NOAA fisheries staff on March 19 gave the CPRA board a technical update on the Raccoon Island Engineering Design Restoration Project, which NOAA said “has come about as a direct result of injuries caused to natural resources from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.” Patrick Williams, marine habitat resource specialist with the NOAA Restoration Center, led the presentation and described a multi-alternative design evaluation now entering 30% design.

NOAA and its contractors evaluated two principal sand sources for Raccoon Island: Ship Shoal Block 88, about nine miles south of the island, and Raccoon Point Shoal, a nearshore deposit roughly a half-mile offshore. The design team told the board Raccoon Point Shoal is preferred by CPRA because it better aligns with the Louisiana sediment management plan and is far less expensive to pump; NOAA estimated pumping from Ship Shoal would add roughly $30–$35 million to project costs versus the closer bar.

Williams described five alternatives (no action plus four restoration options). All restoration alternatives include sand filling (beach, dune, back-barrier marsh and nesting mounds) and maintenance of the existing gulf-side breakwater field. Alternatives differ on bayside treatment: one alternative adds a low-overflow "living shoreline," another uses a more emergent rock rubble-mound structure, and another adds gulf-side rock breakers to address an eastern-end gap. At the reconnaissance level, the team reported that every restoration alternative produced more acreage over a 20-year model run than the no-action scenario and substantially increased beach, dune and back-barrier marsh habitat.

On costs, the presentation cited an upper-bound construction estimate of about $130 million for the most robust alternative (including bayside rock and Ship Shoal mining). The team said the heavier alternatives that include bayside rock increase cost by roughly $25–$34 million compared with sand-only approaches; they emphasized all numbers were preliminary recon-level estimates and would be refined in 30% and later design phases.

NOAA said data acquisition for the 30% design phase is nearly complete and that it expects to finish 60% design in 2025. After a 30% design review the team will screen to a single preferred alternative and proceed through 60–95% design while preparing a restoration plan and environmental assessment for public review and a future Louisiana Trustee Implementation Group construction funding request.

Board members asked technical questions during and after the presentation. Representative Zorang asked whether restoration might try to “capture” the historical east-to-west sand migration by extending the island; Williams said budget and sediment limitations make a full re-creation of the historic spit unlikely but that bay-side features in the proposed alternatives are being evaluated to maximize sand retention. Another board member asked whether narrowing gaps in the existing breakwater field could slow sand loss; NOAA’s team said breakwater spacing, offshore distance and toe-depth interactions are part of the design trade-offs and that additional breakwater features are being considered on the eastern end to improve retention.

NOAA requested continued cooperation from CPRA and other co-implementing agencies as the design advances and said a public review process will follow the 60–95% design work.