Management and restrictions for geothermal resources are the same as those for oil and gas resources. Except as noted for alternatives B and D, where there are differences in leasing availability, areas open to oil and gas leasing are open to geothermal leasing and areas administratively unavailable to oil and gas leasing are administratively unavailable to geothermal leasing. In addition, exploration and development of geothermal resources are subject to the same restrictions on surface-disturbing activities applied to oil and gas exploration and development. As a result, impacts to geothermal exploration and development by alternative would be the same as those described in Section 4.2.5 Leasable Minerals - Oil and Gas. Because commercial geothermal development requires drilling and facilities comparable to those associated with oil and gas development, management that affects oil and gas is expected to similarly affect geothermal development.
Because of the lower level of anticipated geothermal development compared to oil and gas development, impacts to geothermal resources from management actions may be less severe than those associated with oil and gas development. However, the extent of impacts between alternatives, based on management actions in the alternatives, would be the same.
This section identifies areas that have specific management actions for geothermal resources separate from oil and gas management in the area. Except as noted for alternatives B and D, see Section 4.2.5 Leasable Minerals - Oil and Gas for a discussion of the acreages open, open with constraints, and administratively unavailable, and the associated impacts comparison between alternatives.
Impacts to geothermal resources common to all alternatives would be similar to impacts described in Section 4.2.5 Leasable Minerals - Oil and Gas.
Under all alternatives, any potential geothermal development on federal mineral estate in the Planning Area would be carefully assessed to avoid adverse impacts to geothermal resources near Cody and Thermopolis, Wyoming.
Areas open subject to standard lease stipulations, open with constraints, and administratively unavailable to geothermal exploration and development, and resulting impacts, are the same as those described in Section 4.2.5 Leasable Minerals - Oil and Gas for Alternative A. Approximately 154,861 acres are administratively unavailable to geothermal leasing under Alternative A, resulting in direct adverse impacts to potential development of geothermal resources on these lands.
Lands within 15 miles of the Hot Springs State Park at Thermopolis are open to geothermal leasing under Alternative A. There has been no recent expressed interest in such leasing for commercial purposes on the federal mineral estate. Development of geothermal resources in the area of Hot Springs State Park is not within BLM jurisdiction because the state of Wyoming owns and controls the park and all surface water and groundwater resources.
Under Alternative B, 2,493,630 acres are administratively unavailable to geothermal leasing, which would result in impacts similar to those described in Section 4.2.5 Leasable Minerals - Oil and Gas for Alternative B. However, under Alternative B, more acreage is closed to geothermal leasing than oil and gas leasing because federal mineral estate is closed to geothermal leasing within 15 miles of Hot Springs State Park.
Managing federal mineral estate within 15 miles of Hot Springs State Park as administratively unavailable to geothermal leasing would not result in long‐term adverse impacts to leasing, because the BLM does not anticipate interest in commercial geothermal leasing in this area over the next planning cycle. However, if interest in geothermal grows, there would be long-term adverse impacts to leasing.
Prohibiting geothermal development on federal mineral estate within 15 miles of Hot Springs State Park would ensure development would not alter pressures and volumes within the hydrothermal system. This would be a beneficial impact.
Under Alternative C, lands open to leasing subject to standard lease stipulations, open with constraints, and administratively unavailable to geothermal exploration and development, and the resulting impacts, would be roughly the same as those described for Alternative A, and described in Section 4.2.5 Leasable Minerals - Oil and Gas for Alternative C. Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative C designates the least land as administratively unavailable to geothermal leasing (147,760 acres).
Managing lands within 15 miles of the Hot Springs State Park as open to geothermal leasing would result in the same impacts as those described for Alternative A.
Under Alternative D, 324,737 acres are administratively unavailable to geothermal leasing, which would result in impacts similar to those described in Section 4.2.5 Leasable Minerals - Oil and Gas for Alternative D. However, more acreage is administratively unavailable to geothermal leasing than oil and gas leasing under Alternative D because of the closure of federal mineral estate to geothermal leasing within 5 miles of Hot Springs State Park.
Managing lands within 5 miles of Hot Springs State Park as closed to geothermal leasing would result in impacts similar to those described for Alternative B, though to a lesser extent because less area would be affected if interest in geothermal development grows. Alternative D would also provide a beneficial impact by requiring geothermal resource monitoring and protection within 5 miles of Hot Springs State Park and within the Thermopolis Anticline.