Unconventional oil and gas policy: SEA

9 Biodiversity, flora and fauna

What are the environmental effects of unconventional oil and gas development on biodiversity, flora and fauna?

9.1 The potential environmental effects of unconventional oil and gas development on biodiversity, flora and fauna arising from the different stages and activities associated with unconventional oil and gas development are identified as:

• Construction and development of the pad and associated infrastructure. This may include perimeter fencing, internal and access road construction for pad development. Pipes may also be laid to transport extractive products to a processing plant or to carry water to or from the site. This may result in:
  • loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation from site infrastructure and fencing.
  • introduction of invasive species e.g. as a result of fencing, road construction.
• Unconventional oil and gas development requires a water supply to support the extraction process. The water may be delivered and removed from site by vehicle, or by surface lain or buried pipe. Laying of pipes and water extraction may result in:
  • impacts on hydro-ecological functioning.
• Site construction and activity during production which could include construction disturbance, flaring (noise and light pollution), site lighting (light pollution) may result in:
  • disturbance to species.
• Accidental release of hazardous material to air, soil or water during production, storage or transportation (see Air and Water sections) could result in:
  • direct impacts on habitat and species quality and functionality.
• Greenhouse gas emissions from production and use of unconventional oil and gas, including fugitive air emissions during production could result in:
  • indirect effects on biodiversity, primarily through increased emissions of greenhouse gases, and impacts on climate change;

How do these effects relate to the current pressures and trends?

9.2 Direct loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation from unconventional oil and gas development would add to the existing pressures from land use change. However based on the area of land lost to development under the KPMG high scenario (estimated at approximately 26ha) this would not lead to the loss of large scale areas of habitat, even including potential additional habitat loss from ancillary development. This habitat loss could occur in locations where existing habitat is more import to local habitat networks or for supporting habitat connectivity to designated biodiversity sites. Figures 3a and 3b, Appendix 1, show the distribution of national and international biodiversity designations and areas, which illustrates in particular the importance of the coastal areas of the Firth of Forth, and the wider distribution of smaller sites across the area prospective for unconventional oil and gas development.

9.3 The UK National Ecosystem Assessment^[207] reported that habitats have declined both in area and condition over the last 70 years as a consequence of increased exploitation of ecosystem outputs for provisioning services (ecosystem provisioning services include food, water, raw materials and medicinal resources ), especially from agriculture. The extent and condition of habitats will affect their ability to cope with pressures, including climate change.^[208] There has also been a decrease in the extent and condition of hedgerows between 1998 - 2007^[209].

9.4 Climate change poses a very significant threat to Scotland’s natural environment. In addition to direct impacts on habitats (e.g. sea-level rise), climate change will alter the complex ecological balances that allow the plants and animals to grow and thrive.^[210]

9.5 Over the last 10 years there has been an increase in the number of notified features (habitats and species) to be classified as favourable. Currently, 73.4% of habitat features and 71.9% of species features are in positive condition.^[211]

What current regulatory processes control these effects?

9.6 Loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation that could affect a Natura^[212] site should be subject to Habitats Regulations Appraisal. Under the Habitats Regulations, all competent authorities must consider whether any plan or project will have a ‘likely significant effect’ on a Natura site. If so, they must carry out carry out an ‘appropriate assessment’. This is known as Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA). The competent authority must decide whether there‘s enough evidence to conclude that the proposals won’t have adverse effects on a Natura site’s integrity.^[213]

9.7 Site of Special Scientific Interest is a statutory designation made by Scottish Natural Heritage under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. It is an offence for anyone to intentionally or recklessly damage the protected natural features of an SSSI.^[214] Owners and occupiers of land within an SSSI must apply to SNH for consent to carry out certain operations, which are specified for individual SSSI.

9.8 European Protected Species (EPS) are animals and plants (species listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive) that are afforded protection under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994^[215] (as amended). If any activity is likely to cause disturbance or injury to a European Protected Species a licence is required to undertake the activity legally. Where unconventional oil and gas development requires Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) an EIA report would describe the likely significant effects on the environment, including on biodiversity. This is likely to include information on European Protected Species.

9.9 Habitat loss and fragmentation affecting other habitats and species arising from development is controlled through the planning system, however impacts may still occur. Development consisting of well pads, potential access roads and / or pipelines could further contribute to habitat loss and fragmentation.

9.10 Excessive water extraction has potential significant ecological impacts. The abstraction of water is tightly regulated in Scotland to prevent or minimise unacceptable impacts to the wider water environment. Water abstraction which affected a Natura site should be subject to HRA, requiring that impacts are identified, assessed and mitigated.

9.11 Disturbance to species may result from site construction and maintenance activity, flaring (noise and light pollution), and site lighting (light pollution). This could include impacts on mobile species from designated sites.

9.12 Direct impacts on habitat and species quality and functionality resulting from accidental release of hazardous material during transportation and hydro-ecological functioning should be assessed and mitigated through the risk assessment undertaken for the planning application (as set out in Scottish Planning Policy). However the risk of negative effects remains, particularly in relation to the potential connectivity of the areas subject to unconventional oil and gas development and designations such as Natura sites.

9.13 Introduction of invasive species e.g. as a result of fencing and road construction could result in significant negative effects on biodiversity. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 it is an offence to plant or otherwise cause to grow in the wild any non-native plant, or release any non-native animal^[216]. Where required, the EIA process (see below) should require ecological survey which would identify non-native species on site and recommend construction activities follow best practice to avoid spread.

9.14 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017^[217] relate to the assessment of the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment through the planning system.^[218] This would require consideration of impacts on biodiversity where unconventional oil and gas developments are of a size and scale to require EIA.

9.15 Furthermore, the Management of Extractive Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2010^[219] requires that extractive waste will be managed without using processes or methods which could adversely impact upon local flora and fauna, and harm the wider environment.

9.16 The regulation of effects on the water environment, with associated impacts on biodiversity is discussed under ‘Water’. In addition impacts on biodiversity which affect a Natura site should be subject to HRA, requiring that impacts are identified, assessed and mitigated. However, the risk of effects remains, particularly through accidental contamination.

9.17 Unconventional oil and gas development contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change from the extraction, processing and use of unconventional oil and gas, alongside fugitive air emissions. These could indirectly affect international, national and local biodiversity, through the resulting effect on climate change and negative impacts on biodiversity. Scotland has national and international statutory commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions produced within its territory. However these effects are uncertain given conclusions regarding fugitive emissions (which are themselves uncertain) and the net impact of producing and using Scottish sources of unconventional oil and gas on global carbon emissions and thus climate change.

What stages of unconventional oil and gas development result in these effects, and what is the nature and significance of these effects?

Habitat loss and fragmentation

Business as usual – shale oil and gas extraction

9.18 Loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation would occur with immediate effect during the exploration, appraisal and production stages of unconventional oil and gas development, which together could take place over a period of approximately 20 years for an individual development. The full extent of these effects would peak during the production phase of unconventional oil and gas development. These effects may be temporary and reversible or permanent, depending on the sensitivity of the receiving environment, and the approach to restoration of the site. Loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation would occur both at the site of the pad, and along the route of any access road or pipeline construction.

9.19 Under each of the KPMG scenarios the effects of habitat loss are greatest under the high scenario, reflecting the greater number of pads, wells and associated infrastructure. However the area of land impacted is not identified as significant within the wider context of development within the Central Belt. The location of development could be in close proximity to sites designated for their nature conservation importance, and therefore significant negative but uncertain effects are identified. These effects are likely to be lower for the central and low KPMG scenarios.

Business as usual - CBM

9.20 The nature of the effects described above is similar for both shale oil and gas extraction under the three KPMG scenarios, and CBM. The scale of effects for CBM is related to the development of two pads. Reflecting the limited extent of these impacts minor negative effects are identified. These effects are uncertain due to the potential that these locations are within close proximity to sites important for nature conservation.

Pilot project

9.21 The development of a pilot project will have local effects on habitat loss and fragmentation and will extend to a limited local area, reflecting the development footprint of a single pad. All of the theoretical pilots could result in the loss of habitat which is important for habitat connectivity overall or which is important for nearby designated sites. The timescale of effects from development of a pilot would be related to the lifetime of an individual pad from exploration and appraisal to decommissioning, which could be approximately 30 years.

9.22 A rural pilot is assumed to be in close proximity to an SSSI, however a rural location may provide greater opportunities for flexibility in micro siting of the pad, compensatory planting or mitigation of effects of habitat fragmentation. Although the potential importance of the surrounding habitat network of the pad site to the nearby nature conservation designations is unknown, the effects of habitat loss are judged to be minor negative.

9.23 A semi-urban pilot could have pathways to a nearby Natura site. Such a location may be more limited in opportunities for mitigation of the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation due to constraints of infrastructure and other built development. Potential effects on the Natura site would be addressed through the requirement for a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) so it is assumed that development would have no ‘adverse effect on site integrity’. As for a rural pilot location, the potential importance of the surrounding habitat network of a pad site to the nearby nature conservation designations is unknown, however due to the relatively small area of habitat affected the effects of habitat loss are judged to be minor negative.

9.24 Within a peri-urban area the impacts on the habitat network may be locally more significant due to fewer opportunities for compensatory habitat creation or mitigation through site layout due to the constraints of other infrastructure and built development. A site is assumed not to have direct connectivity to any designated nature conservation sites, however its role within the urban habitat network may be locally significant, therefore minor negative effects are identified.

Preferred policy position

9.25 The preferred policy position means that habitat loss and fragmentation from shale oil and gas production (greatest for the KPMG high production scenario, and less for the central and low scenarios), CBM production and, to a lesser extent, a pilot development, would be avoided.

9.26 This is considered to be a significant positive effect.

Disturbance

Business as usual – shale oil and gas extraction

9.27 Disturbance to species as a result of noise, lighting, vibration and vehicle movement from construction and operation would occur with immediate effect during the exploration, appraisal and production stages of unconventional oil and gas development, which together could take place over a period of approximately 20 years for an individual development. The greatest levels of disturbance would occur during exploration and appraisal and in the initial two years of production, with potential subsequent increases in activity if more wells are drilled during the production phase. The effects of disturbance are anticipated to be temporary but longer term effects could occur depending on the nature of the species affected, and their vulnerability. Disturbance could occur both at the site of the pad, and along the route of any pipeline construction. The extent of disturbance is greatest under the KPMG high scenario, reflecting the greater number of pads and wells developed. Disturbance to species resulting from site construction and maintenance activity, flaring (noise and light pollution), site lighting (light pollution) will be temporary in nature, however minor negative impacts may still occur. This could include impacts on mobile species from designated sites. These effects are likely to be lower for the central and low KPMG scenarios.

Business as usual - CBM

9.28 The nature of the effects described above is similar for both shale oil and gas extraction and CBM. The scale of effect is lower for CBM, reflecting the anticipated development of two pads of 15 wells each, and negligible effects are identified.

Pilot project

9.29 The development of a pilot project could have local effects of disturbance to species, which may be more significant where a development is located close to sensitive species.

9.30 A rural pilot location could result in increased levels of disturbance in an area which is currently in a more tranquil location with lower existing levels of noise and light pollution. However a single pad development would have a local impact and the effects are judged to be negligible.

9.31 A semi-urban pilot location may already experience some level of disturbance due to proximity to urban areas and is assumed to have connectivity to a Natura site. The HRA process is assumed to address direct impacts on the Natura site and therefore the effects are judged to be negligible.

9.32 An urban fringe pilot location could result in increased disturbance within an area already subject to a high level of noise, lighting and activity. This may mean that species within the area are habituated to higher levels of disturbance, or lead to increases in disturbance which, combined with effects such as habitat loss make the area unviable for some species. Reflecting the limited scale and extent of disturbance from a single pilot, and the assumed relevant site surveys and mitigation would have been undertaken, the effects of an urban fringe pilot location is judged to be negligible.

Preferred policy position

9.33 The preferred policy position means that disturbance to species as a result of noise, lighting, vibration and vehicle movement from construction and production of shale oil and gas (greatest for the KPMG high production scenario, and less for the central and low scenarios), CBM production and, to a lesser extent, a pilot development, would be avoided.

9.34 This is considered to be a minor positive effect.

Direct impacts on habitats and species: release of hazardous material, introduction of non-native species, impacts on hydro-ecological functioning

Business as usual – shale oil and gas extraction

9.35 Direct impacts on habitat and species quality, health, distribution and functionality resulting from accidental release of hazardous material to air or water could occur with immediate effect during the exploration, appraisal and production stages of unconventional oil and gas development, which together could take place over a period of approximately 20 years for an individual development. The effect could occur both at the site of the pad, and along the route of any pipeline construction, or vehicle routes. The greatest risk of accidental spillage is within the exploration and appraisal phase (approximately 2 – 6 years), and in the initial two years of production, with potential subsequent increases in activity if more wells are drilled during the production phase. The effects of accidental spillage of hazardous material are anticipated to be temporary, but could persist in the long term, depending on the nature of the species affected and their vulnerability.

9.36 Construction work could result in the introduction of non-native species, particularly where pipeline construction provides a potential pathway for species movement. This could occur with immediate effect during the exploration, appraisal stages and early years of production. The effects of the introduction of non-native species may be temporary, but could persist in the long term, or be permanent, depending on the nature of the species introduced.

9.37 Impacts on hydro-ecological functioning could result from water extraction and from buried linking infrastructure used in unconventional oil and gas developments (e.g. pipes to transport extractive products to a processing plant). If the buried linking infrastructure is protected by material of different hydraulic conductivity, it could have adverse impacts on hydro-ecological functioning^[220]. Pipework may be laid during the exploration and appraisal phase to support production, and could be required for a period of approximately 20 years, therefore the nature of the effect is anticipated to be temporary.

9.38 Under the KPMG high scenario, the scale of shale oil and gas development is larger with a greater number of pads, wells and vehicle movements and the risk of direct effects on habitats and species is increased. The risk of significant negative effects remains under all three KPMG scenarios, particularly in relation to the potential connectivity of the areas subject to unconventional oil and gas development and nationally important sites.

9.39 The regulation of effects on the water environment, with associated impacts on biodiversity is discussed under Water. In addition impacts on biodiversity which affect a Natura site should be subject to HRA, requiring that impacts are identified, assessed and mitigated. However, the risk of significant negative impacts remains particularly through accidental contamination.

9.40 Introduction of invasive species e.g. as a result of fencing and road construction could result in locally significant negative effects on biodiversity. The impact of the effects on biodiversity from non-native species is judged to be minor negative.

Business as usual - CBM

9.41 The nature of the effects described above is similar for both shale oil and gas extraction and CBM. The location of the CBM pads is unknown, and potential connectivity to sites with higher biodiversity value is unknown. The scale of effect on habitat and species, the water environment and introduction of non-native species for CBM is identified as minor negative, reflecting the lower level of development of two pads.

Pilot project

9.42 Compared to the ‘business as usual’ alternative, the development of a single pilot limits the area over which these effects may occur. The effects of accidental release of hazardous material, introduction of non-native species and impacts on hydro-ecological functioning on biodiversity, and introduction of non-native species are judged to be more significant in locations which are closer to sites designated for their nature conservation value. Where a site supports species which are already experiencing other pressures, the effects may be more significant.

9.43 For the purposes of the assessment it is assumed that a rural pilot location is located within close proximity to a SSSI, therefore the impacts described under the ‘business as usual’ alternative could impact directly on the overall quality and functionality of a site of national importance, with a potentially significant negative effect. However, it is assumed the existing regulatory framework would ensure that impacts on nationally important habitats and species were minimised, resulting in minor negative effects.

9.44 A semi-urban pilot location is assumed to have direct connectivity to a Natura site and therefore the impacts of accidental release of hazardous material would result in potentially significant negative effects. However, it is assumed the existing regulatory framework would ensure that potential impacts on internationally important habitats and species were avoided, resulting in minor negative effects.

9.45 An urban fringe pilot is assumed to be located in an area with no direct connectivity to sites with nature conservation designations. Therefore the sensitivity of the receiving environment to these potential effects is judged to be lower, and minor negative effects are identified.

Preferred policy position

9.46 The preferred policy position would mean the avoidance of adverse impacts on habitats and species associated with:

• accidental release of hazardous material during transportation associated with unconventional oil and gas development;
• impacts on hydro-ecological functioning from unconventional oil and gas development;

These effects are likely to be greatest for the KPMG high production scenario, less for the central and low scenarios and CBM production and least for a pilot development.

9.47 The preferred policy position would also avoid minor negative effects on habitat and species quality and functionality resulting from introduction of invasive species e.g. as a result of fencing, road construction associated with unconventional oil and gas development.

9.48 Overall, this is considered to be a significant positive effect.

Indirect impacts on habitats and species as a result of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change

Business as usual – shale oil and gas extraction

9.49 Unconventional oil and gas is a fossil fuel and its extraction and use could result in increased emissions of greenhouse gases. The exploration and appraisal stages of development, along with the early years of production are likely to result in greenhouse gas emissions from the development of the pad over a period of approximately eight years. Fugitive emissions may occur during the same stages of development, but could continue throughout the production and decommissioning stages.

9.50 The use of unconventional oil and gas also contributes to emissions of greenhouse gases and climate change which is a significant threat to biodiversity. These effects are further discussed under ‘climatic factors’.

9.51 The scale of the effect is greater for shale oil and gas extraction under the KPMG high scenario, reflecting the anticipated greater quantity extracted. Impacts on climate change are further assessed under the climatic factors, and impacts on biodiversity from shale oil and gas extraction are judged to be minor negative. These effects are likely to be lower for the central and low KPMG scenarios.

Business as usual - CBM

9.52 The nature of the effects described above is similar for both shale oil and gas extraction and CBM. Due to the anticipated scale of CBM extraction of two pads, the effects on emissions on biodiversity are judged to be negligible.

Pilot project

9.53 The effects on climate change and therefore on biodiversity as a result of the pilot project are judged to be negligible at a local, national and global scale.

Preferred policy position

9.54 The preferred policy position means that adverse climate impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from Scottish shale oil and gas production (greatest for the KPMG high production scenario, and less for the central and low scenarios), CBM production and, to a lesser extent, a pilot development, would be avoided.

9.55 This is considered to be a minor positive effect, though there is considerable uncertainty reflecting a lack of accurate information on the scale of development that would have taken place in the absence of the preferred policy position and on the indirect effects on wider energy use.

Cumulative, synergistic and secondary effects

Shale oil and gas extraction and CBM

9.56 The scale of all of the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation, disturbance, direct impacts on habitats and species and greenhouse gas emissions is likely to be greatest under the KPMG high production scenario for shale oil and gas extraction, which has the highest number of pads and greatest number of wells developed per pad. This larger number of developments increases the likely extent of impacts. This could result in potential significant negative cumulative effects on biodiversity where pad developments take place within close proximity to each other. It also increases the likelihood of development taking place within close proximity to a designated biodiversity site. These effects are therefore likely to be lower for the central and low KPMG scenarios.

9.57 Pads for shale oil or gas extraction or CBM in closer proximity to designated wildlife sites could result in a greater scale of impact arising from any of the above effects identified, with locally minor negative effects, although there is uncertainty over the location of pads. Conversely, positive synergy could also result from the high development scenario for shale oil and gas extraction which could facilitate sharing of pipelines, reducing overall impacts from individual pipeline construction or traffic impacts. However there is uncertainty over the likely distribution of pads, and sharing of infrastructure.

Pilot

9.58 The scale of an individual pilot project would result in site specific cumulative effects on biodiversity from habitat loss and fragmentation, disturbance, direct impacts on habitats and species and greenhouse gas emissions in addition to the existing pressures on biodiversity in any of the three theoretical locations. However as the existing pressures are unknown, the cumulative nature of these effects is minor negative uncertain.

Preferred policy position

9.59 The timeframe for the avoidance of these additional effects is approximately the next 40 years. The avoidance of these effects is judged to be permanent within the context of the SEA. The scale of avoidance of effects reflects the geographic area identified as prospective for shale oil and gas, across the Central Belt of Scotland.

9.60 In conclusion, although the biodiversity, flora and fauna of the Central Belt of Scotland will continue to face existing pressures, the preferred policy position means that additional pressures on biodiversity, flora and fauna which could directly result from unconventional oil and gas development in Scotland, are avoided.

9.61 This is considered to be a significant positive effect.

Scope for further mitigation

9.62 The assessment results are based on the application of existing regulatory controls. The evidence base includes information on a number of processes which could be implemented to reduce the scale of impact on the biodiversity, flora and fauna. These could reduce the overall potential scale of effect from unconventional oil and gas development, and therefore the associated scale of effect avoided as a consequence of the preferred policy position.

9.63 The applicability and practicality of many of these additional measures will be determined at a site specific level so it is not possible to draw firm conclusions as to the extent to which they would mitigate predicted effects successfully. Potential measures include:

9.64 Loss of habitat, habitat fragmentation and impacts on hydro-ecological functioning – potential impacts could be reduced if site selection and the laying of pipes associated with that development would avoid sites of high biodiversity value, particularly areas characterised by sensitive hydro-ecological regimes. Surveys, such as bats and birds surveys, could help to identify potential ecological constraints and provide initial recommendations for avoidance of impacts and mitigation measures, as well as further ecological investigations and ongoing monitoring during construction, operation and decommissioning where necessary.

9.65 Disturbance of species – disturbance to species is highly dependent on the timing of works. To minimise potential impacts on breeding birds, for instance, the construction works that effect nesting habitat should be carried out during winter to avoid the bird breeding season (March-August). Furthermore, disturbance to local fauna could be reduced if lighting would avoid illuminating habitats such as woodland and hedgerows. Other mitigation measures include covering up any excavated holes/trenches overnight to prevent mammals from becoming trapped.

9.66 Accidental release of hazardous material to air, soil, or water – many of the water, soil and air mitigation measures could help to protect or reduce potential impacts on local biodiversity. These include careful soil stripping and restoration, use of permeable materials during soil sealing, the use of geotextiles and geo-synthetics, the use of biodegradable fracking fluids, the (optimised) treatment of flowback and produced water through mobile units or at central facilities, the use of advanced monitoring technologies (e.g. DTS and DAS), annual inspections and repair, the use of supply chain management and ICT resources, and the re-use of wastewater.

9.67 Introduction of non-native species – contingency planning to deal with accidental releases and spread of invasive species is likely to reduce the potential impacts on biodiversity, flora and fauna.

Table 9.1: Summary of effects on biodiversity, flora and fauna

Environmental impact	Alternative	Potential scale of development	Timescale when effect may occur	Duration of effect	Predicted effect taking account of existing regulation	Key areas of uncertainty
Habitat loss and fragmentation	Business as usual– shale oil and gas extraction	Major	Short to long term	Permanent	A significant negative effect is identified for the loss of habitat in areas of habitat importance.	The location of development in proximity to sites of nature conservation importance, and the sensitivity of the habitat loss.
	Business as usual– coal bed methane extraction	Minor	Short to long term	Temporary or permanent	A minor negative effect is identified reflecting the scale of effects for the development of two pads.
	Pilot project	Minor	Short to long term	Permanent	A minor negative effect is identified reflecting the locally important potential loss of habitat.
	Preferred policy position	None	Short to long term	Permanent	A significant positive effect is identified reflecting the avoidance of the loss of habitat loss and fragmentation.
Disturbance	Business as usual– shale oil and gas extraction	Major	Short to long term	Temporary	A minor negative effect is identified reflecting the temporary duration of the effect. These effects are likely to be lower for the central and low KPMG scenarios reflecting the lower level of development.	Proximity to sites designated for their nature conservation importance or sensitive species.
	Business as usual– coal bed methane extraction	Minor	Short to long term	Temporary	A negligible effect is identified reflecting the lower level of development.
	Pilot project	Minor	Short to long term	Temporary	A negligible effect is identified reflecting the lower level of development.
	Preferred policy position	None	Short to long term	Permanent	A minor positive effect is identified reflecting the avoidance of minor negative effects.
Hazardous materials, introduction of non-native species, hydrology impacts	Business as usual– shale oil and gas extraction	Major	Short to long term	Temporary or permanent	A significant negative effect is identified, reflecting the risk of accidental contamination.	Risk of accidental contamination
	Business as usual– coal bed methane extraction	Minor	Short to long term	Temporary or permanent	A minor negative effect is identified reflecting the lower level of development and lower risk.
	Pilot project	Minor	Short to long term	Temporary or permanent	A minor negative effect is identified reflecting the lower level of development and lower risk.
	Preferred policy position	None	Short to long term	Permanent	A significant positive effect is identified reflecting the avoidance of significant negative effects.
Climate change impacts on habitats and species	Business as usual– shale oil and gas extraction	Major	Short to long term	Permanent	A minor negative effect is identified. These effects are likely to be lower for the central and low KPMG scenarios
	Business as usual– coal bed methane extraction	Minor	Short to long term	Permanent	A negligible effect is identified reflecting the scale of development.
	Pilot project	Minor	Short to long term	Permanent	A negligible effect is identified reflecting the scale of development.
	Preferred policy position	None	Short to long term	Permanent	A minor positive effect is identified reflecting the avoidance of minor negative effects.	A lack of accurate information on the scale of development that would have taken place in the absence of the preferred policy position and on the indirect effects on wider energy use.
Cumulative	Business as usual– shale oil and gas extraction	Major	Short to long term	Permanent	A significant negative effect is identified reflecting that pad developments could take place within close proximity to each other.	The distribution and location of pads and sharing of infrastructure.
	Business as usual– coal bed methane extraction	Minor	Short to long term	Permanent	A minor negative effect is identified reflecting potential proximity to sensitive wildlife sites.
	Pilot project	Minor	Short to long term	Permanent	A minor negative effect is identified reflecting the potential sensitivities of the pilot locations.
	Preferred policy position	None	Short to long term	Permanent	A significant positive effect is identified, reflecting the avoidance of significant negative effects.