BAP Workshop: SCAT & UAS

Ecology Rulemaking Team

Agenda

Meeting Purpose

This workshop focused on two BAP topic areas: Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Technique (SCAT) and Uncrewed Aerial Systems (UAS). The goal was to review current rule language, summarize BAP workgroup recommendations, and gather stakeholder input on how WAC 173-182 and WAC 173-186 can be updated to better incorporate these practices. The workshop included a recorded presentation followed by an unrecorded open discussion for each topic.

SCAT: Background & Current Rule Language

SCAT is a methodology for collecting shoreline oiling data and documenting shoreline cleanup recommendations. SCAT teams include representatives from unified command members (responsible party, federal, and state agencies) and require significant coordination. The BAP workgroup recommended incorporating SCAT into a broader Shoreline Response Program and establishing mobilization timelines.

SCAT: Workshop Discussion Themes

Several themes emerged during the open discussion on SCAT. Participants represented industry, government agencies, and environmental organizations.

• WAC vs. Area Plan: Participants discussed whether SCAT requirements are best placed in the WAC or in the area contingency plan. WAC 173-182-230 already requires contingency plans to refer to and be consistent with the NWACP, which contains shoreline countermeasures and SCAT guidance.
• Co-leadership model: Discussion reflected the existing operational model where trustee agencies (typically Ecology) lead or co-lead the environmental unit and SCAT operations, while industry provides resources, personnel, and contracted support.
• Named SCAT resources: Some participants suggested plan holders should identify SCAT coordination resources (coordinator, data manager) in their plans. Others noted that contracted SCAT expertise already exists and the question is ensuring it can be mobilized quickly.
• Mobilization timelines: The 96-hour plan in the NWACP suggests SCAT deployment around 10 hours. Participants discussed whether this timeline is appropriate or whether earlier mobilization should be considered.
• Avoiding overly prescriptive requirements: Several participants cautioned that shoreline cleanup varies significantly by location, shoreline type, and spill conditions. Prescriptive staffing or activity requirements in the WAC could reduce operational flexibility.
• SCAT vs. shoreline cleanup distinction: Participants noted the importance of distinguishing between SCAT teams (who assess and recommend) and shoreline cleanup crews (who execute). These are connected but distinct functions.

UAS: Background & Current Rule Language

Uncrewed Aerial Systems (drones) have become an effective tool in oil spill response but are not well reflected in current rule language. The BAP workgroup recommended writing rules around mission objectives rather than specific equipment so rules remain relevant as technology evolves.

UAS: Workshop Discussion Themes

The UAS discussion reached general consensus relatively quickly.

• No major rule changes needed: Participants broadly agreed that drones are already being deployed in responses without regulatory barriers. No one reported being prevented from using UAS because they are not specifically mentioned in the WAC.
• Capabilities over equipment: There was consensus that rule language should focus on what aerial surveillance needs to accomplish (outcomes and capabilities) rather than specifying particular aircraft types. This approach avoids limiting technology choices.
• Harmonize facility and vessel standards: Participants agreed that the facility aerial planning standard (182-320) should be brought into better alignment with the more detailed vessel standard (182-321), with a focus on consistent capability requirements.
• No need to mandate drones: Participants noted that drones are less expensive than helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft, making industry investment inevitable. Regulatory mandates are unnecessary for a technology that is already being widely adopted.
• Preserve flexibility: Language should not inadvertently create a drone-only approach. Helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft remain appropriate for certain situations, especially on the coast.

Draft Rule Language Timeline

Ecology indicated that draft rule language is expected to be available for informal stakeholder review in April or May 2026. A second draft is anticipated in summer 2026. This informal review period is distinct from the formal public comment period that occurs later in the rulemaking process and is intended to continue refining language before advancing to the next stage.

This is the first time Ecology has provided a concrete timeline for when stakeholders will see actual proposed rule text.

Area Plan Restructuring

During the discussion, it was noted that the Northwest Area Contingency Plan (NWACP) is being restructured. By approximately November 2026 — roughly concurrent with this rulemaking — the current NWACP will be replaced by a standalone regional contingency plan, a standalone inland area plan, and two standalone coastal area plans. This is relevant to the SCAT discussion because WAC 173-182-230 requires plan holders to write plans consistent with the NWACP. As the area plan framework changes, the WAC language referencing it may need to be updated accordingly.

Next Steps & WSMC Recommendation

Draft rule language is expected in April or May 2026. Ecology will continue to hold workshops and provide opportunities for informal comment before the formal rulemaking process advances.

• Review the draft rule language when Ecology makes it available and provide feedback during the informal review period
• Pay attention to how draft WAC language handles references to the area plan, given the upcoming NWACP restructuring into multiple standalone plans
• Consider how proposed SCAT language reflects operational reality, including the co-leadership model between agencies and industry
• Monitor for additional workshop announcements via the GovDelivery listserv and the Ecology rulemaking web page

Questions or comments can be sent to Ecology's rulemaking email address at any time: spillsrulemaking@ecy.wa.gov