The Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (FSEC) told the House Environment & Energy Committee that its non-project programmatic environmental impact statement for high-voltage transmission (nominal voltage 230 kV and greater) will be finalized and issued in early October and is designed to provide a consistent statewide framework for transmission siting and mitigation.

"The final document will be issued in early October," FSEC presenter Amy Hoffgemeier said, describing a document the agency characterized as roughly 1,000 pages of analysis and appendices. FSEC said it scoped the review to include all of Washington except marine areas and islands without bridge connections; tribal lands were excluded by default but tribes were offered the option to opt in and none had requested inclusion as of the presentation.

FSEC said the programmatic EIS was required by statute to identify geographic areas suitable for large transmission, analyze probable significant adverse environmental impacts, and develop mitigation strategies that could include avoidance of sensitive areas. The programmatic will present general measures (baseline procedures assumed for projects), design examples (for example, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife management recommendations), and avoidance criteria for resources deemed difficult to mitigate (for example, traditional cultural properties). FSEC also described a sensitivity-mapping process that combined multiple data layers into "criteria cards" and statewide sensitivity maps intended as planning tools to help optimize corridor routing and reduce conflicts between developers and lead agencies.

The agency said the programmatic would serve as an informational and planning tool, not a prohibition on siting, and warned that maps represent sensitivity, not definitive impact magnitudes; for example, an area rated as high sensitivity does not automatically mean a project there will have a high-magnitude impact — that determination rests with the project lead agency's technical review. Hoffgemeier walked committee members through a decision tree intended to guide both developers and lead agencies in using the programmatic and noted the document assesses impacts from overhead and underground lines, reconductoring, upgrades that expand footprint, and modifications that do not.

Committee members raised questions about reconductoring versus footprint expansions and about tribal engagement where older lines pre-date consultation. Jim Anderson Cook, director of Grant County Development Services, and Shona (attorney for the Yakama Nation) highlighted on-the-ground challenges: Cook said Grant County currently has ten large-scale solar projects in various stages — two beginning construction, two conditionally approved and two under SEPA review — and described the challenge of cumulative-impact review where projects cluster in corridors; Shona urged more front-loaded data and improved timelines to allow tribes to address cultural-resource data gaps.

FSEC said the programmatic is intended to make review more consistent and quicker by giving lead agencies a well-documented set of likely impacts and mitigation options; the agency plans coordinated outreach with Ecology to help jurisdictions use the programmatic in project-level SEPA reviews.

Ending: Hoffgemeier said FSEC will finalize QA/QC and printing and then coordinate outreach to help lead agencies implement the programmatic. The council emphasized that project-level reviews remain necessary and that avoidance criteria in the programmatic will be used where mitigation is infeasible.