Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Environmental Impact topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Natrona commissioners revise, approve letter expressing concern about pumped-storage project’s potential fisheries impacts

Natrona County Board of Commissioners · December 3, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After debate over wording and scope, commissioners approved sending a revised county position letter asking that the Seminole pumped‑storage project not proceed if it threatens fisheries or wildlife; they replaced definitive language with wording that the project "has the potential to negatively impact" fisheries and agreed to send the edited letter before a Dec. 31 deadline.

Natrona County commissioners debated and then approved revised language for a county position letter on the proposed Seminole pumped‑storage project, focusing on how strongly to frame potential environmental effects.

Commissioner Nicholas, referencing testimony and materials presented to the commission, said "our understanding is that the trout population in Seminole and downstream along the North Platte River will be negatively impacted due to changes in water level quality and temperature." Other commissioners urged softer language and deference to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s expertise.

Commissioners discussed geographic specifics — including references to Seminole Reservoir, Cortez and the Miracle Mile fishery — and whether the county should claim downstream impacts as definitive. Chairman North and others proposed changing definitive verbs such as "will" to language reflecting uncertainty, for example that the project "has the potential to negatively impact" fisheries.

An earlier motion to send the chairman’s draft letter as written failed after commissioners said it used overly definitive language. The board later agreed on the edits, voted to prepare the revised letter incorporating Game and Fish recommendations and authorized staff to finalize, sign and send it before the identified deadline.

Commissioners also agreed to workshop remaining wording and consult legal counsel; some members urged additional information from the developer and Game and Fish before making more definitive claims.

The vote to approve the revised letter was taken by voice vote; the commission instructed staff to put the agreed edits into a final document and submit it under the chairman’s signature.