Unconventional oil and gas policy: SEA

11 Landscapes and geodiversity

What are the environmental effects of the reasonable alternative on landscapes and geodiversity?

11.1 The potential environmental effects of unconventional oil and gas development on landscape and geodiversity are identified as:

• Direct impacts on landscape resulting from drilling rigs, lighting, flaring, access roads, pipelines, perimeter fencing, generators, sealed container units for chemicals and waste materials and fluids, portable offices and work amenities.^[230]

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

11.2 The upland landscapes of Scotland include the main areas of national landscape significance (see Figure 10, Appendix 1), and within the Central Belt a number of local landscape designations recognise areas of local landscape importance. Furthermore landscape character assessment has identified the key qualities of local landscapes. Scotland’s landscape is under pressure from new development, and this is an issue around the settlements of the Central Belt.

11.3 Trends in the visual influence of built development on the landscape show an increase in the area of influence of built development. The area of Scotland from which one or more types of built development can be seen increased to 73% in 2013, an 11.6% increase from 2008^[231], with the largest visual influence from wind turbines.

11.4 Furthermore, 2014 data on the perceived naturalness of habitat across the CSGN^[232] (which covers a similar area to the Midland Valley) classified the landscape using a five point scale from least natural to most natural. Only 25% of the land area was classed in the most natural categories.

What current regulatory processes control these effects?

11.5 Nationally significant landscapes are protected through legislation and Scottish Natural Heritage has statutory functions within the planning system as part of the wide range of responsibilities for the natural environment. In addition the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017^[233] relate to the assessment of the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment – including landscape– through the planning system.

11.6 The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Scottish Planning Policy is a material consideration, and states that the planning system should ‘facilitate positive change while maintaining and enhancing distinctive landscape character’.

11.7 Furthermore, the Management of Extractive Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2010^[234] requires that extractive waste will be managed without using processes or methods which could cause unacceptable effects to the landscape or places of special interest.

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

Business as usual – shale oil and gas

11.8 Direct impacts on landscape could result from the presence of surface equipment of drilling rigs, lighting, flaring, access roads, pipelines, perimeter fencing, generators, sealed container units for chemicals and waste materials and fluids, portable offices and work amenities. The initial drilling requires a rig with a mast typically 30m – 38m^[235] in height which will be replaced with a work-over rig (typically with a mast 22m) one the initial drilling is complete. These rigs are temporary structures and the drill-hole is then capped with an extraction point and protective cage (typically 3m high)^[236].

11.9 The landscape impacts of surface infrastructure are greatest during exploration, appraisal and the early years of production when there will be the presence of the drilling rig in addition to the other surface infrastructure. The surface infrastructure will introduce built features into the landscape. The landscape impact of the drilling rig and surface infrastructure is temporary. The drilling rig is likely to be present on site over a period of approximately 4 – 8 years^[237], although other surface infrastructure will remain throughout the production period of the pad, with minimal surface infrastructure remaining following decommissioning.

11.10 Cumulative landscape impacts could arise under all of levels of development under the three KPMG scenarios, should unconventional oil and gas developments take place in close proximity to each other. The likelihood of cumulative effects occurring is greatest during the exploration, appraisal and early years of production and is likely to be temporary in nature. The effect is likely to be greatest under the KPMG high scenario as this includes the highest number of pads and wells which therefore has the greatest chance of developments taking place where intervisibility between pad sites could occur. However, the distribution of pads under the central or low scenario could also result in cumulative effects, and significant negative effects are identified for the KPMG high scenario, and minor negative effects for the central and low scenarios.

Business as usual - CBM

11.11 The nature of landscape impacts of shale oil and gas extraction and CBM are similar, although the technical approach to extraction is recognised as different. The extent of landscape impacts for CBM extraction is significantly lower than for shale oil and gas extraction reflecting the anticipated development of two pads of 15 wells each. The location of developments for shale oil and gas extraction or CBM could be within or in close proximity to a locally designated landscape. However, reflecting the development of two wells, the scale of infrastructure and the temporary nature of the landscape impacts described above, these effects are judged to be negligible.

Pilot project

11.12 The development of a pilot project will have local landscape effects including industrialisation of the landscape. These effects may be more significant where a development is located within or close to sensitive landscapes.

11.13 A rural pilot location is assumed to be in close proximity to a local landscape designation. However, reflecting the temporary nature of the landscape impacts, the effect of a single pilot pad and associated wells is judged to be negligible.

11.14 A semi-urban pilot could result in increased urbanisation, impacting on the character and integrity of the landscape at the urban edge. However the landscape effects are judged to be negligible.

11.15 An urban pilot could result in further industrialisation of an already fragmented urban fringe landscape. However the landscape effects are judged to be negligible.

Preferred policy position

11.16 The preferred policy position would result in the avoidance of the following effects resulting from unconventional oil and gas development:

• Direct impacts on landscape resulting from drilling rigs, lighting, flaring, access roads, pipelines, perimeter fencing, generators, sealed container units for chemicals and waste materials and fluids, portable offices and work amenities.

11.17 The preferred policy position would mean that pressures on landscape and geodiversity resulting from unconventional oil and gas development, in addition to the existing pressures on landscape and geodiversity arising from development, land use change and climate change would be avoided.

11.18 The timeframe for the avoidance of the most significant additional effects associated with the cumulative landscape impacts of exploration, appraisal and the early years of production is approximately the next 15 years^[238]. The avoidance of these effects is judged to be permanent within the context of the SEA. The scale of avoidance of effects reflects the level of development under the KPMG scenarios for shale oil and gas, across the Central Belt of Scotland.

11.19 Therefore, although the landscape of Central Scotland will continue to face existing pressures, the preferred policy position means that additional pressures that would result from unconventional oil and gas development would be avoided.

11.20 This is considered to be a significant positive effect.

Cumulative, synergistic and secondary effects

Business as usual – shale oil and gas extraction

11.21 The cumulative landscape impacts of all aspects of unconventional oil and gas development are covered together within the assessment of each alternative.

11.22 Positive synergy could occur from developments in close proximity to each other sharing water disposal infrastructure, thereby reducing the amount of on-site storage and transport and associated landscape impact. However this will result in the development of separate facilities at an additional location, and extent to which this might occur is uncertain.

Business as usual - CBM

11.23 The cumulative effects from CBM development alone are identified as negligible, reflecting the scale of development.

Pilot project

11.24 Reflecting the above conclusions, the landscape impacts from an individual pad for a pilot project, in any of the three locations are judged to be negligible.

Preferred policy position

11.25 No additional negative cumulative, synergistic or secondary effects are identified for the alternatives, therefore no cumulative, synergistic or secondary effects are avoided.

Scope for further mitigation

11.26 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 landscape and geodiversity. 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.

11.27 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:

• Site selection to avoid sensitive, locally important sites and visually prominent locations.
• Mitigation measures such as screening, landscape treatment and landscape restoration after decommissioning could further reduce landscape and visual impacts that may arise from unconventional oil and gas developments.
• Sharing of infrastructure could reduce the number of traffic movements over the lifetime of an unconventional oil and gas site, with associated positive effects by reducing impacts on landscape quality and local amenity.

Table 11.1: Summary of effects on landscapes and geodiversity

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
Landscape and visual effects (including cumulative effects)	Business as usual – shale oil and gas extraction	Major	Short to long term	Temporary	A significant negative effect is identified for the KPMG high scenario, and minor negative effects for the central and low scenarios.	The likely location of pads under all three scenarios and potential for cumulative effects and the likelihood of infrastructure sharing.
	Business as usual – coal bed methane extraction	Minor	Short to long term	Temporary	A negligible effect is identified reflecting the development of two wells, the scale of infrastructure and the temporary nature of the landscape impacts
	Pilot project	Minor	Short to long term	Temporary	A negligible effect is identified reflecting the scale of development, the scale of infrastructure and the temporary nature of the landscape impacts.
		Preferred policy position	None	Short to long term	Permanent	A significant positive effect is identified reflecting the avoidance of significant negative effects.