claim: "No, there will be no use of herbicides."
The Facts: The Army Corps has changed its mind in response to public opposition.
The F9b project plan repeatedly details a multi-year strategy to use chemical herbicides, including glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup). The plan states the project will:
Utilize a "combination of physical and chemical control agents," with chemical treatments applied via sprayer at a concentration of 10%. (See F9b Plan, pages 27, 30, 32, 36)
The Army Corps should disclose in its FAQ the fact that it has modified its plans to use herbicides in response to public opposition.
What kind of fencing will be installed?
FAQ Claim: The fencing is "symbolic" and "low-profile," using "posts/stakes and rope" that won't block access.
The Facts: The plan calls for a **permanent** barrier, not a symbolic one. According to the F9b project plan, the fencing is heavy-duty infrastructure designed to last for years:
"Proposed fencing will consist of 4x4 posts, or 5-inch diameter posts... set a minimum of 40 inches into the beach and... extend to a height of 36-42-inches above grade." (See F9b Plan, p. 37)
This is a permanent, 19-acre enclosure with an estimated service life of 6-10 years, designed to "curtail disturbance" and restrict public access.
What does "dune restoration" actually mean?
FAQ Claim: A gentle "enhancement" of habitat with "low-profile dunes ranging from 0.5 to 4 feet in height."
The Facts: This is not gentle enhancement; it is massive earth-moving. The F9b project plan calls for heavy equipment to conduct a "BACK DUNE LOWERING" operation:
The project will demolish established dunes "that are now 10 or more feet above the surrounding grade" and remove "approximately 15,000-25,000 cubic yards" of sand. (See F9b Plan, pages 33, 37)
This is a dune demolition and heavy construction project, not the subtle "restoration" described in the FAQ.
Is this project even necessary for the birds?
FAQ Claim: The project is needed to "support species affected by dredging" by providing "replacement nesting and foraging habitat."
The Facts: The Army Corps' own data in the F9b project plan shows the birds are already thriving in the current, dynamic environment.
- High Nesting Success: In 2023, the nesting plovers had a 100% nest hatch rate, far surpassing the historical average. (F9b Plan, p. 18)
- The "Dredging Paradox": The plan admits the current dredging cycle "sustains the character of dunes... most suited to supporting use by plover." (F9b Plan, p. 10)
The project seeks to "fix" a habitat that isn't broken by replacing a dynamic, successful environment with a static, artificial one.
Has the public been properly consulted?
FAQ Claim: The Corps is organizing a public outreach event "to discuss the plan."
The Facts: This is a sham consultation. The plan was finalized and submitted for regulatory approval years before any public meeting was even scheduled.
- The official project plan (F9b) is dated May 2024, and the Biological Opinion was issued years prior to that date.
- The public is being informed of a decision that has already been made, not consulted on a plan that is still in development.
- With only months to go before the project starts, the Army Corps still has not held a single public meeting to discuss the plan.
This reverses the proper order of operations and makes a mockery of genuine public engagement.
The solid red rectangles in the map above mark areas for possible further expansion of the project.
