ESIA Addendum – Alternatives in Tenagi Area

ESIA Addendum – Alternatives in Tenagi area

The study is conducted by EXERGIA SA in collaboration with certified Environmental Consultants.

Kostas Batos Project Manager Greek section EXERGIA S.A. No. Diploma 10424 Diploma Category:27

Disclaimer

The ESIA Amendment application documents have been developed in English.

The Greek version of the application documents represents translation from English.

In case MEECC finds any ambiguities in the application documentation, please kindly contact Konstantinos Tsirikis or Bernhard Rasch, who will check it against English version and provide the clarification and/or amend the Greek version

Konstantinos Tsirikis Bernhard Rasch TSPE Country Coordinator TSPE Project Manager - Authorization and Greece Environment M.: +30 695 72 15 900 Trans Adriatic Pipeline Greece_Albania-Italy [email protected] Κιν. Τηλ. +49 175 58 97 791 2-4 Mesogeion Avenue, 21st floor Athens [email protected] Tower 115 27 Athens Alexander-von-Humboldt-Straße 1 Greece 45896 Gelsenkirchen GERMANY

Page 2 of 59

Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. E.ON Technologies GmbH Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP GPL00-EXG-642-Y-TAE-0002 Document Title: ESIA Addendum – Alternatives in Tenagi Area Rev.: 02

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 6

2 Presentation of ESIA Basecase and Alternatives 7 2.1 The ESIA Basecase 7 2.2 The Alternative Parallel to the Existing DESFA Route 8 2.3 The South Alternative 9 2.4 The North Alternative 10

3 Comparison of Alternatives 11 3.1 Alternatives Description 11 3.2 Technical Feasibility 11 3.2.1 Constructability 11 3.2.1.1 The Alternative Parallel to DESFA Route 11 3.2.1.2 The South Alternative 12 3.2.1.3 The North Alternative 12 3.2.2 Geohazards and Safety 13 3.2.2.1 The Alternative Parallel to DESFA Route 13 3.2.2.2 The South Alternative 13 3.2.2.3 The North Alternative 13 3.2.3 Technical Feasibility Summary 14 3.3 Environmental Constraints 15 3.3.1 Natura 2000 and RAMSAR Sites 15 3.3.2 Aesthetic Forests 16 3.3.3 Wildlife Refuges 16 3.3.4 Summary Environmental Constraints 17 3.4 Cultural Heritage Constraints 17 3.5 Social Constraints 18 3.5.1 Crossing of the Peat Area 18 3.5.2 Potential Interaction with Nearby Settlements 21 3.6 Overlap with other Projects 22 3.6.1 Concessions and Military Areas 22 3.6.2 Renewables 22 3.6.3 Crossings of Existing Infrastructure 22

4 The New Basecase 23

5 Baseline of New Basecase 24 5.1 Methodology 24 5.2 Physical Environment 25 5.2.1 Overview 25 5.2.2 Geology, Seismicity and Geomorphology 25 5.2.3 Subsurface and Soils 26 5.2.4 Groundwater and Surface Waters 26 5.2.5 Climate and Ambient Air Quality 27

Page 3 of 59

5.2.6 Acoustic Environment 27 5.2.7 Landscape and Visual Amenity 27 5.3 Biological Environment 27 5.3.1 Flora and Habitats 28 5.3.1.1 Riparian vegetation 28 5.3.1.2 Habitats of Conservation Interest 29 5.3.1.3 Flora Species 29 5.3.2 Avifauna 29 5.3.3 Aquatic Ecology 30 5.4 Socioeconomic Environment 31 5.5 Cultural Heritage 33

6 Assessment of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 37 6.1 Physical environment 37 6.1.1 Climate and Ambient Air Quality 37 6.1.2 Acoustic Environment 37 6.1.3 Groundwater and Surface Waters 38 6.1.4 Subsurface and Soil 39 6.1.5 Landscape and Visual Amenity 40 6.2 Biological Environment 40 6.2.1 Construction and Pre-commissioning Phase 40 6.2.1.1 Potential Impact 40 6.2.1.1.1 Flora Habitat Loss 40 6.2.1.1.2 Species/population Loss 41 6.2.1.2 Mitigation Measures 42 6.2.1.2.1 Flora Habitat Loss 42 6.2.1.2.2 Species and Population Loss 43 6.2.1.3 Residual Impacts 44 6.2.2 Operations and Maintenance Phase 45 6.2.3 Decommissioning Phase 45 6.3 Socioeconomic Environment 45 6.4 Cultural Heritage Environment 46 6.4.1 Construction and Pre-commissioning Phase 46 6.4.1.1 Potential Impacts 46 6.4.1.1.1 Direct Physical Disturbance of or Damage to Cultural Heritage Sites 46 6.4.1.1.2 Degradation or Damage to Cultural Heritage Sites Due to Pollution or Vibration 48 6.4.1.1.3 Disruption to Visitor Access of Cultural Heritage Sites 49 6.4.1.1.4 Detrimental Effects on the Setting or Ambience of Cultural Heritage Sites 49 6.4.1.2 Mitigation Measures 49 6.4.1.3 Residual Impacts 50 6.4.2 Operations and Maintenance Phase 51 6.4.3 Decommissioning Phase 52

7 Conclusions and Summary 53 7.1 Technical Assessment of Alternatives 54 7.2 Ecological Assessment of Alternatives 54

Page 4 of 59

7.3 Cultural Heritage Assessment of Alternatives 55 7.4 Socioeconomic Assessment of Alternatives 55 7.5 Baseline Data Collection for the New Basecase 55 7.6 Mitigation Measures to be Applied to the New Basecase 57

8 Appendices 58

Table of Figures

Figure28TU 2-1 U28T The28TU Alternative Parallel to the Existing DESFA Route and the ESIA Basecase U28T 8

Figure28TU 2-2 U28T The28TU South Alternative and the ESIA Basecase U28T 9

Figure28TU 2-3 U28T The28TU North Alternative and the ESIA Basecase U28T 10

Figure28TU 3-1 U28T Elevation28TU Profile Along the South AlternativeU28T 12

Figure28TU 3-2 U28T The28TU Peat Area as per ETHIAGE Study U28T 19

Figure28TU 3-3 U28T The28TU Peat Area as per IGMEU28T 20

Figure28TU 5-1 U28T Crossing28TU Point of the New Basecase with a Natural Water Body at Philippoi PlainU28T28

Figure28TU 7-1 U28T Overview28TU of alternative routes and ESIA basecase in Philippoi PlainU28T 53

Table of Tables

Table28TU 3-1 U28T Total28TU Length of Alternatives U28T 11

Table28TU 3-2 U28T Comparison28TU of Alternative Routes at Philippoi Plain U28T 14

Table28TU 3-3: U28T Natura28TU 2000 Sites U28T 15

Table28TU 3-4: U28T Aesthetic28TU Forests U28T 16

Table28TU 3-5: U28T Wildlife28TU Refuges U28T 16

Table28TU 3-6: U28T Environmental28TU Footprint U28T 17

Table28TU 3-7: U28T Archaeological28TU Sites U28T 17

Table28TU 3-8 U28T Crossing28TU Lenghts U28T 20

Table28TU 3-9: U28T Administrative28TU Setting of Alternative Routes U28T 21

Table28TU 3-10: U28T 28TU Infrastructure Crossings U28T 22

Table28TU 5-1 U28T Total28TU Number of Bird Observations U28T 30

Table28TU 5-2 U28T Freshwater28TU Fish Catches (June 2014) U28T 31

Table28TU 5-3 U28T Demographics28TU and Settlements U28T 32

Table28TU 5-4 U28T Overview28TU of Land Use U28T 32

Table28TU 5-5 U28T Inventory28TU of the Cultural Heritage Sites in the Area of the New Basecase U28T 34

Table28TU 6-1 U28T Key28TU Potential Impacts – Ambient Air Quality U28T 37

Table28TU 6-2 U28T Key28TU Potential Impacts – Acoustic Environment U28T 37

Table28TU 6-3 U28T Key28TU Potential Impacts – Freshwater Resources U28T 38

Table28TU 6-4 U28T Key28TU Potential Impacts - Subsurface and Soil U28T 39

Table28TU 6-5 U28T Key28TU Potential Impacts - Ecology U28T 40

Table28TU 6-6 U28T Significance28TU of Project Residual Impacts – Construction Phase U28T 44

Table28TU 6-7 U28T Key28TU Impacts – Cultural Heritage U28T 46

Table28TU 6-8 U28T Mitigation28TU Measures and Anticipated Residual Impacts for the Construction and

Pre-commissioning Phase U28T 50

Table28TU 7-1: U28T Environmental28TU Footprint U28T 54

Page 5 of 59

List of Abbreviations

AHAP Area of High Archaeological Potential CH Cultural Heritage DESFA The Greek Gas System Operator ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment ETHIAGE National Institute of Agricultural Research ICH Intangible Cultural Heritage IGME Institute of Geological and Mineral Exploration KP Kilometric Point MEECC Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change MoCS Ministry of Culture and Sports SPA Special Protection Areas TAP Transadriatic Pipeline TEE-AM Technical Chamber of Greece – Division of East Macedonia WRA Wildlife Refuge Area

Page 6 of 59

1 Introduction0B

Since its submission to MEECC in June 2013, the ESIA of the Greek section of the TAP project has undergone extensive consultation with a large number of competent authorities, institutions, governmental and non-governmental organisations, regional and local authorities and the general public.

As part of this consultation process, several smaller or larger reroutings have been or are still being investigated following requests of a variety of stakeholders. Among them, the crossing of Philippoi Plain deserves particular attention. Concerns over the ESIA basecase route in Philippoi Plain were voiced by the Technical Chamber of Greece – Division of East Macedonia (TEE-AM), the Geotechnical Chamber of Greece – Division of East Macedonia (TEE-AM) and the Kavala Farmers Association, and shared by the regional and local authorities. The main argument behind these concerns is that the highly organic, peat area crossed by the pipeline is associated with significant socioeconomic impacts for the local farmers and with operational risks for the pipeline itself. TEE-AM also suggested an alternative pipeline route, to the south part of Philippoi Plain, to avoid crossing the peat area. The relevant correspondence is annexed to this document for more information. On the basis of these concerns, the Regional Council of East Macedonia and Thrace issued a negative opinion on the Project.

As a basic principle of the Project, TAP is committed to an open and ongoing dialogue with society by taking into consideration the views of the various stakeholders and addressing their concerns. In line with this principle which has been followed throughout the ESIA process, this document presents the results of the analysis of a number of alternatives that effectively address societal concerns related to the pipeline route in Philippoi Plain. These alternatives are:

• The alternative parallel to the existing DESFA route

• The south alternative (suggested by TEE-AM)

• The north alternative

In the following sections, these alternatives are compared to the ESIA basecase and evaluated with regard to their technical feasibility, environmental constraints (including natural, cultural and socioeconomic environment) and conflicts with other infrastructure and projects in the area with the aim to select the new basecase. This new basecase is then presented in detail at a level of analysis equivalent to the ESIA. In specific:

Page 7 of 59

Section 2 presents all three alternative routes along with the ESIA basecase for this specific pipeline section.

Section 3 provides a comparison of the alternative routes. The main aspects of each alternative are presented, key issues for each alternative are identified and assessed and the alternatives are eventually evaluated in terms of constructability and impacts on environmental and socioeconomic level.

Section 4 summarises the discussion of Section 3 and concludes with the selection of the best alternative – the new basecase in Philippoi Plain.

Section 5 provides baseline information for the new basecase. The physical, biological, socioeconomic and cultural heritage environment along the new basecase is described on the basis of desktop information and data collected by dedicated field surveys.

Section 6 presents the assessment of impacts to the environment associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of the new basecase, along with the mitigation measures and residual impacts as appropriate.

Section 7 summarises the main topics of the discussion and findings of this document.

The Annexes at the end of the document illustrate maps of the new basecase as well as key correspondence between TAP and competence authorities or stakeholders relevant to the pipeline route at Philippoi Plain.

2 Presentation1B of ESIA Basecase and Alternatives

2.1 The8B ESIA Basecase

The basecase route crosses mountainous areas along ridges with forest lands reaching a maximum altitude of 700 m above sea level. Then it passes north of Paggaio Mountain, crossing smooth cultivated areas along the boundary of the area where the dried swamps of Philippoi existed in the past. The Philippoi Plain section covers some 32 km of the base case route and is mainly arable land with cereals (wheat, barley, maize), interrupted by semi-natural hedges.

More details on the ESIA basecase route can be found in Section 6 of the ESIA (GPL00-ASP- 642-Y-TAE-0054_00).

Page 8 of 59

2.2 The9B Alternative Parallel to the Existing DESFA Route

This alternative route starts at KP 182 of the ESIA basecase. It is located north of the basecase in a distance of approximately 1.1 km. Then the DESFA parallel alternative passes south of the peat area and runs parallel to the existing DESFA pipeline at a distance of approximately 5.5 km. The ESIA basecase and the DESFA alternative are shown in Figure 2-1 below.

Figure 2-1 The Alternative Parallel to the Existing DESFA Route and the ESIA Basecase

Alternative parallel to the existing DESFA route: yellow line ESIA Basecase: light blue line Source: ETG (2014)

The alternative parallel to DESFA passes through the Municipalities of Kavala, Paggaio, and Amfipoli. This alternative has been investigated during ESIA Scoping and early preparation of the ESIA report. Findings from consultations with authorities and communities as well as further engineering investigations led to the rejection of this alternative route.

The main environmental, socioeconomic and cultural heritage characteristics of the alternative parallel to the DESFA route can be found in Section 2.3.2.5.1 of the ESIA (GPL00-ASP-642-Y- TAE-0050_00). Annex 1.1 of the ESIA (GPL00-ASP-642-Y-TAE-0050_01) contains the detailed matrix of all indicators used to compare these alternative routes.

Page 9 of 59

2.3 The10B South Alternative

The south alternative crosses the mountainous area north of Kavala, parallel to the ESIA basecase route. At KP 31 the south alternative changes direction, passing through the aesthetic forest of Kavala – Amygdaleonas and follows a direction south of the peat area towards the city of Amfipoli. It continues in western direction, passing partially forested areas and large areas of farm land. It crosses the River of Akropotamos passing south of the settlement of Orfani. Then the route follows a north–western direction through a rugged mountainous forest area. The last section of the proposed alternative route passes through a flat area with several drainage channels; this land is farmed with annual cultivations.

The ESIA basecase and the south alternative are shown in Figure 2-2 below.

Figure 2-2 The South Alternative and the ESIA Basecase

South Alternative: red line ESIA Basecase: light blue line Pink circles: areas with technical problems Source: ETG (2014)

Page 10 of 59

2.4 The11B North Alternative

The general concept of this alternative is to move the ESIA basecase as much as possible away from the peat area. The alternative route starts at KP 193, north of the settlement of Neos Zygos, follows a route south of Philippoi and Krinides and then enters the southeastern part of the Archaeological Zone of Philippoi, running almost parallel to the south border of the archaeological zone (outside the protection zones A & B) and then turns in a northwest direction.

The north alternative passes south of the villages of Philippi and Krinides, is located completely outside the peat area and is routed through a flat, farmed land, with annual cultivations and few irrigation channels.

The ESIA basecase and the north alternative are shown in Figure 2-3 below.

Figure 2-3 The North Alternative and the ESIA Basecase

North Alternative: purple line ESIA Basecase: light blue line Source: ETG (2014)

Page 11 of 59

3 Comparison2B of Alternatives

3.1 12BAlternatives Description

The total length of the alternatives described above is as shown below.

Table 3-1 Total Length of Alternatives ESIA DESFA South North Feature Basecase alternative alternative alternative 40.0 39.1 Length (km) 47.8 84.2 (11.2* + 28.8) (11.2* + 27.9) *The 11.2km are identical for both routes Source: ETG (2014)

All four alternatives start at KP 182 of the ESIA basecase. For the ESIA basecase and the north alternative the route from KP 182 until KP 193.2 is identical.

KP 222 is considered as the end point for the ESIA basecase, the alternative parallel to DESFA route and the north alternative. The south alternative ends at KP 246 of the ESIA basecase as it follows a completely different route than the other three alternatives.

In the following sections the main technical aspects of each alternative are presented, key issues for each alternative are identified and assessed and the alternatives are eventually evaluated in terms of constructability and impacts on an environmental and socioeconomic level.

It must be mentioned that the assessment of the north alternative refers to the part of the 27.9 km where the route differs from the ESIA basecase.

3.2 Technical13B Feasibility

3.2.1 Constructability33B

3.2.1.1 The66B Alternative Parallel to DESFA Route

In the Kavala Mountains the alternative parallel to DESFA route runs to the north of the ESIA basecase at a distance of about 1.1 km, crossing a wildlife refuge and an area of higher elevation requiring increased construction effort and difficulty.

In Philippoi Plain, the ESIA basecase passes north of the peat area while the alternative parallel to DESFA passes south of it. The alternative parallel to DESFA route would require highly complex solutions from the constructability point of view in order to address crossings with the archaeological site of Paggaio Mountain and with a hospital currently under construction. This route also crosses for a length of 1,700 m the known peat deposit.

Page 12 of 59

3.2.1.2 The67B South Alternative

The south alternative has a total length of 84.2 km while it starts at KP 188 of the ESIA basecase route and ends at KP 222.

The south alternative has serious technical drawbacks as it passes steep lateral and vertical slopes with apparent ground stability problems. In some locations the slopes are so steep (exceeding 60%) that they render a pipeline construction extremely difficult. Certain areas lack road infrastructure, which are necessary to access the right of way, thus requiring the construction of new access roads. Finally, the south alternative has to cross a tunnel of the Egnatia Highway at KP 52.5 of the south alternative and various cultivated areas with perennial crops (vine yards olive trees, nut trees and fruit trees).

The elevation profile of the south alternative will impose significant limitations on construction time (during winter) and construction methods due to the relatively high elevation over a very long distance. The difficulties due the extreme topography are illustrated in the elevation profile below.

Figure 3-1 Elevation Profile Along the South Alternative

Source: ETG (2014)

3.2.1.3 The68B North Alternative

The north alternative route runs predominantly along existing roads and channels in the Philippoi plain, in order to minimize impacts to cultivated farm land. No major findings with regard to constructability were identified during desktop study or by field investigations. Due to terrain and topographical conditions no significant effort and duration of construction of this alternative are anticipated. The groundwater table is also expected to be lower than the ESIA basecase route, which makes construction conditions more favorable.

The north alternative crosses the outer boundaries of the archaeological area of Philippoi – though at a non-classified area. Non-destructive geophysical surveys in close collaboration with archaeological authorities are planned to ensure than the north alternative has no impact on cultural heritage.

Page 13 of 59

3.2.2 Geohazards34B and Safety

3.2.2.1 The69B Alternative Parallel to DESFA Route

The route passes at the boundary of the Philippoi Plain with a potential risk of intersecting clay subsoil layers with high organic peat content that may create instability conditions for the foundation of the pipeline. The groundwater table is likely to be high.

The alternative does not cross any active faults.

3.2.2.2 The70B South Alternative

The south alternative route in the Paggaio-Symvolon area leads into a complex network of active faults, some of which cross the route mid-section or are located parallel and very close to it. The fact that the alternative route crosses important active faults vertically, especially in the Ofrynio - Galipsos area, can lead to significant surface co-seismic static displacements, which locally take average values from 25 to 30 cm and maximum values up to about 50 cm.

Although the mountain Symvolon is a relatively low coastal mountain, the proposed route runs parallel to large local slopes, often exceeding 20%, increasing the chances of failure of the pipeline, especially in the case of ground motion levels induced by seismic activity. More specifically, the alternative route passes through problematic areas (area Melissa-Monokarydia- Folia), crossing valleys with locally steep slopes (> 20%), which at several points are crossed parallel to their strike, i.e. with unfavourable orientation.

3.2.2.3 The71B North Alternative

The north alternative in Philippoi plain exhibits no problems regarding static displacements, since it does not intersect significant active faults. The dynamic seismic motions are expected to be identical to those of the ESIA basecase route, while estimated ground motions for the activation scenarios were low and therefore easily manageable.

The expected dynamic seismic motions due to the activation of seismic/active faults for the north alternative are expected to be very similar to the ESIA basecase due to the proximity of the two routes. No issues exist with regards to slope stability, due to the relatively flat morphology of the Philippoi Plain.

Page 14 of 59

3.2.3 Technical35B Feasibility Summary

The main characteristics of the different route alternatives as compared to the ESIA basecase are presented in the table below.

Table 3-2 Comparison of Alternative Routes at Philippoi Plain DESFA parallel North A/A Issue ESIA base case South Alternative Alternative Alternative 5 areas • Km: 34, Slopes > 70% Special • Km: 37, Slopes > 55% points / • Slopes > 60% (km 41-49 Special Proximity to & 58-59) 1 crossings, None Hospital None • Ground stability where route problems, steep slopes is not (km 71-73) constructible • Major ground stability problems (km 89-92) Areas with slopes above Crossing of Crossing of Crossing of Peat 60% 2 boundary of Peat None Special areas area, length 1.7 km Crossing above tunnel of area, length 1.5 km Egnatia Highway Approx. 20km of new access Construction roads plus 20km 3 of access Not required Not required Not required improvement of existing roads tracks No Highway No Highway No Highway Major crossings crossings 1 - Egnatia Highway crossings 4 crossings No Major River No Major River 1 - Akropotamos River No Major River crossings crossings crossings Anchor flanges and retaining walls to hold the pipe in Additional Concrete saddles Concrete saddles position at deep slopes. pipe above pipe at “Peat above pipe at “Peat Surface erosion protection 6 None protection area” for buoyancy area” for buoyancy Drainage system beneath measures control for 1.5 km control for 1.7 km the pipe Permanent pipe monitoring systems Route runs for 28 km parallel to the Pageo fault leading to Geohazards / significant levels of expected Peat area, length 7 Problematic None maximum seismic (dynamic) None 1.7 km zones motions (KP 47-75) Area with geo hazard e.g. slope instability Route crosses the active Geohazards / faults of Ofrynio- Galipsos 8 Problematic None None None and Kastri- Mesolakkia) (KP points 89,96)

Source: ETG (2014)

Page 15 of 59

In summary, the technical assessment of the pipeline route alternatives in Philippoi Plain leads to the following conclusions:

• The ESIA basecase faces some technical challenges, mostly related to crossing 1.5 km of peat area. These challenges can be addressed by the appropriate safety and mitigation measures (i.e. application of concrete saddles above the pipeline for buoyancy control).

• The alternative parallel to DESFA route faces similar challenges to the ESIA basecase for a slightly longer pipeline section. In addition, the alternative faces a number of technical obstacles in terms of constructability due to crossing the main (very) peat area for a length of 1,7 km in order to avoid the archaeological site of Paggaio, crossing the transition zone of the peat area and being located close to a hospital

• The south alternative faces serious technical challenges that put its constructability in question. Such challenges are related to crossing areas with high slopes in a vertical and in parallel direction – prohibitively high for pipelines of this size – as well as crossing or running along active faults (i.e. Paggaio, Ofrinio and Kastri).

• In contrast, the north alternative exhibits no special technical challenges and it avoids crossing the peat area.

The north alternative is thus presenting clear advantages over the rest alternatives with regard to technical feasibility.

3.3 Environmental14B Constraints

3.3.1 Natura36B 2000 and RAMSAR Sites

The south alternative route crosses for approximately 9 km through the Natura 2000 area GR1150011 (SPA) and the corresponding Important Birds Area. None of the other alternative routes has any conflict with environmental protected areas.

Table 3-3: Natura 2000 Sites Crossing length (m) Area ESIA DESFA South North Basecase alternative alternative alternative GR017 - Mount Paggaio. Overlapping 100% with GR1150011 SPA 'OROS 0 0 9,400 0 PANGAIO KAI NOTIES YPOREIES TOU' (Mount Paggaio and South Foothills) Source: ETG (2014)

Page 16 of 59

3.3.2 Aesthetic37B Forests

According to forestal legislation, an aesthetic forest is designated as a forest with special aesthetic and ecological value. The south route crosses the Aesthetic Forest of Kavala – Amygdaleona for more than 4 km. None of the other alternative routes has any conflict with aesthetic forests.

Table 3-4: Aesthetic Forests Crossing length (m) Area ESIA DESFA South North Basecase alternative alternative alternative Aesthetic Forest of Kavala - 0 0 4,330 0 Amygdaleona Source: ETG (2014)

3.3.3 Wildlife38B Refuges

A wildlife refuge area (WRA) provides protection for species from hunting, predation or competition. These areas are designated by local forestry offices in order to preserve fauna that is endangered or about to be extinct.

The ESIA basecase crosses the WRA of Agios Timotheos - Kioupia for slightly more than 4 km, while the alternative parallale to DESFA route crosses the same WRA for 700m. The south alternative route crosses two WRAs, resulting in an overall crossing of 9.4 km.

Table 3-5: Wildlife Refuges Crossing length (m) A/A Area ESIA DESFA South North Basecase alternative alternative alternative 1 WRA of Agios Timotheos - Kioupia 4,150 700 8,400 0 2 WRA of Mesolakkias - Palaiokomis 0 0 1,000 0 TOTAL 4,150 9,400 0 Source: ETG (2014)

Page 17 of 59

3.3.4 Summary39B Environmental Constraints

The total length of the environmental areas affected as described in the sections above is presented in the next table.

Table 3-6: Environmental Footprint Crossing length (m) Feature ESIA DESFA South North Basecase alternative alternative alternative Environmental Areas 4,150 700 18,800 0

Source: ETG (2014)

It is mentioned that the aesthetic forest of Kavala – Amygdaleonas is overlapping with the WRA of Agios Timotheos - Kioupia.

It can be concluded that the south alternative exhibits an increased footprint with regard to crossing of environmental protected areas as compared to the rest of the alternatives. The north alternative offers an advantage as it does not interfere with any environmental protected areas.

3.4 Cultural15B Heritage Constraints

The conflict of all alternative routes with archaeological sites is presented in the table below.

Table 3-7: Archaeological Sites

Distance from boundaries (m)/ Crossing length (m) Feature ESIA DESFA South North Basecase alternative alternative alternative Declared archaeological site Adjacent to the 1 0 archaeological 10,400 0 of Mount Paggaio site Archaeological site of Ancient Amfipoli (declaration 2 0 0 unknown 0 pending as research is in progress) Pipeline crosses Archaeological area of Adjacent to the the peripheral archaeological 0 0 zone of the Philippoi site archaeological area for 7,200 m Source: ETG (2014)

As shown, the south alternative faces significant challenges with respect to cultural heritage as it crosses the designated archaeological area of Paggaio Mountain for over 10km, while it will most likely cross the archaeological site of Ancient Amfipoli, in which archaeological research is currently in progress and significant findings are likely to be revealed.

Page 18 of 59

The north alternative crosses the peripheral zone of the archaeological area of Pilippoi for over 7km. During the investigation of the north alternative, TAP has consulted with the General Secretariat of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage of the Ministry of Culture & Sports (MoCS) /Dpt. of Coordination and Supervision of Archaeological Works for Large Projects, and confirmed that the selected route crossing the peripheral zone of the archaeological area of Philippoi presents a relatively low risk for archaeological findings.

The ESIA basecase and the alternative parallel to DESFA route are both passing adjacent to the archaeological areas of Philippoi and Mount Paggaio without crossing them. These alternatives have an advantage compared to the other two in terms of cultural heritage.

3.5 Social16B Constraints

3.5.1 Crossing40B of the Peat Area

In 2001 the National Institution of Agricultural Research (ETHIAGE) performed a soil study for the area of Tenagi of Pilippoi Plain. According to this study the boundaries of the soil that is characterised as purely organic are distinguished and classified according to the organic matter content. For reasons of completeness the study also includes a perimeter zone which is classified as non-organic. The organic soil of Tenagi is considered advantageous for cultivation of annual crops, i.e. maise, tobacco and beet as well as vegetables.

A map of Philippoi Plain depicting the study results of ETHIAGE is presented below. Note that the south alternative is not visible on this map as it runs more to the south.

Page 19 of 59

Figure 3-2 The Peat Area as per ETHIAGE Study

Source: ETG (2014)

In parallel, according to data available from the Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration (IGME), the area of Tenagi is classified in two major zones, the peat area and the transition zone (area where the soil transforms to non-organic). The borders of these two zones are largely consistent with the borders set by ETHIAGE. Note that the south alternative is not visible on this map as it runs more to the south.

Page 20 of 59

Figure 3-3 The Peat Area as per IGME

Source: ETG (2014)

Based on the data available from the two institutions the table below shows the length of the pipeline crossing the above described areas.

Table 3-8 Crossing Lenghts

Crossing length (m) Area ESIA DESFA South North Basecase alternative alternative alternative 1 Organic soil (ETHIAGE) 5,800 1,570 0 0 2 Non Organic soil zone (ETHIAGE) 14,100 7,730 0 0 3 Peat zone (IGME) 1,600 1,700 0 0 4 Transition zone (IGME) 7,600 3,200 0 190 Source: ETG (2014)

Page 21 of 59

As shown in the table, the north and the south alternatives offer a clear advantage in terms of impacts to organic soil in Tenagi as they avoid crossing the peat area. In the case of the south alternative, however, this is achieved at the expense of 13 km crossing of perennial cultivations (fruit trees, nut trees and vineyard areas).

3.5.2 Potential41B Interaction with Nearby Settlements

The investigated alternatives cross the Region of Eastern Macedonia-Thrace. The South alternative also crosses the area of Central Macedonia. The Municipalities intersected by the alternative routes are Kavala, Doxato, Prosotsani, Paggaio, Amfipoli and Nea Zichni.

A summary of the distances of the different alternatives to settlements is provided in the table below.

Table 3-9: Administrative Setting of Alternative Routes

Number of affected settlements A/A Feature ESIA Base DESFA South North case alternative alternative alternative 1 Regions 1 1 2 1 2 Municipalities 4 4 4 3 Settlements closer 3 1 4 3 0 than 200 m Settlements between 4 8 6 8 4 200 m and 1000 m Settlements between

5 1,000 m and 11 10 6 10 10,000m Settlements more 6 4 4 7 10 distant than 10,000m

Source: ETG (2014)

The alternative parallel to DESFA route and the south alternative exhibit the closest distance to settlements, with 4 and 3 settlements (respectively) at a distance of less than 200 m.

Page 22 of 59

3.6 Overlap17B with other Projects

3.6.1 Concessions42B and Military Areas

There are no implications with concession areas for the different alternative routes. However, the broader area of Philippoi Plain is characterized as of high potential for mineral deposits.

No information is currently available with regard to potential military constraints for any of the alternatives.

3.6.2 Renewables43B

There is no conflict with registered operating Renewable Energy Sources (RES) projects in Philippoi Plain.

3.6.3 Crossings44B of Existing Infrastructure

A thorough evaluation of recent satelite images has revealed the following crossings for the different alternative routes. The ongoing communication with the Hellenic Railways Organisation might provide in future more detailed information. General crossing methods are presented in the ESIA section 4 (GPL00-ASP-642-Y-TAE-0052_01) and Annex 3.6 (GPL00-ASP-642-Y-TAE- 0052_00).

Crossings of roads by the open trench method might have impacts on traffic during short periods of time generating disturbance to local residents.

Table 3-10: Infrastructure Crossings Number of crossings ESIA DESFA South North Feature Attributes Basecase alternative alternative Alternative RD-1 (Highway, 1 1 6 1 National Road) - new Roads RD-1 (Highway, 3 1 3 0 National Road) - old RD-2 (Main Road) 7 1 9 0 Railways RW 1 0 1 0 Infrastructure Industrial Areas, existing Commercial 0 0 0 0 projects Developments Industrial Areas, Infrastructure Commercial 0 0 0 0 future projects Developments RD-1-new: New National Road and Egnatia Road RD-1-old: Old National Roads Source: ETG (2014)

Page 23 of 59

4 The3B New Basecase

The previous sections have presented a substantiated evaluation of different alternatives for the crossing of Philippoi Plain, on the basis of their technical characteristics, applicable environmental constraints (in terms of natural, socioeconomic and cultural environment) and conflicts with other developments.

The evaluation has demonstrated that the south alternative and the alternative parallel to DESFA route present major technical problems which make their construction extremely difficult and challenging, requiring complex mitigation measures that would further increase their environmental impacts. As such, these alternatives are rejected.

The ESIA basecase for the Philippoi Plain has been demonstrated to comprise a well-studied route from all perspectives, with the exception of crossing a small section of the peat area, a fact that raised significant concerns for socioeconomic impacts and safety risks at local and regional level.

The north alternative maintains all the advantages of the ESIA basecase while it avoids crossing the peat area. Additionally, it mainly follows existing roads and channels in order to minimize the impact on cultivated land. Taking these facts into account, the north alternative is considered to address effectively local concerns and at the same time provide a technically feasible and environmentally advantageous route for this sensitive area. As a drawback, the north alternative crosses the peripheral zone of the archaeological area of Philippoi, and although consensus with the competent Ministry has been reached, additional work and investigations in cooperation with the competent Ephorates will be required to ensure that no impacts to cultural heritage arebrought about by pipeline construction.

On the basis of the above, the north alternative is selected as the new basecase for Philippoi Plain. The following sections will describe the baseline conditions along the north alternative, identify likely impacts due to pipeline construction, operation or decomissioning and propose appropriate mitigation measures.

Page 24 of 59

5 Baseline4B of New Basecase

5.1 Met18B hodology

The collection of baseline information in physical, biological, socioeconomic and cultural environment and respective impact assessment and mitigation was conducted in accordance with the ESIA methodology described in detail in the document ESIA Greece Section 5 - ESIA Approach and Methodology (GPL00-ASP-642-Y-TAE-0053_00).

A preliminary desktop study was conducted to assess additional surveys necessary and additional data collection for the new basecase.

A team of cultural heritage experts conducted a site visit in the area of Philippoi plain. The surveys took place during daylight hours only and the CH team conducted pedestrian survey of points of interest. The aim of the survey was to properly identify potential additional cultural heritage sites in the area of the new basecase and proceed in evaluation of the sites and proposal of mitigation measures as appropriate.

The environmental field survey for the new basecase was organized in three (3) teams, comprising:

• Birds team, with two avian zoologists, to assess the presence of rare and protected grassland, wetland and lowland bird species

• Freshwater fish team, with two hydrobiologists/fish ecologists, to assess the presence of freshwater fish populations

• Habitats/flora and vegetation team with two botanist/plant ecologist, to assess grassland, wetland habitats and rare/protected flora species

As a result of the desktop study of the new basecase, it was considered that no further ecological surveys were required to describe the baseline conditions.

The results of desktop and field survey work are presented in the following sections.

Page 25 of 59

5.2 Physical19B Environment

5.2.1 Overview45B

This section describes the physical environmental resources of the new basecase. The following elements are presented:

• geology, seismicity and geomorphology;

• groundwater and surface water;

• climate and ambient air quality;

• acoustic environment; and

• landscape and visual amenity.

Due to the macroscopic nature of the physical environment and the relatively small distance between the ESIA basecase and the new basecase, some of the aspects of physical environment present no notable difference between the two routes. In such case, and in order to avoid repetition, reference is made to the relevant ESIA sections.

5.2.2 Geology,46B Seismicity and Geomorphology0F1

The geological structure of the area consists of Paleozoic rocks of Rhodope Massif, which are intruded by the Kavala – Symvolon granitoid, and this complex is covered by younger sediments deposited in the sedimentary basins of the area. The geological formations are: • Crystalline bedrock (Paleozoic)

o Lower gneiss-schist series o Marble series o Upper gneiss-schist series • Igneous rocks (Tertiaty)

o Kavala-Symvolon granitoids and Paggaio magmatic intrusions • Younger sediments

o Neogene formations

1 This section is informed by C. B. Papazachos et al., Assessment of expected seismic motions, neotectonic setting and related geohazards along the alternative TAP pipeline path in the broader Pageo- Symvolon area, Final Report, 2014

Page 26 of 59

o Pleistocene deposits. Fluvial-torrential sediments (sand, sandstone and clay), marine conglomerate and alterations of marl limestone and sandstone.

o Holocene deposits. Various sediments, mainly alluvial river deposits and large alluvial fans at the northern margin of Moustheni basin

The new basecase route crosses mainly alluvial, terrestrial deposits and lacustrine deposits. Due to its geological formation, the route demonstrates very high (in the case of alluvial deposits) or very low (in the rest of the cases) liquefaction susceptibility. However, even in the case of alluvial deposits, the estimated deformation / subsidence due to liquefaction (average 3-6 cm, worst case 12-14 cm) is unlikely to have an impact on the TAP pipeline due to its size and the dispersion of settling along a significant zone in areas of soft soil formations.

With regard to seismicity, the new basecase does not seem to be affected by any active faulting system in its immediate vicinity or associated with significant instrumental seismicity. Reference is made to Section 6.2.2.2 of the ESIA (GPL00-ASP-642-Y-TAE-0054_00) where a detailed discussion of geohazards is provided.

5.2.3 Subsurface47B and Soils

The dominant soil types in Philippoi Plain are Rhodric Luvisol and Calcaric Fluvisol. They are generally soils of medium quality and moderately well drained. Their structural characteristics and the flat topography result in generally high risk for soil compaction. Due to intensive cultivation and application of fertilizers, the area is susceptible to soil contamination by nitrates.

More details on soil types and characteristics can be found in Section 6.2.3 of the ESIA (GPL00- ASP-642-Y-TAE-0054_00).

5.2.4 Groundwater48B and Surface Waters

The new basecase, similarly to the ESIA basecase, crosses the Drama Porous Groundwater Body (1105) according to the classification prepared by IGME and adopted by MEECC under the requirements of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60//EC). On the basis of the depth of groundwater table, permeability of the aquifer material and permeability of aquifer overlying strata, the vulnerability of the groundwater is considered high.

No major surface water bodies are found along the new basecase other than irrigation channels. The presence of natural or semi-natural streams is extremely limited.

Page 27 of 59

More details on groundwater and surface waters can be found in Sections 6.2.4 and 6.2.5 of the ESIA (GPL00-ASP-642-Y-TAE-0054_00) respectively.

5.2.5 Climate49B and Ambient Air Quality

Climate and air quality information for the new basecase route is the same as the corresponding information for the ESIA basecase route. Reference is made to section 6.2.6 of the ESIA (GPL00-ASP-642-Y-TAE-0054_00).

5.2.6 Acoustic50B Environment

Information on the acoustic environment for the new basecase route is the same as the corresponding information for the ESIA basecase route. Reference is made to section 6.2.7 of the ESIA (GPL00-ASP-642-Y-TAE-0054_00).

5.2.7 Landscape51B and Visual Amenity

The Philippoi Plain belongs to plain agricultural areas with regard to landscape character types, i.e. is characterised by open views of fields spreading in the entire area and interrupted by small villages that are embedded smoothly in the landscape. As presented in detail in section 6.2.8 of the ESIA (GPL00-ASP-642-Y-TAE-0054_00), such a landscape is typically characterised by low sensitivity to the proposed changes and low magnitude of change.

5.3 Biological20B Environment

This Section describes the biological resources along the new basecase, focusing on a 500 m wide corridor (250 m either side of the proposed centreline).

The following elements of the biological environment have been considered:

• Flora and habitats

• Avifauna

• Freshwater ichthyofauna

Other taxa reported from the Philippoi Plain are either considered opportunistic or vagrant in the area (e.g. large mammals) or are thought as potentially less sensitive to habitat changes induced by the project (i.e.Rana and Bufo species); therefore they are not examined.

Page 28 of 59

5.3.1 Flora52B and Habitats

The project area around the new basecase comprises extensive agricultural land cultivated with annual crops, mainly corn, sunflower, cotton and wheat. Perennial cultivations, mainly willow fields, occur to less extent, are scattered within the plain and are not affected by the new basecase. Other types of habitats are scarce and only comprise remnants of riparian vegetation along streams and irrigation channels or loose woody formations which have recolonized abandoned land pockets.

No sensitive or specially designated habitats are found along the new basecase route.

5.3.1.1 Riparian72B vegetation

Remnant riparian vegetation is restricted and occurs along irrigation channels. It consists mainly of common reed (Phragmites australis) and bulrush (Typha sp.) stands, as well as stands with riparian trees such as black poplar (Populus nigra) and to a less extent white willow (Salix alba), which however have not been observed to form typical natural riparian galleries. There is a only one crossing with a perennial flow stream (X: 522389, Y: 4538861): black poplar (Populus nigra) and white willow (Salix alba) trees grow along the banks as well as Nasturtium officinale, Veronica anagallis-aquatica, Mentha spicata, Melissa officinalis subsp. officinalis and Xanthium strumarium. Stands with Potamogeton nodosus were observed in the water body. Ruderal/invasive species such as Solanum eleagnifolium, Ballota nigra, Malva sylvestris and Urtica sp. are present.

Figure 5-1 Crossing Point of the New Basecase with a Natural Water Body at Philippoi Plain

Source: EXERGIA (2014)

Page 29 of 59

5.3.1.2 Habitat73B s of Conservation Interest

EuropeanU Habitat 7230 Alkaline fens

Fens in Greece are known to form by terrestrialization, i.e. by infilling of lakes, and/or by paludification, i.e. by flooding of flat areas due to the relative rise of the groundwater table.

In Europe and Greece as a whole, fens are rare and considered of high conservation priority (Dafis et al. 2001, Dimopoulos et al. 2006) as they have a significant function in water purification, flood prevention and global warming regulation due to their ability of carbon storage (Raeymaekers 2000, Šefferová Stanová et al. 2008); some fens comprise reliable records of past environmental conditions and climate changes (Mommersteeg et al. 1995). Fens are sensitive to changes of their hydrologic equilibrium with road or other infrastructure in the vicinity having a damaging effect due to the use of heavy equipment (Raeymaekers 2000).

Along the new basecase, two sites of small remnant fen communities were observed (locations x: 510991.32 y: 4542185 and x: 510768.85 y: 4541790). Their distance to the pipeline is about 140m and over 500m respectively.

Reed formations (Phragmition) developing around the shores form part of the fen system. The main peat-forming plants are reeds and sedges; these include Phragmites australis, Typha angustifolia, T. latifolia, Cyperaceae, namely Cladium mariscus, Carex spp., Scirpus spp., and subordinately Alisma plantago-aquatica, Lythrum salicaria, Iris pseudacorus, species of the genera Sparganium, Equisetum, Eleocharis, and Salix, as well as aquatic and subaquatic plants, such as Nuphar lutea, Nymphaea alba, species of Myriophyllum, Ceratophyllum, Potamogeton etc.

5.3.1.3 Flora74B Species

No flora species of conservation interest have been recorded along the new basecase.

5.3.2 Avifauna53B

The June 2014 field survey data along the new basecase did not provide evidence that rare or threatened species breed or forage in good numbers. Common species that frequent wetlands as well as agricultural areas and plains were observed. The survey comprised four (4) consecutive sampling surveys (June 2014) at five (5) randomly selected points along the new basecase route. The table below shows the observed species identified (note that only non-vagrant species with more than five (5) observations are shown in the Table).

Page 30 of 59

Table 5-1 Total Number of Bird Observations Bird observations 1st survey 2nd survey 3rd survey 4th survey Cuculus canorus 4 3 0 2 Galerida cristata 8 5 3 1 Hirundo rustica 2 0 3 4 Motacilla flava 4 1 2 0 Luscinia megarhynchos 15 10 10 18 Acrocephalus arundinaceus 4 4 6 2 Cettia cetti 8 2 5 8 Hippolais pallida 9 2 8 6 Miliaria calandra 1 2 2 2 Sturnus vulgaris 3 0 8 4 Oriolus oriolus 4 0 2 2 Passer domesticus 6 0 2 4 Source: EXERGIA (2014)

5.3.3 Aquatic54B Ecology

Electrofishing and scoop net data were collected in June 2014 at standardised sampling along seven (7) crossing points within or in the vicinity of the new basecase with irrigation channels and one stream. The data set provides adequate evidence that at least nineteen (18) freshwater species persist in the area. Of particular conservation interest is the presence of Eudontomyzon hellenicus at one sampling station (Station Philippoi_3,) and of Cobitis punctilineata at three (3) sampling stations (Station Philippoi_3, Station Philippoi__5).

Eudontomyzon hellenicus is a species with a very restricted distribution in Greece. It is endemic to the lower Strymon river drainages including the spring-fed streams near Drama (Kefalari and Mylopotamos). Non-parasitic, it has a very long larval period (up to 6 years) and a very short adult stage (only a few weeks). It inhabits shallow and cool, fairly fast-flowing streams with gravel-sandy substrate and aquatic vegetation. As larva, it remains in small cavities into the soft bottom, feeding on particles which are drifted by running clean water. Reproduction takes place in December and January. Due its cryptic life strategy, measures for the protection of its habitats and a large publicity and awareness campaign of local ecological agencies should be reinforced.

The distribution of Cobitis punctilineata is restricted to the Aggitis River and the associated wetlands, like Philippoi plain (Strymon basin). It inhabits still to moderate flowing clear waters, with silty and sandy substrate, where it stays hidden during daylight. Its area of occupancy is

Page 31 of 59

2 estimated at less than 10 kmP .P It is considered susceptible to habitat alteration and water pollution, mainly due to agricultural activity.

Table 5-2 Freshwater Fish Catches (June 2014)

a/a Species Station Philippoi Station Philippoi_2 Station Philippoi_3 Station Philippoi_4 Station Philippoi_5 Station Philippoi_8 Station Philippoi_9 1 Alburnoides bipunctatus 1 1 23 3 2 Alburnus sp. Volvi 3 31 12 3 2 3 Barbus strumicae 11 63 114 1 127 22 4 Carassius cf. gibelio 53 6 5 Chondrostoma vardarense 2 6 Cobitis punctilineata 10 5 4 7 Cobitis strumicae 14 1 4 8 Eudontomyzon hellenicus 3 9 Gambusia holbrooki 2 1 5 65 10 Gobio bulgaricus 11 Lepomis gibbosus 28 12 Leucaspius delineatus 13 Oxynoemacheilus bureschi 1 1 11 7 1 1 14 Petroleuciscus borysthenicus 5 14 48 2 15 Rhodeus amarus 11 111 3 1 16 Rutilus rutilus 8 1 17 Squalius orpheus 4 12 28 18 11 2 18 Vimba melanops 1 Sum 44 77 445 2 230 38 86 Source: EXERGIA (2014)

5.4 Socioeconomic21B Environment

The new basecase route does not cross new regions or municipalities compared to the ESIA basecase route. Both routes, cross the region of East Macedonia and Thrace and the Kavala, Doxato, Prosotsani Municipalities.

A detail and thorough analysis of socioeconomic aspects per municipality, including the above mention three municipalities is presented in ESIA Section 6 - Environmental, Socio-economic and CH Baseline (GPL00-ASP-642-Y-TAE-0054_00), where important aspects of the socioeconomic baseline environment such as demographics (population, age, gender, ethnicity and religion), economy, employment and income, land tenure and use, municipalities’ infrastructure, public services and health facilities, education and skills are discussed.

Page 32 of 59

For reasons of completeness, a brief summary of socioeconomic baseline conditions for the new basecase is provided here as well. The table below presents settlements closer than 1000m from the new basecase.

Table 5-3 Demographics and Settlements Municipality Settlements closer than 1000m Kavala Krinides Doxato Kalamonas Agia Paraskevi Nerofraktis Prosotsani No settlements Source: ETG (2014)

Population size varies between approximately 3000 (Krinides, Kavala) and 500 people (Agia Paraskevi). It is mainly an agricultural area, with agricultural activity being the main economic activity of the area and providing the main source of employment. Many household may sustain complementary economic activities, but the main source of income comes from agricultural activities with pensions providing also a complementary income. The majority of the farmers own their land (80% at Doxato Municipality). The main cultivation in the area is corn, sunflower, cotton and wheat. There are no permanent crops cultivated in the area.

The table below presents land use in the municipalities of Kavala and Doxato

Table 5-4 Overview of Land Use Kavala • A highly productive plain with tracks of intensive cultivation (wheat and maize), including permanent crops (olive trees and fruit trees) • Large area of forested land • Organized industrial zone close to the study area an some industrial activity in the study area Doxato • Cultivated land with annual crops (wheat, maze, tobacco, sunflower) • Vegetable cultivation (for income purpose) • Animal husbandry (sheep, cow, poultry) • Borehole irrigation system and old irrigation channels that are out of use Source: ASPROFOS (2013)

With respect to employment levels, unemployed people consists a relatively high percentage of the active population in Kavala and Doxato Municipalities (12% at Kavala, 20% at Doxato).

Page 33 of 59

5.5 Cultural22B Heritage

A total of 14 cultural heritage sites were identified within 1000m from the new basecase, 7 archaeological sites and 7 Areas of High Archaeological Potential (AHAP). Field surveys were performed in 11 of these sites providing updated information. Field survey conducted by the archaeological team confirmed all sites regarding their location.

The most important site in the area is the archaeological area of Philippoi (CH-73LK-E) which is an officially recognized archaeological area and an important archaeological element of the area. This protected area includes the ancient town of Philippoi, its Walls and an Acropolis hill. It also includes part of the location Kalamitsa at the area of the ancient town Antisara, among other antiquities. The pipeline crosses the boundaries of the peripheral zone of the archaeological site of Philippoi. All these sites are included in the officially recognized site, as provided by the Ministry of Culture.

According to the Ministry of Culture, the ancient city of Philippoi is one of the most important archaeological sites in Eastern Macedonia. It is located at the boundary of the marshes that cover the southeast part of the plain of Drama. The site was originally colonized by the people of Thasos, who, aware of the area's plentiful supplies of precious metals, timber, and agricultural products, established the city of Krinides in 360 BC. Soon after its establishment, however, Krinides was threatened by the Thracians (365 BC) and turned to King Philip II of Macedonia for help. Realizing its economic and strategic potential, Philip conquered, fortified, and renamed the city after himself. Hellenistic Philippoi had a fortification wall, a theatre, several public buildings, and private houses. The construction of the Via Egnatia through the city in the second century BC made Philippoi an important regional centre. The dramatic battle of Philippoi, which took place outside the west city walls in 42 BC, was a turning point in the city's history. The city was conquered by Octavian and renamed Colonia Augusta Julia Philippensis. The new Roman colony developed into a financial, administrative, and artistic centre.

Table 5-5 below presents an inventory of the Cultural Heritage Sites in the proximity of the new basecase. Map 2.5 in Appendix II provides an overview of identified sites in the area of the new basecase.

Page 34 of 59

Table 5-5 Inventory of the Cultural Heritage Sites in the Area of the New Basecase

Associated Cultural Site Source of Distance to Area of High Heritage Site Importance Site Name Site Centreline Description of Site Period Archaeologic Site Type and/or Information (m) al Potential? Number Quality (Y/N) Ground Medium concentration of roof tiles. Site possibly extends further. Good view of AM16 PhilippoiA truthed in A Uncertain Y M Philippoi mountain tops January 2014 Ground AM17 PhilippoiB truthed in AHAP A few undecorated sherds visible at the edge of the field. Uncertain Y L January 2015 Ground AM18 PhilippoiC truthed in AHAP One sherd visible at the edge of the field. Good view of Philippoi mountain tops. Uncertain Unknown L January 2016 Ground AM19 PhilippoiD truthed in June A 34 Flat agricultural area, tiny pottery fragments Uncertain Y M 2014 Ground Pipeline crossing by the stream. Poor visibility because of high crops. Good view AM20 PhilippoiE truthed in June AHAP 7 Uncertain Y L of Philippoi mountain tops. 2014 Ground AM21 PhilippoiJ truthed in June AHAP 704 Flat agricultural area, no field walking due to high crops. Uncertain Y L 2014 Ground Quantity of small stones in the field. Differentiated growth in an area approx. AM22 PhilippoiF truthed in June A Uncertain Y L 12x3m. 1 pottery shred. In the same area a pottery spread. Poor visibility. 2014 Ground Few pottery sherds. Differentiated plant growth. Good view of Philippoi mountain AM23 PhilippoiG truthed in June AHAP 42 Uncertain Y L tops. 2014 Ground Stone cairn at the edge of a field, by a water steam obviously from field clearing. AM24 PhilippoiH truthed in June A 33 Among them a stone fragment with worked sides, depicting an animal's leg. Uncertain Y H 2014 Possibly part of a funerary stele. Ground Stone cairn along the edge of a corn field, two of them possibly worked. Possibly AM25 PhilippoiI truthed in June A 10 Uncertain Y H field clearing. 2014

Page 35 of 59

Associated Cultural Site Source of Distance to Area of High Heritage Site Importance Site Name Site Centreline Description of Site Period Archaeologic Site Type and/or Information (m) al Potential? Number Quality (Y/N) Section by the edge of Philippoi archaeological zone B. Flat agricultural area, Ground ploughed fields, young wheat crop. At this point a possible slight rise of the AM112 PhilippoiJ truthed in AHAP Uncertain Y L ground by the dirt road. A couple of roof tiles at the edge of the fields. Good view January 2014 of Philippoi mountain tops. Ground AM113 PhilippoiK truthed in AHAP Few roof tiles at the edge of the field. Uncertain Y L January 2015 1. Ancient town of Philippoi, Walls, Acropolis hill part of the location Kalamitsa at the area of ancient town Antisara, among other antiquities. The north boundary Archaeological of the 2 km corridor is in proximity to the boundary of the archaeological site of Prehistoric, CH-73-LK-E area of A Y H Philippoi and of the suggested protection zone A of Dikili Tas. Historic Philippoi 2. Location Toumpa. Prehistoric settlement. Officially recognized archaeological site. Extended CH site Literature AM26 Kalamonas2 review A 458 Hellenistic cemetery Hellenistic Unknown H Literature Ancient town under Philippoi roman colony is reported in the area. Chance AM27 Kalamonas3 review A 725 findings, marble Dionysus head 2nd BC Unknown H Ground truthed in June AM28 KalamonasA 2014 AHAP 53 Sporadic pottery.(Two undecorated pottery sherds) Uncertain Y L Ground truthed in June AM29 KalamonasB 2014 AHAP 224 Sporadic pottery(two roof tiles) Uncertain Y L Ground truthed in June AM30 KalamonasC 2014 A 89 Low density pottery sherds. Uncertain Y L Ground truthed in June Extended dense pottery scatter. Undecorated sherds, Fine pottery, roof tiles, AM31 KalamonasD 2014 A 4 handles, red slip ware. Uncertain Y H Ground truthed in June AM32 KalamonasE 2014 A 15 Small-medium size stones at the edge of the field. 1 Roof tile fragment. Uncertain Y H Ground truthed in June AM33 KalamonasF 2014 A 14 Low density pottery scatter, mainly undecorated sherds. Uncertain Y L

Page 36 of 59

Associated Cultural Site Source of Distance to Area of High Heritage Site Importance Site Name Site Centreline Description of Site Period Archaeologic Site Type and/or Information (m) al Potential? Number Quality (Y/N) Ground truthed in June AM34 KalamonasG 2014 AHAP 0 Few and far roof tiles.1 marble fragment. Uncertain Y L Ground truthed in June AM35 KalamonasH 2014 A 4 1 pottery sherd. Stone cairn at the edge of the field across the road. Uncertain Y M Ground truthed in June AM36 KalamonasI 2014 AHAP 80 Field with young cotton plants.Medium size peebles, 1 undecorated sherd. Uncertain Y L Ground truthed in June AM98 KalamonasJ 2014 A 91 Information on ancient structures in the fields to the south of pipeline Uncertain Y H Ground truthed in June AM99 KalamonasK 2014 A 362 Information on archaeology close to the solar farm to the north of pipeline Uncertain Y H Literature C/AM26 Kalamonas1 review A Chance findings, Hellenistic cemetery reported in Kalamonas area. Uncertain Y H

Notes Site Types A Archaeological Site AHAP Area of High Archaeological Potential ICH Site with Intangible Cultural Heritage M Monument Site Importance H High M Moderate/Medium L Low

Source: EXERGIA (2014)

Page 37 of 59

6 5BAssessment of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

6.1 Physical23B environment

6.1.1 Climate55B and Ambient Air Quality

The key potential impacts on climate and ambient air quality relevant to the construction, operation and decommissioning of pipeline sections are presented in the table below.

Table 6-1 Key Potential Impacts – Ambient Air Quality

Construction Phase Operations Phase Decommissioning Phase • Temporary impacts on local air quality • Vehicle movements’ • No key potential impacts foreseen due to atmospheric emissions during the associated with maintenance Project construction from construction will be minimal, therefore no machinery and vehicle movements. Main key potential impacts pollutant emitted will be PM (particulate foreseen. matter, dust).

Source: ERM (2013)

Taking into account that no settlements are located closer to 200m from the new basecase in the Philippoi Plain, no significant impacts relevant to climate and ambient air quality are anticipated during construction. In any case, standard mitigation measures such as dust suppression by water spraying will be applied where dust generating activities like earthworks or transport on unpaved roads take place in the immediate vicinity of settlements. Details on impact assessment and mitigation measures relevant to climate and ambient air quality are provided in section 8.2 of the ESIA (GPL00-ASP-642-Y-TAE-0056_00).

6.1.2 Acoustic56B Environment

The key potential impacts relevant to the acoustic environment during the construction, operation and decommissioning of pipeline sections are presented in the table below.

Table 6-2 Key Potential Impacts – Acoustic Environment Construction Phase Operations Phase Decommissioning Phase • Disturbance of nearby settlements • No key potential impacts • Disturbance of nearby settlements from working sites foreseen from working sites • Potential for sleep disturbance; day • Potential for sleep disturbance; and night-time nuisance and potential potential stress from stress from construction activity noise decommissioning activity noise • Potential temporary disturbance • Potential temporary disturbance and/or displacement of fauna (e.g. and/or displacement of fauna (e.g. reduction of usable habitat) from reduction of usable habitat) from construction activity noise decommissioning activity noise

Source: ERM (2013)

Page 38 of 59

Taking into account that there are no settlements closer than 200m from the new basecase in the Philippoi Plain as well as that no hammering or blasting activities will be necessary due to the subsoil characteristics of the area, no significant impacts to the acoustic environment are foreseen. Standard mitigation measures, such as limiting construction activities to daytime hours, will be applied in any case. Details on impact assessment and mitigation measures relevant to the acoustic environment are provided in section 8.3 of the ESIA (GPL00-ASP-642-Y-TAE- 0056_00).

6.1.3 Groundwater57B and Surface Waters

Key potential impacts to groundwater and surface waters relevant to the construction, operation and decommissioning of pipeline sections are presented below.

Table 6-3 Key Potential Impacts – Freshwater Resources

Construction Phase Operations Phase Decommissioning Phase • Modification of watercourse • Restriction of future irrigation networks • Accidental pollution of morphology increasing flooding and freshwater resources by • Consumption of freshwater resources disturbing drainage networks solid, liquid wastes and • Accidental pollution of freshwater hydrocarbon/fuels • Effects on surface water from resources by solid, liquid wastes and sediment plumes caused by hydrocarbons/fuels. watercourse crossings, trenching, etc. • Accidental pollution of freshwater resources by solid, liquid wastes, and hydrocarbon/ fuels • Erosion control

Source: ERM (2013)

Taking into account to lack of natural or semi-natural streams along the new basecase in the Philippoi Plain, direct impacts on surface waters as a result from watercourses crossings are not anticipated.

Likely impacts to groundwater due to the high water table in the area will be managed through the Water Management Plan, which will be established to identify and manage groundwater pumping needs and to manage surface run-off, while a Spill Contingency Plan will be established to respond to any accidental spill or unintentional discharge of untreated wastewater or waste. Details on impact assessment and mitigation measures relevant to groundwater and surface waters are provided in section 8.4 of the ESIA (GPL00-ASP-642-Y-TAE-0056_00).

Page 39 of 59

6.1.4 Subsurface58B and Soil

Key potential impacts to soil and subsoil relevant to the construction, operation and decommissioning of pipeline sections are presented below.

Table 6-4 Key Potential Impacts - Subsurface and Soil

Construction Phase Operations Phase Decommissioning Phase • Disturbance and degradation of soil • No key potential impacts foreseen • Accidental pollution of soil due to compaction by accidental spills, solid and liquid wastes • Accidental pollution of soil by solid and liquid wastes or spills of hydrocarbons / fuels • Potential disturbance in case subsurface contamination is uncovered during trench / site excavation.

Source: ERM (2013)

Taking into account that the new basecase in the Philippoi Plain does not involve any permanent installations, permanent changes of ground surface and loss of soil are not relevant. Since the terrain is essentially flat, soil erosion is not relevant either. However, due to soil characteristics and high groundwater table, construction activities (mainly removal of vegetation and trenching) carried out along the working strip can lead to soil compaction.

To avoid or reduce compaction, established mitigation methods will be applied during construction and reinstatement and soils in the construction strip are anticipated to return to previous agricultural productivity. The removal and storage of topsoil, subsoil and any parent material will be managed to facilitate the restoration stage. The sites will be re-vegetated immediately after construction while construction will be performed mostly in dry periods. Additionally, deep ploughing will be applied immediately following construction.

The risk for soil pollution through accidental spills of fuels and lubricant or improper disposal of waste and wastewater will be minimised by appropriate wastewater treatment, waste management, proper storage and storage of polluting substances, i.e. Good housekeeping practice construction management by the EPC contractor. A Spill Contingency and Response Plan to prevent and respond to any spill will be implemented. Accidently polluted soil will be excavated and disposed of as waste according to the type of pollution.

Details on standard impact assessment and mitigation measures relevant to soil and subsoil are provided in section 8.5 of the ESIA (GPL00-ASP-642-Y-TAE-0056_00).

Page 40 of 59

6.1.5 Landscape59B and Visual Amenity

The new basecase route in the Philippoi Plain will cross pure agricultural land with annual cultivation, a landscape character type of low sensitivity (reference is made to section 8.6 of the ESIA (GPL00-ASP-642-Y-TAE-0056_00), where details on impact assessment and mitigation relevant to landscape are provided). Any impacts to visual amenity will be limited during the construction period, while after reinstatement the pipeline will not be visible at all. Therefore, impacts to landscape and visual amenity are considered not significant.

6.2 Biological24B Environment

The following table presents the key potential impacts of the new basecase on ecology during its key phases.

Table 6-5 Key Potential Impacts - Ecology

Construction Operational & Decommissioning Activity Phase Maintenance Phase Phase Flora Habitat loss X X Species loss (injury / mortality of animals) X X

Source: ERM (2013)

In the following Sections, each potential impact has been discussed giving information on how each source is likely to have an impact on receptors and the mitigation measures inbuilt within the Project.

6.2.1 Construction60B and Pre-commissioning Phase

6.2.1.1 Potential75B Impact

6.2.1.1.1 Flora81B Habitat Loss

The new basecase route crosses mainly agricultural land, i.e. the presence of natural habitats is very limited. Notable habitats comprise the following:

• Riparian stands still remaining at the crossing points with irrigation channels or along the one natural stream crossed by the route. However, such stands comprise common riparian trees or have not been observed to form typical natural riparian galleries. As a result, the sensitivity of the habitats is considered low and the resulting impact not significant.

• European Habitat 7230 Alkaline fen communities, recorded on two occasions. Fens have a significant function in water purification, flood prevention and global warming regulation

Page 41 of 59

due to their ability of carbon storage. However, alkaline fens have been selectively drained in the past and have become very rare and threatened at European level and in Greece. Although their sensitivity is high, the magnitude of impact is expected to be low as they are located relatively far from the pipeline route (one at 135 m and the other more than 500 m). The corresponding impact is of moderate significance.

6.2.1.1.2 Species/population82B Loss

Νο flora taxa of conservation interest have been reported along the new basecase route.

Construction works for new basecase could potentially impose an impact in fish populations and their community structure. The most important impact during construction will be the trenching works for the pipeline at the crossing points with streams or channels, which could create a heavy load of fine sediment into the water.

Suspended sediments affect, directly or indirectly, almost all fish species, in different ways and severity, depending on their ecology and behavioural strategies. For most of the reported freshwater species it is expected that the overall impact of new basecase construction and operation will be minor; their life strategies and range of distribution will likely help them overcome any decline in population.

More significant impact is anticipated for two species of very restricted range reported from the aera, E. hellenicus and C. punctilineata. Construction works at water body crossing points are expected to directly affect their habitat and their populations, at the crossing points and the broader downstream area. The sensitivity of the species is considered high and prior to the application of mitigation measures the significance of the impact for the particular species is characterised as moderate.

Breeding birds are also very likely to be locally disturbed during the construction activities of the new basecase. The machinery used in the construction site might be the most significant source of potential noise disturbance, as well as generators, assembling of machinery, traffic, general construction noise, human vocalizations etc.

Nevertheless, current evidence indicates that the species that frequent the new basecase area as breeders or foragers are accustomed to the human presence and often thrive in agricultural or even urban environments. An exception to this is Acrocephalus arundinaceus which is a breeder and a habitat specialist along the new basecase; the distribution of its sibling species

Page 42 of 59

2 Acrocephalus scirpaceus in central ItaliaP1F P has shown to be dependent on the amount of the available habitat (reed beds) remaining in the area and it is likely that Acrocephalus arundinaceus reacts in a similar way. In this case, the local population may be impacted by the loss of the remaining riparian stands at the crossing points with irrigation channels and streams.

Assuming that the local Acrocephalus arundinaceous populations shows a strong dependency on the amount of available habitat (i.e. the sensitivity of the species is high), and prior to the application of mitigation measures, the significance of the impact for the particular species is characterised as moderate.

6.2.1.2 Mitigation76B Measures

6.2.1.2.1 Flora83B Habitat Loss

General measures to minimise habitat loss are described in Ch. 8.7.2.2.1 of ESIA Section 8 - Assessment of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (GPL00-ASP-642-Y-TAE-0056_00). The most relevant of these measures are:

• Establishment of working strip to restrict area of impact to within working corridor;

• Implementation of a reduced working strip (28 m) through sensitive habitats (European or Greek habitats), as required;

• Implementation of a minimum working strip (18 m) through Priority European habitats;

• Pre-construction habitat surveys must be conducted so as to identify specific issues.

• Access road upgrading will follow existing tracks and trails where possible;

• Fens to be protected by adequate fencing in the proximity of access roads to the working strip;

• Construction facilities to be sited on unused land of no particular ecological value;

• No construction materials will be taken from the surrounding environment unless approved by the competent authority;

2 Mortelliti & al (2012)

Page 43 of 59

• Establish a pre- post construction biodiversity baseline from which all mitigation, restoration, and loss / degradation can be measured;

• Work to retain passage for species as long as possible across the corridor and following works to reinstate passage to be conducted immediately upon pipe section completion;

• Ecological awareness training should be provided to all personnel.

6.2.1.2.2 Species84B and Population Loss

General mitigation measures to address species and population loss are provided in the ESIA – section 8.7.2.2.4 (GPL00-ASP-642-Y-TAE-0056_00). Mitigation measures to minimize any potential impact to the population of E. hellenicus and C. punctilineata species are the following:

• Construction of trenchless crossing at Philippoi_3 crossing point with the respective stream

• Freshwater fish population assessment prior to construction to assess population status and development of Watercourse Crossing Plans to reduce sediment load at Philippoi_5 and Philippoi_9 streams, which will be crossed by open-cut methods

• Freshwater fish population status assessment immediately after construction at Philippoi_5 and Philippoi_9 streams

Mitigation measure to minimize any potential impact to the population of Acrocephalus arundinaceus are the following:

• Population status assessment of Acrocephalus arundinaceus prior to construction activities, investigation of dependence to the remaining habitat

• On the basis of the results of the above, application of reduced working strip during consutrction at ripariar sites used by the species population.

Page 44 of 59

6.2.1.3 Residual77B Impacts

The following table assesses the significance of the impacts related to new basecase construction after the implementation of the described mitigation measures.

Table 6-6 Significance of Project Residual Impacts – Construction Phase Impact and Risk Mitigation measures Significance of residual impact Habitat loss • Locate fen communities prior to construction and ensure that no construction Alkaline fen communities or other works (i.e. access Not significant roads) will compromise the stands, provide adequate fencing Species- Population Loss • Population status assessment of Acrocephalus arundinaceus prior to construction activities, Acrocephalus arundius investigation of dependence Minor to the remaining habitat • Reduced working strip during construction at riparian sites • Trenchless crossing for Philippoi_3 crossing point with the respective stream • Freshwater fish population assessment prior to construction to assess population status and development of Eudontomyzon hellenicus, Cobitis Watercourse Crossing Plans Minor punctilineata to reduce sediment load at Philippoi_5 and Philippoi_9 streams, which will be crossed by open-cut methods. • Freshwater fish population status assessment immediately after construction at Philippoi_5 and Philippoi_9 streams

Source: EXERGIA (2014)

Page 45 of 59

6.2.2 Operations61B and Maintenance Phase

There are no anticipated impacts on biological environment during the operation and maintenance phase of the new basecase section. Reference is made to general mitigation measures during pipeline operation and maintenance in Section 8.4.3 of the ESIA (GPL00-ASP- 642-Y-TAE-0056_00).

6.2.3 Decommissioning62B Phase

It is expected that the same type of equipment, machinery and vehicles, with the ones used for construction, are to be used during decommissioning. As a result similar impacts, mitigation measures and residual impacts are expected as for the construction phase.

6.3 Socioeconomic25B Environment

Potential socioeconomic impacts may arise from any changes related to the Project that affect what is referred to as the livelihoods framework of individuals, households, communities or societies.

Impacts to people may be direct, indirect or induced as follows:

• Direct impacts result directly from project activities. An example is land take by the project removing agricultural land upon which a household depends. Commonly a project has significant control in terms of avoiding or otherwise mitigating direct impacts.

• Indirect socioeconomic impacts commonly occur when environmental quality is impacted by project activities which then cause impacts to people. For example, the health of those with pre-existing respiratory problems may worsen should air quality reduce as a result of dust caused by the construction. Indirect impacts to people are often taken account of in the evaluation criteria for the direct environmental impact (e.g. air quality, noise etc).

• Induced socioeconomic impacts are those that the project does not directly cause, but are encouraged or stimulated by the project. A potential example is inward-migration by job- seekers into local communities hoping to gain employment on the project. Typically a project is unable to fully control induced impacts, although mitigation may be applied to reduce the likelihood and or scale of the impact.

A detail assessment of potential impact and respective mitigation measures of project activities on economy, employment and income, land and livelihoods, infrastructure and public services,

Page 46 of 59

but also potential impact on community health and safety and traffic and transport is presented at Section 8.10-8.16 of ESIA Section 8 - Assessment of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (GPL00- ASP-642-Y-TAE-0056_00).

6.4 Cultural26B Heritage Environment

This Section assesses the potential impacts of the new basecase on cultural heritage resources, namely impacts on:

• Archaeological sites;

• Monuments; and

• Sites with intangible cultural heritage (ICH) value.

Key potential impacts relevant to the new basecase are as follows.

Table 6-7 Key Impacts – Cultural Heritage

Construction Phase Operations Phase Decommissioning Phase • Direct physical disturbance of or damage • No anticipated impacts on known • Degradation of or damage to to the sites; heritage. above-ground structures due to pollution or vibration. • Degradation of or damage to above- ground structures due to pollution or vibration; • Disruption to visitors of cultural heritage sites; • Negative effects on the setting or ambience of cultural heritage sites.

Source: ERM (2013)

The following Sections refer to the potential impacts and discuss necessary measures to address identified impacts/risks.

6.4.1 Construction63B and Pre-commissioning Phase

6.4.1.1 Potential78B Impacts

6.4.1.1.1 Direct85B Physical Disturbance of or Damage to Cultural Heritage Sites

Ground-disturbing activities, including vegetation and topsoil removal, grading, and excavations, are possible sources of impact for Cultural Heritage Sites. The movement of heavy equipment and vehicles in the working strip may also compress subsurface archaeological resources, which can in turn cause loss of the scientific and historic value inherent in the remains. The relevant

Page 47 of 59

Site preparation and other construction activities may result in the disturbance of topsoil and subsoil within a 38 m wide working strip around the base case route centreline. Therefore, if archaeological sites in proximity to the pipeline cannot be avoided through on-site micro- rerouting, a 28 m wide reduced working strip or a 18 m minimum working strip may be adopted instead. Additionally, disturbance of or damage to cultural heritage sites may occur when roads are upgraded and in areas required for the structures associated with the compressor stations, block valve stations, pipe yards, construction camps and other Project logistics.

The area of direct physical impacts is defined as the Project footprint. For the pipeline, the minimum width that will be affected by construction phase activities is the 18 m wide minimum working strip. The minimum working strip is asymmetrical and can extend 9.3 m from the centreline on its widest side. Based on these dimensions, the assessment assumes that any cultural heritage sites 10 m or less from the centreline will be physically impacted by construction.

Direct physical impacts are only anticipated during the construction phase of the Project. Areas where direct physical impacts are anticipated include (see map 2.5 in Appendix II):

• ΑΜ20 - PhilippoiE (AHAP) – Pipeline crossing by the stream. Good view of Philippoi mountain tops

• ΑΜ16 - PhilippoiI (A) - Stone cairn along the edge of a corn field, two of them possibly worked. Possibly field clearing.

• ΑΜ32 - KalamonasE (A) - Small-medium size stones at the edge of the field and roof tile fragment.

• ΑΜ31- KalamonasD (A) - Extended dense pottery scatter, undecorated sherds, lip fragment, handlebase, Roof tiles fragments, brick fragments, straple handles,rim fragments, cairn

• ΑΜ33 - KalamonasF (A) - Low density pottery scatter, mainly undecorated sherds

• ΑΜ34 - KalamonasG (AHAP) - Few and far roof tiles.1 marble fragment.

• ΑΜ35 - KalamonasH (A) - Pottery sherd, and stone cairn at the edge of the field

Page 48 of 59

• ΑΜ18 - PhilippoiC (AHAP) - One sherd visible at the edge of the field. Good view of Philippoi Mountain tops.

Sites identified outside the regular working strip but within 50 m from the Project footprint will possibly also sustain direct physical impacts. These include:

• ΑΜ19 - PhilippoiD (A) – Tiny pottery fragments

• ΑΜ22- PhilippoiF (A) - Quantity of small stones in the field, pottery sherd. Differentiated growth in an area approx. 12x3m.

• ΑΜ23 - PhilippoiG (AHAP) - Few pottery sherds. Differentiated plant growth. Good view of Philippoi mountain tops.

• ΑΜ24 - Philippoi H (A) - Stone cairn at the edge of a field, by a water steam obviously from field clearing. Among them a stone fragment with worked sides, depicting an animal's leg. Possibly part of a funerary stele.

• ΑΜ28 - KalamonasA (AHAP) - Sporadic pottery

• ΑΜ17 - PhilippoiB (AHAP) - Few undecorated sherds visible at the edge of the field.

6.4.1.1.2 Degradation86B or Damage to Cultural Heritage Sites Due to Pollution or Vibration

Above-ground portions of cultural heritage sites are subject to impacts from air pollution (mainly dust) and vibration caused by the operation of machinery, heavy vehicle traffic, and high-impact activities such as blasting and machine-powered hammering. Depending on their structural condition, sites with standing or partially standing features, such as commemorative monuments, historic buildings, or architectural remains, may be at risk of degradation or collapse due to vibration. Air pollutants can also collect on the outer surface of structures in the form of dust and soot, causing discoloration and corrosion of building material. Stone structures are particularly sensitive to the corrosive effects of air pollution.

Sites with standing or partially standing features have not been identified in the area of the TAP new basecase. Therefore no impacts of damage due to pollution or vibration have been identified.

Page 49 of 59

6.4.1.1.3 Disruption87B to Visitor Access of Cultural Heritage Sites

In some cases, Project activities may obstruct visitor access to cultural heritage sites. This impact is relevant for important monuments, archaeological sites that receive visitors, and sites with ICH value.

This type of impact is most likely to occur during the construction phase. Disruption to visitor access of cultural heritage sites along/within vicinity of the pipeline route is not anticipated to occur during the decommissioning phase, as no roads should need to be upgraded or constructed, as roads are the primary source of access restriction.

In the area of the project, there is a potential disruption to the archaeological site of Philippoi, but the disturbance will be temporary and mitigation measures will be foreseen.

6.4.1.1.4 Detrimental88B Effects on the Setting or Ambience of Cultural Heritage Sites

Cultural heritage sites are closely related to the surrounding landscape and view shed. Impacts on the setting or ambience of a cultural heritage site can affect its value to visitors and users. This type of impact affects visitors to monuments, popular archaeological sites, and users of sites with ICH value.

In the project area of TAP new basecase, any visual impacts will be only temporary and connected to construction activities.

6.4.1.2 Mitigation79B Measures

A detail analysis of mitigation measures applied for the whole project in order to mitigate the impacts discussed above is fully and thoroughly presented in ESIA Section 8 - Assessment of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (GPL00-ASP-642-Y-TAE-0056_00). Specific mitigation measures are cited in Table 6-8 below.

Page 50 of 59

6.4.1.3 Residual80B Impacts

The construction phase is expected to produce the highest number of impacts as well as the most significant impacts. Mitigation measures to avoid direct physical impacts will take priority over mitigation for indirect impacts.

Table 6-8 Mitigation Measures and Anticipated Residual Impacts for the Construction and Pre- commissioning Phase Site Name Impact / Risk Measures to Address the Impact / Significance of Risk Residual Impact Direct physical disturbance of or damage to a resource PhilippoiE(ΑΜ20) Direct physical • Liaison and further consultation with KalamonasF(ΑΜ33) disturbance of or Ephorates of Antiquities KalamonasG(ΑΜ23) damage to sites • Cultural Heritage Management Plan Not Significant close to the (archaeological monitoring and PhilippoiC(A18) minimum pipeline “chance finds” procedure) working strip • Further research and Site Evaluation KalamonasH(ΑΜ35) • Further research and Site Evaluation Direct physical disturbance of or • Marking and protection damage to sites • Minimum working strip close to the • Guidance in Code of Conduct Minor minimum pipeline • Cultural Heritage Management Plan working strip and (archaeological monitoring and possibly extend to “chance finds” procedure) pipeline trench • Liaison and further consultation with Ephorates of Antiquities PhilippoiI(ΑΜ25) • Further research and Site Evaluation KalamonasE(ΑΜ20) • Marking and protection KalamonasD(ΑΜ31) Direct physical • Guidance in Code of Conduct disturbance of or • damage to sites Cultural Heritage Management Plan Minor (archaeological monitoring and close to the minimum pipeline “chance finds” procedure) working strip • Liaison and further consultation with Ephorates of Antiquities • Minimum working strip PhilippoiF(ΑΜ22) • Further research and Site PhilippoiG(ΑΜ23) Evaluation Direct physical KalamonasA(ΑΜ28) • Marking and protection disturbance of or • Guidance in Code of Conduct PhilippoiB(ΑΜ17) damage to Not Significant archaeological • Cultural Heritage Management Plan sites within 50 m (archaeological monitoring and from Pipeline “chance finds” procedures • Liaison and further consultation with Ephorates of Antiquities PhilippoiD(ΑΜ19) • Further research and Site Direct physical Not Significant disturbance of or Evaluation

damage to • Government engagement

Page 51 of 59

Site Name Impact / Risk Measures to Address the Impact / Significance of Risk Residual Impact archaeological • Marking and protection sites within 50 m • Rescue from Pipeline • Guidance in Code of Conduct • Cultural Heritage Management Plan (archaeological monitoring and “chance finds” procedure) • Liaison and further consultation with Ephorates of Antiquities PhilippoiH(ΑΜ24) • Further research and Site Evaluation • Marking and protection Direct physical • Minimum working strip disturbance of or • damage to Guidance in Code of Conduct Not Significant archaeological • Cultural Heritage Management Plan sites within 50 m (archaeological monitoring and from Pipeline “chance finds” procedure) • Liaison and further consultation with Ephorates of Antiquities • Minimum working strip Disruption of user access to resource Disruption in user • Planning to avoid user access access of restrictions archaeological site Philippoi • Alternate access of Philippoi, due to Minor archaeological site • Public notification pipeline crossing of the peripheral zone • Community liaison team to manage of the site. access Negative effects on the setting and ambience of a resource Temporary • Evaluation Negative effects on • Authorities consultation the setting and • Noise and vibration monitoring ambience of Philippoi archaeological site • Guidance in Code of Conduct Not Significant archaeological site of Philippoi, due to • Aesthetic mitigation and noise pipeline crossing of screening techniques the peripheral zone of the site.

Source: EXERGIA (2014)

6.4.2 Operations64B and Maintenance Phase

There are no anticipated residual impacts during the operation and maintenance phase of the Project.

Page 52 of 59

6.4.3 Decommissioning65B Phase

Impacts during decommissioning are difficult to predict since decommissioning of the pipeline will not take place for at least 50 years. By the time of decommissioning, cultural heritage baseline conditions in the study area may have changed due to reasons unrelated to the Project. Decommissioning techniques may also have changed by that time, although whatever approach is taken will be state-of-the art at the time it occurs. The assessment of residual impacts is based on the cultural heritage sites currently known within the study area.

The predicted sources of residual impact are heavy vehicle traffic and demolition activities associated with Project facilities. Abandonment-in-place of the pipeline (leaving it in the ground) constitutes current international best practice. Assuming that this approach is the same at the time of decommissioning, impacts along the pipeline will be minimal. Direct physical disturbance or damage is not an expected impact, during this phase since decommissioning will take place only in areas previously impacted during construction.

Page 53 of 59

7 Conclusions6B and Summary

In the framework of the public consultation process for the ESIA of the Greek section of the TAP pipeline project, concerns were voiced by the Technical Chamber of Greece – Division of East Macedonia (TEE-AM) and by the regional and local authorities over the ESIA baseline route in Philippoi Plain. The main argument behind these concerns is that the crossing of the highly organic peat area by the pipeline will result in socioeconomic impacts for the local farmers and in operational risks for the pipeline itself.

In order to address these concerns, the project team undertook analysis of a number of different route alternatives in Philippoi Plain:

• The Alternative Parallel to the Existing DESFA Route

• The South Alternative (suggested by TEE-AM)

• The North Alternative

Figure 7-1 Overview of alternative routes and ESIA basecase in Philippoi Plain

Light blue line: ESIA basecase Yellow line: Alternative parallel to DESFA route Red line: South alternative Purple line: North alternative Green dashed area: Tenagi area (Peat) Source: ETG (2014)

Page 54 of 59

7.1 Technical27B Assessment of Alternatives

The technical assessment of the pipeline route alternatives in Philippoi Plain has demonstrated that the north alternative presents clear advantages over the rest of the alternatives. Specifically:

• The ESIA basecase faces some technical challenges, mostly related to crossing 1.5 km of the peat area. These challenges can be addressed by the appropriate safety and mitigation measures (i.e. application of concrete saddles above the pipeline to provide buoyancy control).

• The alternative parallel to DESFA route faces similar challenges to the ESIA basecase for slightly longer pipeline section. In addition, this alternative faces a number of technical obstacles in terms of constructability due to crossing the main peat area for a length of 1.7 km, also crossing the transition zone of the peat area and being located close to a hospital.

• In contrast, the north alternative exhibits no special technical challenges and it avoids crossing the peat area.

7.2 Ecological28B Assessment of Alternatives

The ecological assessment of the pipeline route alternatives has shown that the south alternative exhibits an increased footprint with regard to crossing of environmental protected areas (among which a Natura 2000 site) as compared to the rest of the alternatives. The north alternative offers an advantage as it does not interfere with any environmental protected areas. In specific, the environmental footprint in terms of crossing environmental protected areas is as follows: Table 7-1: Environmental Footprint Crossing length (m) Feature ESIA DESFA South North Basecase alternative alternative alternative Environmental Areas 4,150 700 18,800 0

Source: ETG (2014)

Page 55 of 59

7.3 Cultural29B Heritage Assessment of Alternatives

The cultural heritage assessment of the pipeline route alternatives has demonstrated that the ESIA basecase and the alternative parallel to DESFA route have an advantage since both are passing adjacent to the archaeological areas of Philippoi and Mount Paggaio without crossing them.

The north alternative crosses the peripheral zone of the archaeological area of Pilippoi for over 7km. However, the competent authorities have confirmed that the north alternative route presents a relatively low probability for archaeological findings.

In contrast, the south alternative faces significant challenges as it crosses the designated archaeological area of Paggaio Mountain for over 10km, while it will most likely cross the archaeological site of Ancient Amfipoli, in which archaeological research is currently in progress and significant findings have already been revealed.

7.4 Socioeconomic30B Assessment of Alternatives

With regard to socioeconomic impacts, the north alternative has a clear advantage as it avoids crossing the peat area, thus addressing the concerns of the local stakeholders, while it is kept distant from settlements (only 4 settlements closer than 1000m, none closer than 200m). The south alternative, which also avoids crossing the peat area, achieves this at the expense of 13 km crossing of perennial cultivations (fruit trees, nut trees and vineyard areas) and proximity to 11 settlements (closer than 1000m).

As a result of the technical, environmental, socioeconomic and cultural heritage assessment of the route alternatives, the north alternative is selected as the new basecase for Philippoi Plain.

7.5 Baseline31B Data Collection for the New Basecase

The collection of baseline information for the new basecase with regard to physical, biological, socioeconomic and cultural environment, and the relevant impact assessment and mitigation was conducted in accordance with the ESIA methodology described in detail in the document ESIA Greece Section 5 - ESIA Approach and Methodology (GPL00-ASP-642-Y-TAE-0053_00). It comprised desktop work and field surveys where necessary. The main results of this process are presented below:

Page 56 of 59

• The new basecase route crosses mainly alluvial, terrestrial deposits and lacustrine deposits;

• Where alluvial deposits are crossed, the route demonstrates high liquefaction susceptibility. However, the estimated deformation / subsidence due to liquefaction (average 3-6 cm, worst case 12-14 cm) is unlikely to have an impact on the TAP pipeline due to its size and the dispersion of settling along a significant zone in areas of soft soil formations;

• The new basecase is not affected by any active faulting system in its immediate vicinity or associated with significant instrumental seismicity;

• The dominant soil types along the new basecase are Rhodric Luvisol and Calcaric Fluvisol. Their structural characteristics and the flat topography result in generally high risk for soil compaction;

• Due to the depth of groundwater table, permeability of the aquifer material and permeability of aquifer overlying strata, the vulnerability of the groundwater is considered high;

• No major surface water bodies are found along the new basecase other than irrigation channels. The presence of natural or semi-natural streams is extremely limited;

• The new basecase crosses agricultural land cultivated with annual crops, mainly corn, sunflower, cotton and wheat. Other types of habitats are scarce and only comprise remnants of riparian vegetation along streams and irrigation channels.

• The route runs along roads and existing channels, minimizing impact on annual cultivations.

• No sensitive or specially designated habitats are found along the new basecase route with the exception of two sites of small remnant fen communities observed 140m and over 500m away from the pipeline working strip.

• No flora species of conservation interest have been recorded along the new basecase.

Page 57 of 59

• Common bird species that frequent wetlands as well as agricultural areas and plains were observed in the field surveys, with the exception of Acrocephalus arundinaceus which is a breeder and a habitat specialist along the new basecase;

• With regard to aquatic ecology, of particular conservation interest is the presence of Eudontomyzon hellenicus and of Cobitis punctilineata, both with a very restricted distribution in Greece;

• Cultural heritage findings are dominated by the archaeological area of Philippoi which is an officially recognized archaeological area and an important archaeological element of the area. A number of other sites of archaeological potential were also identified.

7.6 Mitigation32B Measures to be Applied to the New Basecase

The application of standard mitigation measures, as these have been described in Section 8 of the ESIA (GPL00-ASP-642-Y-TAE-0056_00), will in most cases suffice to address potential impacts from the construction, operation and decommissioning of the new basecase pipeline section in Philippoi Plain. Emphasis is put on the following:

• To avoid or reduce soil compaction, established mitigation methods will be applied during construction and reinstatement and soils in the construction strip are anticipated to return to previous agricultural productivity. The removal and storage of topsoil, subsoil and any parent material will be managed to facilitate the restoration stage. The sites will be re- vegetated immediately after construction while construction will be limited to dry periods. Additionally, deep ploughing will be applied immediately following construction.

• Likely impacts to groundwater due to the high water table in the area will be managed through the Water Management Plan, which will be established to identify and manage groundwater pumping needs and to manage surface run-off, while a Spill Contingency Plan will be established to respond to any accidental spill or unintentional discharge of untreated wastewater or waste.

• The Alkaline fen communities are relatively far from the pipeline working strip and likely impacts are only due to construction of access roads or accidental damage due to project traffic. Apart from standard mitigation measures, the fens will be adequately fenced and access roads will follow existing tracks and trails away from the fens where possible.

Page 58 of 59

• Potential impact to the population of E. hellenicus and C. punctilineata species will be mitigated by the construction of trenchless crossing at the specific crossing point, fish population assessments prior to construction and fish population status assessment immediately after construction, at streams which will be crossed by open-cut methods.

• Potential impact to the population of Acrocephalus arundinaceus will be mitigated by population status assessment of the species prior to construction activities, investigation of dependence to the remaining habitat and, on the basis of the results of the above, application of reduced working strip during construction at riparian sites used by the species population.

• Potential impacts to cultural heritage in the archaeological area of Philippoi will be mitigated by working closely with the competent Ephorates of Antiquities and the Ministry of Culture and Sports, pre-construction surveys, detailed investigations of the pipeline route with the presence of archaeologists, minimization of the working strip, archaeological monitoring and “chance finds” procedure as part of a Cultural Heritage Management Plan.

The application of the general and specific mitigation measures described above renders the project residual impacts not significant or of minor significance in most of the cases, and therefore confirm the validity of the new basecase as the most advantageous pipeline route in Philippoi Plain.

8 7BAppendices The following annexes are an integral part of the present document.

AppendixU I: Correspondence with Authorities • GPL00-EXG-642-Y-TAE-0002_00-at07 - Appendix 1.1. Correspondence with GEOTEE • GPL00-EXG-642-Y-TAE-0002_00-at08 - Appendix 1.2. Correspondence with ΤΕΕ-ΑΜ • GPL00-EXG-642-Y-TAE-0002_00-at09 - Appendix 1.3. Correspondence with MoCS

AppendixU II: Maps • GPL00-EXG-642-Y-TAE-0002_00-at01 - Appendix 2.1 TAP Route Map • GPL00-EXG-642-Y-TAE-0002_00-at02 - Appendix 2.2 Habitat and Protected areas • GPL00-EXG-642-Y-TAE-0002_00-at03 - Appendix 2.3 Landscape • GPL00-EXG-642-Y-TAE-0002_00-at04- Appendix 2.4 Land Use and Socioeconomic Environment

Page 59 of 59

• GPL00-EXG-642-Y-TAE-0002_00-at05 - Appendix 2.5 Cultural Heritage • GPL00-EXG-642-Y-TAE-0002_00-at06 - Appendix 2.6 Geology

AppendixU III: Geophysical survey in the Tenagi Area • GPL00-EXG-642-Y-TAE-0002_00-at10 - Appendix 3.1 Geophysical survey results

Appendix IV: List of ESIA Meetings • GPL00-EXG-642-Y-TAE-0002_00-at11 - Appendix 4.1 Meetings List

Trans Adriatic Pipeline AG-Greece (Branch Office)

st 21P P floor, Athens Tower, 2-4 Mesogion Ave.

11527 Athens, Greece

Phone: +30 210 745613

Fax: +30 210 745300

esia1TU [email protected] U1T

www.tap1TU -ag.com U1T

Date 09/2014

Copyright Reserved: This document may not be copied, shown to or placed at disposal of third parties without prior consent of TAP AG. The latest version of the document is registered in the TAP Project’s Database.