“IOANNINA” BLOCK IN THE REGION OF EPIRUS YEAR 2018 · exploration program in the Region of Epirus, and, in particular “Ioannina” block, to the “Energean Oil and Gas - AEGEAN

ANNUAL REPORT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM THE

HYDROCARBON EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION PROGRAM IN

“IOANNINA” BLOCK IN THE REGION OF EPIRUS

YEAR 2018

According to the approval decision’s provisions for the Strategic

Environmental Assessment Report of the survey and exploitation

program in ‘Ioannina’ Block in Epirus Region

Prepared by:

August 2019

DEPTH CHARGE TEST FOR CARBONATE AND CLASTIC FORMATIONS

2 | Σ ε λ ί δ α

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 5

1.1 SCOPE OF THE REPORT ................................................................................................................... 5

1.2 SEIA REQUIREMENT FOR ANNUAL REPORT ..................................................................................... 6

1.3 SCOPE AND CONTENTS OF THE REPORT .......................................................................................... 8

1.4 STUDY TEAM ................................................................................................................................. 8

1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING STAGES AND OTHER WORKS COMPLETED PRIOR TO 2018 ................ 9

1.6 BRIEF TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ........................................................................... 13

1.6.1 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY PHASES......................................................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 2 OPERATIONS COMPLETED IN 2018 ..................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 3 DEPTH CHARGE TEST FOR CARBONATE AND CLASTIC FORMATIONS .................................... 3

3.1 CARBONATE FORMATIONS............................................................................................................. 3

3.2 CLASTIC FORMATIONS ................................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS OF THE WIDER STUDY AREA ............................................... 7

4.1 BIODIVERSITY, FLORA AND FAUNA INDICATORS.............................................................................. 7

4.2 SOIL CHARACTERISTIC INDICATORS ................................................................................................ 9

4.3 LANDSCAPE INDICATORS.............................................................................................................. 11

4.4 WATER INDICATORS .................................................................................................................... 13

4.5 CULTURAL HERITAGE INDICATORS ................................................................................................ 16

CHAPTER 5 MAIN STUDY AREA INDICATORS....................................................................................... 18

5.1 PROTECTED AREAS – NATURA 2000 AREAS ................................................................................... 18

5.2 VEGETATION CATEGORIES INDICATORS ........................................................................................ 20

5.3 CULTURAL HERITAGE INDICATORS ................................................................................................ 22

5.4 INDICATORS OF IMPACT OF VIBRATIONS ON STRUCTURES ............................................................ 23

CHAPTER 6 ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ACTION PLAN ....... 24



CHAPTER 7 INDICATORS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MONITORING PROGRAM .................. 25

CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS ...................................................................................... 33

CHAPTER 9 RELEVANT STUDIES (ORIGINAL TITLES) ............................................................................. 35

9.1 ORIGINAL TITLES IN GREEK ........................................................................................................... 35

9.2 TRANSLATED TITLES IN ENGLISH ................................................................................................... 35



Table of Abbreviations

ESAP Environmental and Social Action Plan

ESBR Environmental and Social Baseline Study Report

EMP Environmental Monitoring Program

GG Government Gazette

JMD Joint Ministerial Decision

MD Ministerial Decision

MSA Main Study Area

NTUA National Technical University of Athens

RBMP River Basin Management Plan

TBT Toolbox Talk

YPEN Ministry for Energy and Environment



CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 SCOPE OF THE REPORT

Ministerial Decision Α.Π. οικ.172162/2.12.2013 approved the Strategic Environmental Impact

Assessment (SEIA) for the hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation program in the area of

“Ioannina” in the Region of Epirus.

The Ministerial Decision addresses the hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation program in the

onshore area, covering 4,200 km2 in total, which is restricted to the west by the coastline and to the

northwest by the Greek-Albanian borders, while its other sides are presented in the following figure.

The approval of SEIA was followed by Law 4300/2014 (GG 222A/3-10-2014) in October 2014, by virtue

of which the Greek State validated the award of the elaboration of an extensive hydrocarbon

exploration program in the Region of Epirus, and, in particular “Ioannina” block, to the “Energean Oil

and Gas - AEGEAN ENERGY HYDROCARBON EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION PUBLIC LIMITED

COMPANY” and “ΡΕΤRΑ PETROLEUM INC”.

Under Law 4300/2014, said exploration program is divided into 3 phases and includes the activities

described in the following table.



Table 1-1: Program of Exploration Works for the Onshore Area of Ioannina

Phase Class of Works Description of Works First

Ph

ase

: 3

ye

ars

Seismic Reprocessing of seismic data. Recording of 300 km of new

Seismic 2D data before drilling

Carrying out drilling works Re-entry and deepening of Demetra-1 drill or, if not technically

possible, recording of additional Seismic 2D data.

Other works Geological Surveys, Full Tensor Gravity and Aeromagnetic

Surveys

Se

co

nd

Ph

ase

: 2 y

ea

rs

Seismic -

Carrying out drilling works Drilling of 1st Exploration Deep Well

Other works -

Third

Ph

ase

: 2

ye

ars

Seismic -

Carrying out drilling works Drilling of 2nd Exploration Deep Well

Other works -

1.2 SEIA REQUIREMENT FOR ANNUAL REPORT

Furthermore, the SEIA (MD 172162/2-12-2013) approval decision, in particular chapter C “Monitoring

System of the significant environmental impacts due to the application of the program” states the

following:

“1. To monitor the significant Environmental impacts, an integrated system shall be developed on the

basis of the following principles:

1.1. Monitoring shall include both the state of the environment in the wider area affected by

hydrocarbon exploration and production activities, and in the areas directly affected by those

activities.

1.2. In the context of monitoring, the term ‘wider area’ covers as a minimum the area included in the

exploration and exploitation concession agreement. In this area, the following must be recorded:

quantities and physical properties of the main natural environment aspects, such as mainly

the air, soil, water, flora, fauna and condition of the protected area,



elements of the anthropogenic environment, i.e. related to the population and productive

structuring, institutionalized land uses of housing and production nature, infrastructure works,

and key fields of the area, such as animal production and tourism

1.3. As regards monitoring in the main area, it should focus on all the above and include, in addition,

quantities and indicators concerning the implementation of the approved environmental conditions

for each individual project; observance of the safety procedures in terms of preventing accidents

affecting the environment.

1.4. The spatial and temporal density of recordings, as well as the means used should be

proportionate to the scale of the phenomena and parameters to be monitored, including the

appropriate modifications between directly affected and wider area. The data required to monitor

environmental impact shall be collected and processed on an annual basis. Various sets of data

shall be collected throughout the year in order to enable the identification of shorter-term trends.

1.5. The monitoring shall be based on a number of key environmental sizes reflecting, in a concise

way, the major aspects of environmental progress.

……

The results of monitoring the environmental impacts of the program shall be included in an annual

report, which shall also include their evaluation and proposals for possible required corrective

actions.

Therefore, the scope of this report is to cover relevant requirements as defined and described in the

SEIA approval decision.



1.3 SCOPE AND CONTENTS OF THE REPORT

This report is structured as follows:

S/N Title of Chapter Brief description of the Chapter

1 Introduction

General introductory information is given, such as the scope of the

report, its structure and content, the study team and also

aggregated information on the historical progress of the works and

the environmental licensing of the program. Furthermore, a brief

technical description of the project is provided.

2 Works in 2018 Annual report of works completed in 2018

3 Depth charge test Presentation and results of the depth charge test, which was carried

out in January 2018 in an area with carbonates.

4

Environmental

indicators of the wider

study area

Presentation of the actual impacts of the program for 2018 at a wider

study area level using the environmental indicators proposed in the

first stage of the Environmental and Social Baseline Study

5

Environmental

indicators of main

study area

Presentation of the actual impacts of the program for 2018 at a main


second stage of the Environmental and Social Baseline Study

6

Environmental

indicators of

Environmental Action

Plan

Presentation of the actual impacts of the program for 2018 at a main


Environmental and Social Action Plan

7

Environmental

indicators of

environmental

monitoring program

Presentation of the actual impacts of the program for 2018 using new

environmental indicators, which emerged from the implementation

of the Environmental Monitoring Program, which has been in progress

since November 2018.

8 Conclusions and

directions

The key conclusions of the report are summarized and directions on

the optimization of the project’s environmental performance are

given.

9 Relevant Studies List of studies relevant to this report

1.4 STUDY TEAM

The following scientists of the company “ENVECO” specializing in environmental monitoring and

environmental protection cooperated for the elaboration of the monitoring of the hydrocarbon

exploration and exploitation program in “Ioannina” block of Epirus region and the compilation of this

Report.

Spyros Papagrigoriou, Civil Engineer, Environmental Engineer MSc

Ioannis Katselis, Mineral Resources Engineer, Environmental Engineer MSc

Ioannis Gavriil, Chemical Engineer, Environmental Engineer MSc

Stamatis Spatulas, Construction Engineer

Zoi Gaitanarou, Mining Engineer, Environmental Engineer MSc

Ioannis Kyprianou, Civil Engineer, Environmental Engineer MSc

Vangelis Pantelias, GIS expert



1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING STAGES AND OTHER WORKS COMPLETED PRIOR TO

2018

This paragraph includes an overview of the evolution of the project both in terms of environmental

permitting and field work, which has been completed prior to 2018.

Works in 2014

No works related to potential impacts on the natural and anthropogenic environment in “Ioannina”

block were implemented in 2014.

The environmental works of 2014 were the following:

Elaboration of a document with the specifications for the first stage of the Environmental and

Social Baseline Study ESBR (11/2014)

Elaboration of the Environmental and Social Action Plan for the Full Tensor Gravity and

Aeromagnetic Survey (11/2014)

Works in 2015

In 2015, in the framework of the Contractor’s contractual obligations for the exploration program,

the following works were performed:

Data collection from the Ministry’s data base

Return of data to the Ministry's data base

Geological and geophysical surveys in “Ioannina” block

Elaboration of Environmental Baseline Study (1st stage)

Full Tensor Gravity and Aeromagnetic Survey

Preparation for the meeting of the Technical Advisory Board (TAB)

Preparation for the call for submission of tenders for the reprocessing of seismic reflection data

Environmental work and assessments

The only works related to potential impacts on the natural and anthropogenic environment in

“Ioannina” block are the implementation works of the Full Tensor Gravity and Aeromagnetic Survey

for which an Environmental Action Plan was prepared in 2014. All the others were related to office or

field works and had no impact whatsoever on the natural and anthropogenic environment.

The 1st Stage of the Environmental Baseline Study, along with an environmental work and

assessments, was elaborated in 2015.

The aim of the 1st Stage of the Environmental Baseline Study was the collection of data to record and

assess the condition of the environment in the wider study area, which covers 4200 km2, in oder to

document its condition prior to the commencement of any work (to avoid blaming the contractor

for any environmental damage that may result from other works) and make it possible to monitor the

impacts of the exploration program.


10 | Σ ε λ ί δ α

The 1st Stage of the Environmental Baseline Study also proposed environmental indicators to

accurately and clearly record and quantify the environment’s condition in the exploration area. The

environmental indicators that were proposed to be used in the wider exploration area are:

Biodiversity Indicators – Flora, Fauna

Soil characteristic indicators

Landscape indicators

Water indicators

Socioeconomic environment indicators

Cultural Heritage Indicators

Works in 2016

The following operations were carried out in 2016, in the framework of the Contractor’s contractual

obligations for the exploration program:

Geophysical Data collection from the Ministry’s data base

Return of geophysical data to the Ministry's data base

Geological and geophysical surveys in “Ioannina” block

Elaboration of Environmental Baseline Study (2nd stage)

Preparation for the meeting of the Technical Advisory Board (TAB)

No works related to potential impacts on the natural and anthropogenic environment in “Ioannina”

block were implemented in 2016. More specifically, the environmental works of 2016 were the

following:

Elaboration of Environmental Baseline Study (2nd stage) (10/2016)

Collection of data and fieldwork for the 2nd stage Environmental Baseline Study relating to

the seismic survey area in “Ioannina” block

Data were recorded during the operations and fieldwork of a whole year (4 seasons) was carried out

for the elaboration of the 2nd stage of the Environmental Baseline Study for the area, where the

geophysical survey was planned to take place. More specifically, the following were recorded:

natural environment data, anthropogenic environment data, land use data; also data from local

services were collected.

Finally, calls for submission of tenders were issued for the Environmental Action Plan and for the

geophysical survey.

Works in 2017

The entry of Repsol (Spanish company) in the Contractor’s composition was approved in September

2017 for the “Ioannina” onshore block, assuming the role of Operator;.

In October 2017, the EAP approval was proposed. Initially, it was expected that the Onshore 2D

Seismic Survey for a total length of 300km would start in 2017 plus additional Seismic Survey operations


11 | Σ ε λ ί δ α

of 100km, replacing the re-drilling of Demetra-1 well. In the end, this was transferred for the spring of

2018, while in 2017 only tests were carried out in December, at “Lefkothea” and “Kourenta” positions.

More specifically, only test holes, whose depth ranged from 12 to 20m, were carried out from 13 to

19/12/2017, at “Lefkothea”. The detonation was carried out from about 15 to 18/1/2018. Detailed

reference on field tests is included in a separate chapter of this report on works concluded in 2018.

In the framework of the tests, explosions were carried out to examine and finalize the parameters

and technical characteristics of the geophysical surveys that started in spring 2018. Test holes were

opened from 19 to 23/12/2017 at “Kourenta” position. Due to the nature of the soil (flysch), and for

reasons of safety due to the strong rainfalls, no test detonations were carried out at said position.

Studies and surveys were also carried out in 2017, as the required permits for the exploration program

in 2018 were issued.

In particular, the works completed in 2017 are the following:

2nd Stage Environmental Baseline Study: Composition of the recorded data of the 2nd stage

of the Environmental Baseline Study, relating to the area of the seismic survey in “Ioannina”

and submission to the competent service.

Environmental Action Plan: Preparation and submission to the relevant authorities in October

2017 of the Environmental Action Plan for the Onshore Seismic Survey in “Ioannina” block, of

maximum total length: 575 km

Phytotechnical Restoration Study: Preparation of the phytotechnical restoration study of the

affected woodland and its approval from relevant authorities in September 2017.

Field Tests: Field tests in areas with carbonate formations from December 2017 to January

2018.

In the framework of the 2nd stage of the Environmental Baseline Study for the area of geophysical

surveys, the following were carried out:

Collection of available data, studies and literature on the biotic, abiotic and anthropogenic

environment

Collection of information from competent local services (archaeological services, forestry

authorities, environmental authorities etc)

Field data on flora and fauna (with emphasis on avifauna) and ecosystems in the geophysical

survey area in one year (4 seasons)

Satellite pictures in combination with confirmation visits and recording of the land uses,

vulnerabilities and protected/ requiring protection areas.

The scope of the phytotechnical restoration study was the restoration and recreation of the forest

vegetation on the surfaces affected by the project’s operations (intervention zones, as described

above). The restoration is carried out via a comprehensive and effective phytotechnical intervention

in the space, either by using natural processes through natural regeneration or artificial planting of

forest species. As a result, the ecosystem returns to its initial natural condition regarding the operation

of biotic ecological factors characterizing the bio-community of the area.


12 | Σ ε λ ί δ α

For the implementation of the OSS program in woodland areas and regarding the procedure

stipulated in the legal framework in force on the issuance of the relevant approvals by the forest

services, the contracting company corresponded with the co-competent services which disclosed

their opinions in documents a) No. 52488/19-4-2017 (document of Ioannina Forestry Authorities; b)

No. 157330/2920/29-5-2017 & 151471/127/24-1-2017 (documents of the Division of Forest Protection &

Agro-Environment, Ministry of the Environment & Energy), clarifying the separate issues related to the

applied procedure .

In the framework of the above, the phytotechnical study was compiled at the Final study stage,

under the provisions of the forest law and the technical specifications set out in decision, No.

53418/3576/162/14-10-1969, of the Minister of Agriculture.

As stipulated in par. ΒΙΙ.3 of JMD 172162/02-12-2013 approving the relevant Strategic Environmental

Impact Assessment (SEIA), the Environmental Action Plan (EAPESAP) was elaborated and approved

on 17/10/2017 (Α.Π. 30192) for the Onshore Seismic Survey (OSS) for “Ioannina” Block, in the Region

of Epirus.

With regard to the impacts of the geophysical survey in “Ioannina” block, in the context of the

EAPESAP elaboration, all possible impacts of the proposed activities on the environmental

parameters of the

Abiotic environment (Paragraph 7.3.2 EAPESAP)

Biotic environment (Paragraph 7.3.3 EAPESAP)

Anthropogenic environment (Paragraph 7.3.4 EAPESAP) were identified.

The possible impacts were identified by using a Table of Program Phases - Cause - Potential Impacts

of the OSS that showed that a more detailed assessment and evaluation of the environmental

impacts was required in the following fields:

Morphology and soil characteristics

Geological and tectonic characteristics

Atmospheric environment

Acoustic environment (noise - vibrations)

Ecosystems, flora and fauna

Social and economic environment

Land Uses

Technical infrastructures

Historical and cultural environment

The impacts for all the above environmental fields were evaluated as weak, short-term and

reversible, taking into account the management measures proposed in the EAPESAP.

Further to field tests, all other works were non-invasive and cannot be related to likely impacts on the

study area. Finally, field tests, as described in the following chapter, take place in sites of insignificant

ecological value, away from sensitive receptors to noise and vibrations; in any case limited pruning


13 | Σ ε λ ί δ α

of sparse vegetation will be required and therefore likely impacts from field tests are estimated as

negligible.

1.6 BRIEF TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

Geophysical surveys for hydrocarbon research aim to map the geological background of an area

where hydrocarbon deposits may exist. This initial phase’s findings are related to the study area’s

geology.

In Ioannina concession area, shot holes are drilled into the surface and an energy source or charge

is placed in the shot hole, usually at the bottom. The depth of shot holes is less than 20 m. Detonation

of the charge sets up energy waves in the surrounding subsurface layers. The reflected seismic signal

will be recorded with previously laid out geophones. Receiver stations, typically located on the

earth's surface, have highly sensitive equipment that detects the energy waves reflected from the

subsurface layers. Receiver stations record the energy waves that will be later processed in order to

determine underground formation structure. Finally, an interpretation of these processed data by

experts through the use of computer tools could identify the desired information with reference to

the area’s geological background, i.e. the potential for the presence of oil or gas.

The equipment to be used for drilling operations, depending on accessibility and soil morphology,

includes Truck-mounted Drilling Rigs and Heliportable Drilling Rigs. The second option has significant

advantages in non-accessible areas with diverse relief, as equipment may be placed on survey

points without requiring the creation of access roads. For the implementation of the geophysical

survey program with air-borne support, temporary helicopter landing areas (helipads) need to be

designated. These areas are mostly clearings and openings whose siting and topography are

considered safe for helicopter landing and take-off. Given the fact that no permanent constructions

or earthworks will take place, helipads are restored to their original condition and land use

immediately upon completion of works.

For survey purposes, there are 10 approved geophysical survey lines, totaling a length of

approximately 400km, as presented in red in Figure 1.6-1 below; additional geophysical survey lines,

totaling a length of approximately 30km are presented in orange. Additional geophysical survey lines

serve as a back-up plan, in case geophysical survey works are not permitted on sections of the 10

approved geophysical survey lines, due to environmental restrictions.

For each geophysical survey line section, a preliminary demarcation of shot holes and necessary

auxiliary spaces is conducted, including helipads and equipment drop zones. An example of this

preliminary plan is provided in Figure 1.6-2 below for the cross-section of geophysical survey lines 10

and 13.

This preliminary planning is indicative and is appropriately modified during works, according to

sensitive natural and man-made environmental elements, as identified during the environmental

monitoring program, so as to ensure compatibility with the approved EAP study1 and its first

amendment2.

Figure 1.6-2 depicts potential land-take for Truck-mounted Drilling Rigs and Heliportable Drilling Rigs;

size difference is obvious. At the west end of line 10, truck-mounted drilling works have been planned,

1 ENVECO S.A., 2017, Environmental Action Plan – Hydrocarbon Exploration and Exploitation Program in Ioannina Block, Athens:

Energean Oil and Gas

2 ENVECO S.A., 2018, Amendment to the Environmental Action Plan – Hydrocarbon Exploration and Exploitation Program in

Ioannina Block, Athens: Repsol


14 | Σ ε λ ί δ α

as provided for by the area’s topography and existing road access. In this case, potential land-take

covers approximately 160m2 of rectangular fields, interconnected via a pedestrian access corridor

of 3m in width.

On the other hand, topography conditions and lack of existing road access in all remaining sections

of lines 10 and 13, as depicted in Figure 1.6-2 led to the use of heliportable drilling rigs as an optimal

option. This solution requires the demarcation of temporary helipads but has considerably smaller

requirements in potential land-take. More specifically, a circular potential land-take area, of a 6m

radius will be required for each shot-hole as well as a smaller circular land-take area of a 5m radius

for placing all remaining equipment.

Finally, a circular zone of a 7m diameter will be created for placing the compressor, which supplies

heliportable drilling rigs with compressed air. Shot-holes as interconnected via a 2m-wide corridor.


15 | Σ ε λ ί δ α

Figure 1.6-1: Ioannina Block and geophysical survey lines


16 | Σ ε λ ί δ α

Figure 1.6-2: Preliminary spatial project planning (Cross-section of lines 10 and 13)

Annual report of the monitoring program of environmental impacts from the hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation program in “Ioannina” block in the region of Epirus - Year 2018

1 | Page

1.6.1 Geophysical Survey Phases

Geophysical survey is implemented per survey line via the following four consecutive phases:

Phase 1: Surveying and vegetation clearance

Phase 2: Drilling

Phase 3: Charging of shot-holes and geophysical survey data collection

Phase 4: Restoration / Rehabilitation

Initially, topographical demarcation and vegetation cutting takes place in the area of interest.

During this phase, any natural/man-made environmental elements are identified on-site and

preliminary project design is modified according to each element’s protection status, as provided

for in the EAP and its first amendment. More specifically, shot-points may be offset either side or

alongside the survey axes, or even omitted, as required. During demarcation of the exact location

of shot-points and receiver points, vegetation clearance takes place, as required.

Upon completion of limited vegetation clearance focusing on required areas around shot-holes and

around temporary equipment placing sites, ‘cuttings’ are brought to the surface with appropriate

equipment, according to each location’s accessibility.

During the third phase, geophones (receiver points) and recording equipment are placed and shot-

holes are charged with limited amounts (2-16kg) of charging material (explosives). Explosive charges

are selected according to each location’s geology and are designed so that any likely impacts from

explosions are negligible at the nearest sensitive receptor (monuments/buildings). The charge is then

covered up with the hole cuttings; detonation of the charge sets up energy waves in the surrounding

subsurface layers. Receiver stations (geophones) record the energy waves that will be later

processed in order to determine underground formation structure.

Upon completion of works, shot-holes are restored. No constructions will remain on site. All equipment

as well as any residual matter/ wastes will be collected and sites will be restored to their initial

condition. Natural vegetation regeneration procedures will be supported with appropriate tree-

planting, as specified by competent authorities.

Annex II of this report presents photographs of all project phases during works that took place in 2018.


1 | Page

CHAPTER 2 OPERATIONS COMPLETED IN 2018

During the first quarter of 2018, geophysical survey operations begun with the depth - charge test of

a location with carbonate formations. All remaining works implemented between January and April

2018 may not be connected to any likely impacts. Such works include training and preparation for

the survey program. Environmental monitoring activities were not required to take place during

implementation of these non-invasive works. In June 2018the amendment of the ESAP was submitted

and then accepted by authorities in July 2018. Until May 2018, works on geophysical lines 12 and 13

were completed, while works on lines 8, 9 and 10 are still ongoing. More specifically:

• Line 12

- Surveying: Surveying works have been completed for 47.1 km of the line and locations of

source and receiver stations have been identified and marked.

- Drilling: Out of a total of 808 planned source station positions, 725 were actually drilled.

- Recording of Geophysical Data: Source stations were installed in all 725 drilling locations.

All stations were activated at the geophysical data recording stage.

- Restoration: Restoration works have been completed across the line.

• Line 13


source and receiver stations have been identified and marked

- Drilling: Out of a total of 444 planned source station positions, 411 were actually drilled.

- Recording of Geophysical Data: Source stations were installed at 398 out of 444 drilled

locations. All stations were activated at the geophysical data recording stage.

- Restoration: Restoration works have been completed across the line

• Line 10


source and receiver stations have been identified and marked

• Line 9


63 source stations and the respective receiver stations have been identified and marked.

• Line 8


source stations and the respective receiver stations have been identified and marked.

• Field tests

- Tests in carbonate and clastic formations: Depth - charge tests have been carried out in

locations with carbonate and clastic rocks at 0.41 and 0.29 km lengths of line 12

respectively.


2 | Page

- Walk-away test: A walk-away test has been carried out at 60 meters of line 13. It must be

noted that, this test does not require drilling of shot-holes anymore, but only placement of

geophones, which are considered as passive measuring equipment. Tests were initially

implemented for 60 geophones at a length of 60m, whereas the EAP amendment

proposed 80 geophones at a length of 80m.

It shall be noted, that it was not necessary to apply the vibration and noise monitoring program during

the field tests given the absence of buildings and noise-sensitive receivers in the 170 m and 250 m

wide zones around the test sites respectively. A brief description of the carbonate depth charge test,

as well as its results, are given in Chapter 3.


3 | Page

CHAPTER 3 DEPTH CHARGE TEST FOR CARBONATE AND CLASTIC FORMATIONS

3.1 CARBONATE FORMATIONS

The depth-charge test for carbonates was conducted from the 15th of December to the 18th of

January 2018 on seismic line 12. During the test, seven similar drilling combinations were developed

with different depths and quantities of explosives.

Each combination consisted of 12 drillings and a total of 84 drilling holes were created. The depths

ranged from 12 to 25 m while charge of explosives ranged from 6 Kg to 16 Kg. An acquisition receiver

spread of about 15 km was used to both record the test shots and test the offset length.

The total length of the test was about 420 m and the width on both sides of the geophysical line was

10 m, while the total surface of the depth charge test reached 4,200 m2.

The figure below shows the locations of the drillings for the whole test area in the "Lefkothea" region

of the municipality of Zitsa.

As shown in the above figure, the area of the test is characterized by extremely sparse shrub

vegetation, while the terrain is flat with an altitude of 419 m and the nearest settlement

(Kokkinohoma) lies at a distance of 1.8 km (northwest). On the respective maps of land cover, the

area is presented as a meadow, while it is far from archaeological sites and monuments.

Concerning the 400 m long test in Lefkothea, the monitoring program which is provided for in the

decision of approval of the Environmental and Social Action Plan (ESAP) was implemented. The

following actions were carried out:


4 | Page

• Areas where there was deforestation of existing vegetation were recorded - There was minimal

cutting of branches and there was no alteration of the natural environment in the intervention area.

• The vibrations, which occurred during the tests at different distances from the drill holes were

recorded in collaboration with the project operator and the results of the monitoring program were

incorporated into the safety distance calculations.

• A search for both declared and non-declared archaeological sites and indications of

archaeological remains in the test area was carried out – No findings

• A search for springs and water wells-boreholes, which could be affected, was carried out in the

test area – No findings

• A search for noise-sensitive uses near the test area, such as settlements or other facilities, was done

in the test area - No findings

• A check for persistent pollution was completed - No waste related to the test works was recorded.

It is noted that, the Body of Inspectors and Auditors (Northern Greece) made an on-site inspection,

and its report (7088 / 4-10-2018) read as follows:

During the audit at the locations inspected:

i. there was no evidence of the existence of solid or liquid waste from the works described, except

for the ribbons, which are used to mark the works and space, and will be collected and removed at

the end of works,

ii. there was minimal vegetation cutting in accordance with the approval of the relevant Forestry

Services (8/2017 and 35/2017 Forestry Police Arrangements of the Decentralized Administration

Coordinator of Epirus-Western Macedonia),

iii. The pipes inside the holes consist of biodegradable material and have been certified according

to EN-13432 and ISO 14855 standards, which guarantees their composition of more than 95% of

carbon of plant origin,

iv. Roads were restored after the rainfall season, according to the statements of the Municipality of

Zitsa of the 11 and 17/04/2018.

v. A phytotechnical restoration study has already been submitted and approved in accordance with

the relevant decision (12); and

vi. in general, no degradation of the natural environment, pollution or even degradation of the

aesthetic and visual alteration of landscape were identified.

The analysis and processing of the data resulting from the amplitude shot analysis showed

that the optimal combination of parameters for the carbonate rock sites is 20 m depth and

16 kg of charge. These parameters are appropriately modified in cases of sensitive

infrastructure and buildings, such as monuments, in the study area.

The safety distances, which resulted from the depth - charge test for the carbonate rocks

are given in Table 3-1.


5 | Page

Table 3-1: Safety distances based on the depth charge test on carbonates

Charge / Depth Safety distance according to obstacle

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3

2x (6 kg / 12 m) 80 60 45*

2x(8 kg / 12 m) 90 55’ 55’

8 kg / 15 m 70 70 45*

12 kg / 15 m 90 70 55’

8 kg / 20 m 70 65’ 65’

12 kg / 20 m 100 80 65*

16 kg / 20 m 110 75* 75*

8 kg / 25 m 85* 85* 85*

12 kg / 25 m 90 85* 85*

16 kg / 25 m 120 95* 95*

Category Description

1 Buildings used for commercial purposes, industrial buildings and buildings of similar design

2 Dwellings and buildings of similar design and/or occupancy

3 Structures not classified under 1 and 2 above, due to being particularly vulnerable to vibrations (e.g. listed

buildings under preservation order)

3.2 CLASTIC FORMATIONS

Depth-charge tests in an area with clastic formations, similar to depth-charge tests in areas

with carbonates, was conducted on 16-18 November 2018. The exact location of tests

along line 12 as well as alignment of charges are presented in Figure 3.2-1.

This soil vibration velocity test was not within the remit of Repsol’s commitment; it was rather

the company’s initiative so as to acquire precise estimation of safety distances.

Measurements are currently under analysis and a full report, including safety distances as

well as depth-charge parameters is going to be submitted upon completion of recorded

data processing.


6 | Page

Figure 3.2-1: Tests on clastic formations


7 | Page

CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS OF THE WIDER STUDY AREA

4.1 BIODIVERSITY, FLORA AND FAUNA INDICATORS

The environmental target in the field of Biodiversity is to protect the latter, to refrain from causing

irreversible losses (biodiversity preservation), as well as to avoid damaging the flora and fauna, the

natural areas and protected species.

Information regarding the registration, identification, assessment and mapping of the limits of

protected areas falling under Directive 92/43/ΕEC (Natura 2000 Network) in the study area and all

over the country, as well as Avifauna Special Protection Areas of the Directive 2009/147/EC are

provided by the competent Ministry for the Environment, Energy and Climate Change Services.

The proposed biodiversity, flora and fauna indicators according to the proposals of the 1st stage ESBR

are the following:

Number and size of Natura 2000 Network Areas

Number and size of areas protected by Greek law

Number and size of Priority Habitats, Annex I, JMD 14849/853/Ε103/4-4-2008

Number of flora and fauna species falling under Annex II, JMD 14849/853/Ε103/2008

Number of avifauna species falling under Annex Ι of JMD 37338/1807/Ε103/2010, as amended

by JMD 8353/276/Ε103/20128353/276/Ε103/2012

The use of indicators is consistent with the general aim of “sustainable environmental management"

given that the loss of natural land in the protected areas is a cause of loss of biodiversity and breaking

up of its cohesion, especially for biotope species for which the above-mentioned areas have been

characterized as protected.

It should be noted that in 2017 the Natura 2000 network areas were updated with JMD 110/1205322

“Determination of technical specifications for the preparation of delimitation study for the onshore

areas of “NATURA 2000” network − update, description and delimitation of terrestrial types of habitats

as Sites of Community Importance” (GG 1419Β/30.04.2017). The list of Natura 2000 network areas was

updated in December 2017 with JMD 50743 (GG 4432B/2017).

Table 4.1-1 below provides the baseline and 2018 values of the indicators, which have not changed.


8 | Page

Table 4.1-1: Biodiversity, flora and fauna indicators

Parameter Indicator Unit Source Baseline value3 2018 value

Natura 2000 Sites

Number of areas of the Natura 2000 network within the

wider study area Number

Natura 2000,

YPEN, ΕΚΒΥ

21 21

Surface of Natura 2000 sites within the wider study area km2 2202 2202

Protected areas by Greek law

Number of areas protected by Greek Law within the wider

study area Number

YPEN,

Management

Bodies, NTUA

4 4

Surface of areas protected by Greek Law within the wider

study area km2 1427.2 1427,.2

Annex I priority habitats of JMD

14849/853/Ε103/4-4-2008

Number of Annex I priority habitats within the wider study

area Number Natura 2000,

YPEN, ΕΚΒΥ,

Management

Bodies, NTUA

6 6

Surface of Annex I priority habitats within the wider study

area km2 214.24 214.24

Flora and fauna species of Annex II of

JMD 14849/853/Ε103/2008

Number of Flora and fauna species of Annex II within the

wider study area Number

Natura 2000,

YPEN, ΕΚΒΥ,

Management

Bodies, NTUA

36 36

Avifauna Species of Annex I of JMD

37338/1807/Ε103/2010, which has been

amended by JMD

8353/276/Ε103/20128353/276/Ε103/2012

Number Avifauna Species of Annex I within the wider study

area Number

Natura 2000,

YPEN, ΕΚΒΥ,

Management

Bodies, NTUA

91 91

3 Baseline values refer to 2014 – (Enveco S.A., 2015. First Stage of Environmental and Social Baseline Report for the Hydrocarbons Exploration and Exploitation Program in the Onshore Area

“IOANNINA”, Athens: Energean Oil and Gas.)


9 | Page

4.2 SOIL CHARACTERISTIC INDICATORS

A significant number of indicators has been studied and developed to describe soil characteristics

and conditions. These indicators are based on environmental parameters directly linked to the soil,

such as: climate, water, run-off, vegetation, farming, cattle farming, land use and management,

tourism, fires, etc.

Deforestation in the European Mediterranean Countries is mainly caused by fires, logging as well as

the transformation of forests and bush-land to farm-land or residential (urban) areas. The impact of

land reclamation includes extensive run-offs, loss of soil and reduction of biodiversity.

The proposed indicators for the description of soil condition are the area and the soil coverage by

forests or woodland in the wider study area of the onshore “Ioannina” block.

The baseline value is the forest areas according to the most recent Corine land cover data for 2012

collected upon completion of the program “GMS/Copernicus Initial Operations

(GIO)Land Monitoring 2011-2013” or GIO LAND. The program aimed to provide comprehensive and

timely information on the type of coverage and land use and the changes thereof on a national

level.

The Environmental target is to protect forests, avoid irreversible losses and refrain from damaging the

forests and woodlands.

The following codes were considered to be forests or woodlands:

3.1.1 Broad-leaved forest

3.1.2 Coniferous forest

3.1.3 Mixed forest

3.2.1 Natural grasslands

3.2.2 Moors and heathland

3.2.3 Sclerophyllous vegetation

3.2.4 Transitional woodland-shrub

3.3.3 Sparsely vegetated areas

3.3.4 Burnt areas

Table 4.2-1 below provides the baseline values of the indicators and their 2018 values, for which no

change has been observed.

http://uls.eionet.europa.eu/CLC2000/classes/Pictures?CLCcategory=3/3.1/3.1.2&CLCtitle=Coniferous%20forest

http://uls.eionet.europa.eu/CLC2000/classes/Pictures?CLCcategory=3/3.1/3.1.3&CLCtitle=Mixed%20forest

http://uls.eionet.europa.eu/CLC2000/classes/Pictures?CLCcategory=3/3.2/3.2.1&CLCtitle=Natural%20grasslands

http://uls.eionet.europa.eu/CLC2000/classes/Pictures?CLCcategory=3/3.2/3.2.2&CLCtitle=Moors%20and%20heathland

http://uls.eionet.europa.eu/CLC2000/classes/Pictures?CLCcategory=3/3.2/3.2.3&CLCtitle=Sclerophyllous%20vegetation

http://uls.eionet.europa.eu/CLC2000/classes/Pictures?CLCcategory=3/3.2/3.2.4&CLCtitle=Transitional%20woodland-shrub

http://uls.eionet.europa.eu/CLC2000/classes/Pictures?CLCcategory=3/3.3/3.3.3&CLCtitle=Sparsely%20vegetated%20areas

http://uls.eionet.europa.eu/CLC2000/classes/Pictures?CLCcategory=3/3.3/3.3.4&CLCtitle=Burnt%20areas


10 | Page

Table 4.2-1: Soil characteristic indicators

Parameter Unit of Measurement Data Source Baseline value4 2018 value

Coverage by forests or woodland

Percentage of coverage by

forests or woodland –

Ioannina Regional Unit Percentage %

CORINE 2012

75% 75%

Percentage of coverage by


Thesprotia Regional Unit

72% 72%

Surface of coverage by


Ioannina Regional Unit km2

2319.5 2319.5

Surface of coverage by


Thesprotia Regional Unit

741.6 741.6

4 Enveco S.A., 2015. First Stage of Environmental and Social Baseline Report for the Hydrocarbons Exploration and Exploitation Program in the Onshore Area “IOANNINA”, Athens: Energean

Oil and Gas.


11 | Page

4.3 LANDSCAPE INDICATORS

The proposed landscape indicators are the number and area of protected landscapes (including

Landscapes of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Aesthetic Forests and Listed Natural Monuments and

Landmarks, as well as the areas that have been characterized as protected natural formations). The

use of indicators is consistent with the general aim of “sustainable environmental management"

given that the loss of natural land is a cause of landscape degradation.

The proposed indicators, as proposed by the 1st stage ESBR, are the number of protected landscapes

and their surface.

The baseline value is the number of statutorily protected landscapes in the wider study area (i.e.

within Ioannina Block) during the preparation of the 1st stage ESBR as well as their surface.

The Environmental target is to protect the landscape, to avoid irreversible losses and to refrain from

causing any damage. Information on the registration, identification, assessment and mapping of the

limits of protected landscapes are provided by the competent Ministry of Energy Services.

Table 4.3-1 below provides the baseline and 2018 values for the proposed indicators, for which no

changes have been identified.


12 | Page

Table 4.3-1: Landscape indicators

Parameter Indicator Unit of Measurement Data Source Baseline value5 2018 value

Landscapes of Outstanding

Natural Beauty

Number of Landscapes of

Outstanding Natural Beauty Number

Ministry for the

Environment, Energy and

Climate Change, Greek

Biotope-Wetland Centre

(EKBY), FILOTIS Database,

National Technical

University of Athens

34 34

Aesthetic Forests- Listed Natural

Monuments and Landmarks

Number of Aesthetic Forests- Listed

Natural Monuments and

Landmarks

Number 2 2

Surface of Aesthetic Forests- Listed

Natural Monuments and

Landmarks

km2

Aesthetic

forest: 741.6

stremmata

Aesthetic

forest: 741.6

stremmata


Oil and Gas.


13 | Page

4.4 WATER INDICATORS

As regards the assessment and evaluation of water condition in the study area, monitoring of the

following indicators has been proposed:

The number of water systems (surface and ground), in good chemical condition, according

to the first revision of the approved water management plan of Epirus River Basin District (GG

4664/Β/2017)

The number of water systems (surface), in good ecological condition, according to the first

revision of the approved water management plan of Epirus River Basin District (GG

4664/Β/2017)

It is noted that the first revision of the River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) for Epirus River Basin District

was published in the Government Gazette (GG) in 2017 according to the requirements of the Water

Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the national law. The revised RBMP concerns the 2nd

Management Cycle (2015-20121) of the Framework Directive and is part of the revision process set

forth to be implemented every six years.

The calculation of said indicators includes counting the water systems falling within the study area,

namely the exploration area of Ioannina onshore block. It is noted that the baseline values are the

number of water bodies in good chemical and ecological condition according to the first revision of

the approved water management plan of Epirus River Basin District (GG 4664/Β/2017) and the

relevant monitoring program.

Table 4.4-1 below includes the indicator values for 2018, as well as their corresponding baseline

values. It shall be noted, that the revision of the RBMP was made after the preparation of the 1st Stage

ESBR (Enveco SA, 2015)6, in which the respective baseline values were recorded. Given that the data

for the revision of the RBMP concern the period prior to the commencement of the geophysical

survey program, the respective baseline values were updated. The initial values of the first stage ESBR

are also given in the table.

6Enveco S.A., 2015. First Stage of Environmental and Social Baseline Report for the Hydrocarbons Exploration and Exploitation

Program in the Onshore Area “IOANNINA”, Athens: Energean Oil and Gas.


14 | Page

Table 4.4-1: Water indicators

Parameter Indicator Unit of Measurement Data Source 2014 Value Baseline Value7 2018 Value

Water Bodies in good chemical

condition, according to the

Approved Water Management

Plan for the River Basin District

Number of surface Water Bodies

in good chemical condition,

according to the Approved Water

Management Plan for the River

Basin District – Ioannina Regional

Unit

Number

MINISTRY OF THE

ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY,

CLIMATE CHANGE,

APPROVED

MANAGEMENT PLAN OF

EPIRUS RIVER BASIN

DISTRICT (1st

Amendment)

28 (27 rivers + 1

lake)

34 (31 rivers + 2

lake + 1

transitional)

34 (31 rivers +

2 lake + 1

transitional)

Number of surface Water Bodies

in good chemical condition,



Basin District – Thesprotia Regional

Unit

8 (8 rivers) 11 (11 rivers) 11 (11 rivers)

Number of groundwater Bodies in

good chemical condition,




Unit

14 15 15

7 Consortium: ‘1st Amendment of River Basin Management Plan for Thessalia, Epirus and Western Central Greece Water Districts’, 2017. 1st Amendment of River Basin Management Plan, Epirus

Water District (EL05), Athens, Ministry of Environment and Energy – Special Secreteriat for Water


15 | Page

Parameter Indicator Unit of Measurement Data Source 2014 Value Baseline Value7 2018 Value

Number of groundwater Bodies in

good chemical condition,



Basin District – Thesprotia Regional

Unit

7 8 8

Water Bodies in good ecological

condition, according to the

Approved Water Management

Plan for the River Basin District

Surface Water Bodies in good

ecological condition, according

to the Approved Water



Unit

Number

MINISTRY OF THE

ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY,

CLIMATE CHANGE,

APPROVED

MANAGEMENT PLAN OF

EPIRUS RIVER BASIN

DISTRICT (1st

Amendment)

28 (28 rivers) 24 (23 rivers + 1

lake)

24 (23 rivers +

1 lake)

Surface Water Bodies in good

ecological condition, according

to the Approved Water


Basin District - Thesprotia Regional

Unit

9 (9 rivers) 10 (10 rivers) 10 (10 rivers)


16 | Page

4.5 CULTURAL HERITAGE INDICATORS

In order to assess and evaluate the condition of the cultural heritage in the wider study area, the

number of declared archaeological sites and monuments in the lease area “Ioannina” is used as an

indicator.

The environmental aim for the Cultural Heritage is its protection. More specifically, the aim is to avoid

irreversible losses and damages in existing protected ruins and monuments.

According to the Permanent Catalogue of Listed Archaeological Sites and Monuments of Greece

(http://listedmonuments.culture.gr/), the number of listed archaeological sites and monuments in

Ioannina and Thesprotia Regional Units is 732.

Table 4.5-1 below provides the baseline and 2018 values for the proposed indicators, which have

not changed.


17 | Page

Table 4.5-1: Cultural and historical environment indicators

Parameter Indicator Unit of

Measurement Data Source Baseline value8 2018 value

Listed Archaeological

Sites and Monuments


Sites and Monuments

– Ioannina Regional

Unit

Number

Ministry of Culture,

Ephorates of

Antiquities of

Ioannina and

Thesprotia, Service

of Newer

Monuments and

Technical Works of

Epirus, Northern

Ionian Sea and

Western

Macedonia

638 638


Sites and Monuments -

Thesprotia

94 94


Oil and Gas.


18 | Page

CHAPTER 5 MAIN STUDY AREA INDICATORS

The baseline values for the environmental indicators of the main study area (MSA) were re-calculated

in the context of this report due to the reduction in the total proposed length of the geophysical

survey lines to 430 km, which was finally adopted, versus the initial 576 km, which was examined in

the 2nd stage ESBR. In addition, a 250 m wide zone around the temporary helicopter landing / staging

fields was added to the MSA.

5.1 PROTECTED AREAS – NATURA 2000 AREAS

The protection of biodiversity and avoidance of irreversible losses as well as the avoidance of

damages to flora and fauna, natural areas and protected species is an environmental objective in

the area of biodiversity (preservation of biodiversity).

Data on the recording, identification, estimation and mapping of the boundaries of the protected

areas, both of Law 3937/2011 and Directive 92/43 / EEC (Natura 2000 Network) in the study area, but

also in the country as a whole, as well as respective data on the Special Protection Areas for avifauna

according to Directive 2009/147/EC, are available from the respective services of the Ministry of

Environment and Energy.

The proposed indicators for the description of the key elements of the Protected Areas, which are

relevant to the study area are the following:

Number and extent of habitats in Annex I of Directive 92/43 / EEC

Number of flora species in Annex II of Directive 92/43 / EECThe following table gives the baseline

values of the indicators, which were updated for the actual MSA based on mapping data of habitats

issued prior to 20179. Index values for 20181012 were derived using recent habitat mapping data. It

shall be noted, that the observed decrease in Annex I habitats is caused by the declassification of

the habitat, which was initially classified as Habitat Type 3280 (Constantly flowing Mediterranean

rivers with Paspalo-Agrostidion species and hanging curtains of Salix and Populus alba). During the

recent mapping, which has been used for the calculation of the 2018 indicator values, the respective

part of the river was found to not belong to this Annex I habitat type and has been classified as

habitat type “Constantly flowing rivers with no vegetation”. This change, however, may not be

related with the project.

9 Source: ΕΠΠΕΡ - Subprogramme 3, Measure 3.3: "Recognizing and describing habitat types in areas of interest for nature

conservation"

10 Source: Updated mapping of habitat types. National Cadastre and Mapping SA (EKXA AE, 2017): "Development of Large-

Scale Spatial Data Infrastructure (1: 5000) for NATURA 2000 Protected Areas", based on technical specifications defined in

Joint Ministerial Decision 110/1205322 (Government Gazette 1419 / B / 30-4-2012 ) "Definition of technical specifications for the

delineation of land areas in the NATURA 2000 network - updating, description and demarcation of terrestrial habitat types in

Sites of Community Importance"


19 | Page

Table 5.1-1: Biodiversity indicators

Parameter Indicator Unit Source Baseline value11 2018 value12

Habitats of

Annex I of

Directive

92/43/EEC

Number of

Habitats of

Annex I of

Directive

92/43/EEC within

the SACs of the

main study area

Number

Natura

2000

Network

–

SAC

GR2120001

5 4

Surface of

Habitats of

Annex I of

Directive

92/43/EEC within

the SACs of main

study area

km2

Habitat 1420

0.366 Habitat 1420 0.367

Habitat 3280 0.251 - 13 .-

Habitat 5420 0.744 Habitat 5420 0.744

Habitat 92A0 0.272 Habitat 92A0 0.272

Habitat 92D0 0.100 Habitat 92D0 0.100

Flora Species of

Annex II of

Directive

92/43/EEC

Flora Species of

Annex II of

Directive

92/43/EEC within

the main study

area

Number

Natura

2000

Network,

YPEN, ΕΚΒΥ,

Managem

ent Bodies,

NTUA

0

0

11 Source: ΕΠΠΕΡ - Subprogramme 3, Measure 3.3: "Recognizing and describing habitat types in areas of interest for nature

conservation"

12 Source: Updated mapping of habitat types. National Cadastre and Mapping SA (EKXA AE, 2017): "Development of Large-

Scale Spatial Data Infrastructure (1: 5000) for NATURA 2000 Protected Areas", based on technical specifications defined in

Joint Ministerial Decision 110/1205322 (Government Gazette 1419 / B / 30-4-2012 ) "Definition of technical specifications for the

delineation of land areas in the NATURA 2000 network - updating, description and demarcation of terrestrial habitat types in

Sites of Community Importance"

13 Former 3280 (2017), which has recently been classified as a non-Annex I habitat (Constantly flowing rivers with no

vegetation).


20 | Page

5.2 VEGETATION CATEGORIES INDICATORS

For the mapping of vegetation categories within the MSA, the map of vegetation and land uses of

the Department of Thematic Mapping, Forest Maps Directorate, General Directorate for

Development and Protection of Forests and Natural Environment, Special Secretariat of Forests was

used. Vegetation categories within MSA were updated based on field work and interpretation of

satellite images in the framework of the 2nd Stage ESBR (Enveco Α.Ε., 2017)14.

The proposed indicators for the state of vegetation of the main study area are the following:

The surface of the natural vegetation categories of the MSA

The ecological status of the natural vegetation categories of the MSA

The following natural categories of vegetation were mapped within the main study area: oak forests,

fir forests, deciduous shrubs, chestnut forests, meadows, sparse vegetation, surface water bodies &

riparian vegetation and shrubs.

It shall be noted, that the number and ecological status of the natural vegetation categories directly

and effectively determine the ecological value of the flora habitats. The following table includes the

baseline values15, which have been updated for the actual MSA, as well as their respective values

for 2018, which have not changed, as the main source of data for the indicator values calculation,

which is the map of vegetation and land uses of the Department of Thematic Mapping and satellite

images have not been updated since the preparation of the 2nd stage ESBR.

14 Enveco S.A., 2017. Second Stage Environmental and Social Baseline Report for the Seismic Survey in the Onshore Area

“Ioannina”, Athens: Energean Oil and Gas.

15 Ibid.


21 | Page

Table 5.2-1: Vegetation categories indicators

Parameter Indicator Unit Source Baseline value 2018 value

Coverage of

natural

vegetation in the

main study area

Number of

categories of

natural

vegetation

within the main

study area

Number

ESAP

7 7

Surface of land

cover of

categories of

natural

vegetation

within the main

study area

km2

Oak forest 44.2395 Oak forest 44.2395

Fir forest 0.5562 Fir forest 0.5562

Chestnut forest 0.2183 Chestnut forest 0.2183

Shrubs 81.9759 Shrubs 81.9759

Deciduous shrubs 8.9821 Deciduous shrubs 8.9821

Meadows 23.2107 Meadows 23.2107

Surface water bodies and riparian

vegetation 2.7789


vegetation 2.7789

Ecological status

Qualitative

Assessment

of

Ecological

Status

(good,

moderate,

poor)

ESAP

Oak forest Good Oak forest Good

Fir forest Good Fir forest Good

Chestnut forest Good Chestnut forest Good

Shrubs Good Shrubs Good

Deciduous shrubs Good Deciduous shrubs Good

Meadows Good Meadows Good


vegetation Good


vegetation Good


22 | Page

5.3 CULTURAL HERITAGE INDICATORS

The proposed indicators represent the structural state of declared and undeclared cultural heritage

sites within the MSA.

Baseline values correspond to the state, which has been recorded on the basis of bibliographic

references, information by the relevant Ephorates of Antiquities and modern monuments (Ephorate

of Antiquities of Thesprotia and Ephorate of Modern Monuments of Epirus). Cultural heritage data is

shown in land use maps 2 and 3 of the relevant Annex II of the 2nd Stage ESBR at scales 1:100,000 and

1:10,000 respectively.

The protection of monuments and avoidance of irreversible losses (preservation or damages to

existing ruins is an environmental objective in the field of Cultural Heritage.

There are in total 38 protected cultural heritage elements within the main study area (500m Zone),

out of which six are declared archaeological sites, fourteen are other declared monuments and the

remaining eighteen are non-declared monuments.

The table below shows the baseline values of the indicators as they were estimated in the 2nd Stage

ESBR in 2017. Given that no further monuments were explored, no new monuments were declared

and no damage was reported during the monitoring program, the values of the indices for 2018

coincide with the corresponding baseline values.

Table 5.3-1: Cultural heritage indicators

Indicator Unit Source Baseline

value16

2018

Value

Number and state of structural

integrity of declared

archaeological sites and

monuments

Number

/

Qualitive

Assessment

(good, moderate,

poor)

EPHORATES OF ANTIQUITIES OF

IOANNINA AND THESPROTIA

SERVICE FOR MODERN

MONUMENTS OF EPIRUS

-

Environmental and Social

Monitoring Program

20

/

good

20

/

good

Number and state of structural

integrity of non-declared

archaeological sites and

monuments

Αριθμός

Number

/

Qualitive

Assessment

(good, moderate,

poor)

EPHORATES OF ANTIQUITIES OF

IOANNINA AND THESPROTIA

SERVICE FOR MODERN

MONUMENTS OF EPIRUS

-

Environmental and Social

Monitoring Program

18

/

good

18

/

good




23 | Page

5.4 INDICATORS OF IMPACT OF VIBRATIONS ON STRUCTURES

Vibrations can affect the structural integrity of a structure. The limitations used, are the relevant

threshold values for ground vibrations and noise from blasting, which are referred to in Article 88 - §b

of the Greek Regulation for Mining and Quarrying Activities (KMLE). For the ground vibrations, as

presented in Table 5.4-1 below, the limits of the German norm DIN 4150-3 / 1999 apply, while for the

blasting shock wave the active limit is 134 dBL.

Table 5.4-1: Maximum peak particle velocity values for ground vibrations depending on frequency for types of structures

(Greek Regulation for Mining and Quarrying Activities (ΚΜΛΕ), Paragraph 88, DIN 4150-3/1999)

Α/Α

Structure Type PPV (mm/s) Shockwave

Pressure

(dB(L)) Frequency <10

Hz

10-50

Hz

50-100

Hz

>100

Hz

1

Buildings used for

commercial purposes,

industrial buildings and

buildings of similar design

20 20-40 40-50 50

134

2

Housing and buildings of

similar design and/or

occupancy

5 5-15 15-20 20

3

Structures not classified

under 1 and 2 above,

due to being particularly

vulnerable to vibrations

(e.g. listed buildings under

preservation order)

3 3-8 8-10 10

The proposed indicators, which were introduced in the 2nd Stage ESBR, concerned the multitude of

structures and infrastructures close to the geophysical lines. Given the difficulty in defining the number

of structures and infrastructures and assessing the structural condition of each element, these

indicators were replaced by more representative and more easily measurable indicators

incorporated into the Environmental Action Plan and the Environmental Monitoring Program. The

new indicators are examined below.


24 | Page

CHAPTER 6 ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL

ACTION PLAN

The key performance indicators, which were introduced in the Environmental and Social Action

Plan17 in the context of the Environmental Management Plan are given in the table below. The target

value for each indicator is also given.

Table 6-1: Key performance indicators – Environmental and Social Action Plan




25 | Page

Parameter Index Unit Target 2018

Value

Operational Area of occupation of the

geophysical survey km2 1,3518 0.4619

Significant/protected

species

Injury incidents of protected or

important fauna species Number 0 0

Nuisance to threatened flora

species km2 0 0

Training

Staff to be informed on issues of flora

and fauna protection (Tool Box

Talks)

% 100 100

Accidents/Incidents Fuel / Chemicals Leaks

Number of

incidents 0 0

Fire incidents (related to the project) Number 0 0

Complaints/grievances

Expression of complaints/grievances

about noise Number 0 2


about damages to structures

(buildings, etc.) due to vibrations

Number 0 1


about damages to structures

(buildings, etc.) due to causes other

than vibrations

Number 0 8


concerning agriculture Number 0 2


concerning livestock farming Number 0 5

Solved grievances compared to

total grievances received % 100 100

CHAPTER 7 INDICATORS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MONITORING

PROGRAM

The experience of the environmental and social monitoring program, which evolves alongside the

works of the geophysical survey according to the provisions of the ESAP, allowed the definition of

representative indicators based on monitored parameters and reflects the impact of the project on

the natural and man-made environment, as well as the progress of work. The set of indicators as well

as their respective values for 2018 based on the data collected by the monitoring team are

presented in Table 7-1. It shall be noted, that the vibration indicators exclusively refer to lines 12 and

18 The target concerns the total extent of the geophysical survey as it has been estimated and is presented in the amendment

of the ESAP – (ENVECO S.A., 2018. Amendment of the Environmental and Social Action Plan (ESAP) – Hydrocarbons Exploration

and Exploitation program in the onshore area “Ioannina”, Αθήνα: Repsol.)

19 The occupation area concerns the works of all phases for lines 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 (see paragraph Error! Reference source n

ot found.).


26 | Page

13, as geophysical data recording, during which the vibrations are induced, has only taken place

along these lines.

The report is accompanied by an annex (Annex I), which contains all the records of flora and fauna,

as well as a photographic documentation Annex (Annex II).

Table 7-1: Indicators of the environmental and social monitoring program

Indicator Unit Value for

2018

Operational

Occupation per land cover – land use category km2 Table 7-2

Percentage of occupation to the surface of the MSA20 % 0.0021%

Length and Target Percentage of Line Segments in which operations

have been completed per line. km/% Table 7-3

Number and percentage of the total number of source stations of

each line in which operations (heliportable and conventional drilling)

have been completed per line.

Number/% Table 7-4

Avifauna

-

Fauna21

-

Flora

Number of campaigns and analysis per line Number 323

Table 7-5

Number of important avifauna and fauna species records and

analysis per line Number

110

Table 7-5

Number of important fauna species recorded

(non-avifauna) Number 522

Number of important avifauna species recorded Number 1223

Number of important flora species records24 Number 319

Number of important flora species recorded Number 1725

Number of trees with trunk diameters greater than 20 cm, which were

cut. Number 15

20Total surface of MSA 214,4 km2, as defined in the amendment of the ESAP – (ENVECO S.A., 2018. Amendment of the

Environmental and Social Action Plan (ESAP) – Hydrocarbons Exploration and Exploitation program in the onshore area

“Ioannina”, Athens: Repsol.)

21 Data for each line below (Table 7-5) 22 List of species and number or recordings per species in Tables 7-6, 7-7, 7-8 23 Ibid. 24 Species of Annex IV – ENVECO S.A. 2017. Second Stage Environmental and Social Baseline Report for the Seismic Survey in

the Onshore Area “Ioannina”, Athens: Energean Oil and Gas. 25 List of species and number or recordings per species in Tables 7-6, 7-7, 7-8


27 | Page

Indicator Unit Value for

2018

Noise

Number of noise measurements during

Phase 1: Surveying and vegetation clearance Number 13

Number and percentage of noise measurements exceeding limit

values during

Phase 1: Surveying and vegetation clearance

Number/% 3/23%


conventional drilling operations Number 1


values during

conventional drilling operations

Number/% 0/0%


heliportable drilling Number 35


values during

heliportable drilling

Number/% 21/60%


value of 70dB for LDEN noise indicator, as defined in GG211773/2012 on

transportational noise emissions during heliportable drilling works

Number/% 0/0%

Vibrations

Number of sensitive receptors (Lines 12 and 13) Number 73

Shotpoints relevant to sensitive receptors (Lines 12+13) Number 321

Number and percentage of exceedances of ground vibrations limits,

as defined in DIN4150 (Lines 12 and 13)

Number/% 15/4.67%

Number and percentage of exceedances of 134dBL, the limit for

blasting shock wave Αριθμός/% 0/0%


28 | Page

Table 7-2: Occupation per land cover category

Category

Line 12 Line 13 Line 9 Line 10 Line 8

Target

(m2)

Value

2018

(m2)

Percentage

(%)

Target

(m2)

Value

2018

(m2)

Percentage

(%)

Target

(m2)

Value

2018

(m2)

Percentage

(%)

Target

(m2)

Value

2018

(m2)

Percentage

(%)

Target

(m2)

Value

2018

(m2)

Percentage

(%)

AAG 4556 1564 34% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 7601 0 0% 5705 296 5%

AGR 36725 7434 20% 34296 4502 13% 15978 1564 10% 33784 36 0% 30604 2114 7%

OAK1 1355 180 13% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 2378 0 0% 3232 1563 48%

OAK2 13667 6269 46% 1835 205 11% 4013 0 0% 4661 0 0% 12987 861 7%

OAK3 5074 1413 28% 0 0 0% 583 167 29% 19238 167 1% 14483 1271 9%

BUS1 15285 6680 44% 11134 3956 36% 5524 53 1% 8336 1 0% 10100 2290 23%

BUS2 11311 4635 41% 10361 4751 46% 14005 2054 15% 40801 3715 9% 26522 5850 22%

BUS3 27168 13235 49% 12487 5272 42% 31078 4103 13% 17558 2443 14% 24047 5128 21%

DBU1 838 161 19% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0%

DBU2 2679 700 26% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 3796 0 0% 0 0 0%

DBU3 5366 2530 47% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 1596 0 0% 2292 0 0%

MEA 21347 4679 22% 16017 3949 25% 1732 154 9% 12724 515 4% 17237 5460 32%

RIV 2283 437 19% 210 47 22% 497 0 0% 2375 75 3% 2036 0 0%

OTHER 775 9 1% 948 133 14% 295 149 51% 827 0 0% 2124 1002 47%

Total 148429 49923 34% 87289 22816 26% 73704 8244 11% 155675 6951 4% 151368 25836 17%

Legend

AAG: Abandoned Agricultural Crops, AGR: Agricultural Crops, OAK1: Sparse oak forests (cover 10-40%), OAK2: Dense oak forests (cover 40-70%), BUS1: Dense bushes (coverage of 40-

70%), BUS3: Dense bushes (coverage 70-100%), DBU1: Deciduous shrubs (cover 10-40%), DBU2 : Dense deciduous shrubs (coverage 40-70%), DBU3: Dense deciduous shrubs (cover 70-

100%), MEA: grassland, sparse vegetation, RIV: surface water bodies & aquatic vegetation, OTHER: Other


29 | Page

Table 7-3: Evolution of project per line and phase

Phase

Line 12 Line 13 Line 8* Line 9* Line 10*

Target Value

2018

Percenta

ge

(%)

Target Value

2018

Percenta

ge

(%)

Target Value

2018

Percenta

ge

(%)

Target Value

2018

Percenta

ge

(%)

Target Value

2018

Percenta

ge

(%)

Phase 1: Surveying and

vegetation clearance

(Line length in km)

48.46 47.1 97% 26.62 26.2 98% 53.651 12.4 23% 24.86 5.1 21% 55.252 8.16 15%

Phase 2: Drilling

(Number of drillings) 808 725 90% 444 411 93% 895 0 0% 415 0 0% 922 0 0%

Phase 3: Energy sources

and geophysical data

recording

(Number of drillings)

808 725 90% 444 398 90% 895 0 0% 415 0 0% 922 0 0%

Phase 4:

Restoration/Reforestatio

n, Equipment

demobilization

(Line length in km)

47.1 47.1 100% 26.2 26.2 100% 53.651 0 0% 24.86 0 0% 55.252 0 0%

*Ongoing operations

Table 7-4: Range of use of heliportable – conventional drilling equipment

Equipment Type

Line 12 Line 13 Line 8* Line 9* Line 10*

Total Value

2018

Percenta

ge

(%)

Total Value

2018

Percenta

ge

(%)

Total Value

2018

Percenta

ge

(%)

Total Value

2018

Percenta

ge

(%)

Total Value

2018

Percenta

ge

(%)

Heliportable

725 Drillings

537 74% 411

Drillings

276 67%

895 Drillings

0 0%

415 Drillings

0 0%

922 Drillings

0 0%

Conventional 188 26% 135 33% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

* Ongoing operations


30 | Page

Table 7-5: Observations of important fauna – avifauna species per line

Line Number of campaigns Number of important avifauna species observations

Number of

important fauna

species

observations

Total Number

of important

species

12 78 12 2 14

13 20 12 0 12

8 80 24 4 28

9 42 4 0 4

10 103 49 3 52

Total 323 101 9 110


31 | Page

Table 7-6: Important avifauna species and number of Observations

Α/Α Species Number of

observations

1 Pernis apivorus 34

2 Circaetus gallicus 14

3 Lanius collurio 6

4 Dendrocopos medius 10

5 Buteo rufinus 9

6 Accipiter brevipes 4

7 Dendrocopos sp. 1

8 Plegadis falcinellus 16

9 Falco eleonorae 1

10 Milvus migrans 1

11 Circus pygargus 1

12 Lanius senator 4

Table 7-6: Important fauna species (excluding avifauna) and number of observations


observations

1 Testudo hermanni 1

2 Testudo marginata 2

3 Ursus arctos 1

4 Emys orbicularis 2

5 Bombina variegata 3


32 | Page

Table 7-7: Important flora species and number of observations


observations

1 Anacamptis pyramidalis 68

2 Platanus orientalis 46

3 Digitalis lanata 2

4 Ruscus aculeatus 124

5 Bupleurum karglii 14

6 Serapias vomeracea 9

7 Dictamnus albus 6

8 Quercus ithaburensis 27

9 Ophrys mammosa sudsp. serotina 2

10 Lilium sp. 2

11 Abies borisii-regis 12

12 Ophrys oestrifera subsp. cornutula 1

13 Anacamptis morio 1

14 Anacamptis laxiflora 2

15 Ophrys oestrifera subsp. leptomera 1

16 Ophrys epirotica 1

17 Alnus glutinosa 1


33 | Page

CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS

Indicators for the wider study area

In summary, the indicators for the wider study area, which have been proposed in the 1st stage ESBR

did not differ with respect to their baseline values, as no new sources of the relevant indicator values

were generally found. It shall be noted, however, that the baseline values of the water indicators

have been updated on the basis of the corresponding values included in the 1st update of the Epirus

RBMP, as they refer to the period prior to the start of the geophysical survey.

Indicators for the Main Study Area

Similarly, indicators for the main study area remained at their baseline levels, with the exception of

indicators relating to Natura 2000 priority habitats. It should be noted, that the limited changes are

not related to the project but are a result of the re-mapping of the Natura 2000 sites habitats in 2017.

The new mapping led to the declassification of one of the priority habitats and to minor changes in

the relevant surfaces within the MSA.

Indicators proposed in the ESAP

As far as the indicators provided for in the ESAP are concerned, the project's progress in relation to

the total is about 25%, with regard to the completion of all the phases. During this time, all staff

received information on environmental issues, and there were no incidents of injury of important or

protected species of fauna, while the nuisance to endangered flora species was at zero levels.

Moreover, there were no occurrences of pollutant leakage accidents, and no fire was caused by

the works of the survey. Lastly, the limited number of complaints and the respective high percentage

of successful management show the effectiveness of the terms and conditions under which the

program is being implemented as well as the quickness of the project manager's response to the

demands of the public.

Indicators from the monitoring program

The supplementary indicators of the monitoring program are representative of the development of

the program and its possible impact. The operational indicators show the smooth progression of the

program. In relation to the impact on the natural environment, the limited number of large trees cut

indicates the project operator's commitment to flora protection, and the increased number of

avifauna observations are an indication of the limited impact of the survey on birds. An important

role in this parameter is played by the respective spatial and temporal restrictions, which are

provided for in the ESAP and its amendment. Impact indicators in the anthropogenic environment in

terms of noise and vibrations show a limited number of exceedances of the respective threshold

values and will be taken into account to improve the environmental performance of the project in

2019.

Vibrations

As far as vibrations are concerned, it shall be noted, that no damages have been documented in

the framework of the inspection of structures prior and after the activation of source stations.

Noise

Regarding the values of noise indicators, it is pointed out, that the 50 db(A) limit of PD 1180/1981 has

been used as a threshold value as provided for in the ESAP and its update.


34 | Page

However, the ministerial decision, which regulates transportational noise emissions (M.D.

211773/2012) defines a limitation of 70 db(A) for the LDEN noise indicator. As no exceedances of this

limit have been documented during the operations, adopting this threshold value for the calculation

of the respective heliportable drilling indicator (Number and percentage of noise measurements

exceeding limit values during heliportable drilling) would result in a zero value.

As far as the elevated values of the noise indicator for vegetation clearance is concerned (Number

and percentage of noise measurements exceeding limit values during Phase 1: Surveying and

vegetation clearance), it shall be highlighted, that:

the only value exceeding 55 dB(A) was recorded on a day with high background noise levels

due to a storm and wind, while the recording location was next to the provincial road.

All other exceedances were lower than 55 dB(A) with only one marginally exceeding 51 dB(A)

and thus the LEQ(24h) threshold value of 50 dB(A). All other cases of elevated noise levels may

not be linked with the operations of the project and are explained either by meteorological

conditions or traffic in adjacent roads.

Moreover, the limited number of days with elevated noise indicator values throughout the

year leads to minimal effects of the project on the respective yearly LDEN values and allow the

consideration of the importance of the related impact as limited.

In summary, the overall impression given by the monitored indicators shows, as estimated in the ESAP,

a non-significant effect of the survey on the natural environment. The documented performance in

relation to vibration and noise is to be taken into account in the operations’ planning for 2019. Real-

time monitoring of environmental parameters by the environmental monitoring program team allows

not only capturing possible divergences from environmental targets, but also immediately applying

appropriate corrective – mitigative interventions, such as the modification of the spatial and

temporal plan of the operations and issuing of appropriate compensations.


35 | Page

CHAPTER 9 RELEVANT STUDIES (ORIGINAL TITLES)

9.1 ORIGINAL TITLES IN GREEK

Enveco Α.Ε., 2015. Πρώτο Στάδιο Περιβαλλοντικής Μελέτης Βάσης - Πρόγραμμα Έρευνας και

Εκμετάλλευσης Υδρογονανθράκων στη Χερσαία Περιοχή των Ιωαννίνων, Αθήνα: Energean Oil

and Gas.

Enveco Α.Ε., 2017. Δεύτερο στάδιο Περιβαλλοντικής Μελέτης Βάσης για τη σεισμική έρευνα στη

χερσαία περιοχή «Ιωάννινα», Αθήνα: Energean Oil and Gas.

ENVECO Α.Ε., 2017. Περιβαλλοντικό Σχέδιο Δράσης (ΠΣΔ) - Πρόγραμμα Έρευνας και Εκμετάλλευσης

Υδρογονανθράκων στη Χερσαία Περιοχή «Ιωάννινα», ΑΘήνα: Energean Oil and Gas.

ENVECO Α.Ε., 2018. Τροποποίηση του Περιβαλλοντικού Σχεδίου Δράσης (ΠΣΔ) - Πρόγραμμα Έρευνας

και Εκμετάλλευσης Υδρογονανθράκων στη Χερσαία Περιοχή «Ιωάννινα», Αθήνα: Repsol.

Κοινοπραξία: «1ης Αναθεώρησης ΣΔΛΑΠ Υδατικών Διαμερισμάτων Θεσσαλίας, Ηπείρου και Δυτ.

Στερεάς Ελλάδας» , 2017. 1η Αναθεώρηση του Σχεδίου Διαχείρισης Λεκανών Απορροής

Ποταμών Υδατικού Διαμερίσματος Ηπείρου (EL05), ΑΘήνα: Υπουργείο Περιβάλλοντος &

Ενέργειας, Ειδική Γραμματεία Υδάτων.

9.2 TRANSLATED TITLES IN ENGLISH

Enveco S.A., 2015. First Stage of Environmental and Social Baseline Report for the Hydrocarbons

Exploration and Exploitation Program in the Onshore Area “IOANNINA”, Athens: Energean Oil

and Gas.

Enveco S.A., 2017. Second Stage Environmental and Social Baseline Report for the Seismic Survey in

the Onshore Area “Ioannina”, Athens: Energean Oil and Gas.

ENVECO S.A., 2017. Environmental and Social Action Plan (ESAP) – Hydrocarbons Exploration and

Exploitation program in the onshore area “Ioannina”, Athens: Repsol.

ENVECO S.A., 2018. Amendment of the Environmental and Social Action Plan (ESAP) – Hydrocarbons

Exploration and Exploitation program in the onshore area “Ioannina”, Athens: Repsol.

Κοινοπραξία: «1ης Αναθεώρησης ΣΔΛΑΠ Υδατικών Διαμερισμάτων Θεσσαλίας, Ηπείρου και Δυτ.

Στερεάς Ελλάδας» , 2017. 1η Αναθεώρηση του Σχεδίου Διαχείρισης Λεκανών Απορροής

Ποταμών Υδατικού Διαμερίσματος Ηπείρου (EL05), ΑΘήνα: Υπουργείο Περιβάλλοντος &

Ενέργειας, Ειδική Γραμματεία Υδάτων.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE MONITORING PROGRAM OF ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS FROM THE HYDROCARBON EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION

PROGRAM IN “IOANNINA” BLOCK IN THE REGION OF EPIRUS

YEAR 2018

Annex I

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT MONITORING RECORDS

Prepared by:

March 2019


`1 | P a g e

Table 1: Fauna and avifauna records

#

Tax

on

om

y

Date Species Name Activity Method

Coordinates

(WGS 84 UTM 34N)

X Y

1 B 2018-05-03 Pernis apivorus Passing PC 470305.045 4390610.529


3 B 2018-05-03 Circaetus gallicus Breeding PC 470305.045 4390610.529

4 B 2018-05-03 Testudo hermanni Feeding PC 470305.045 4390610.529

5 B 2018-05-06 Circaetus gallicus Feeding PC 440313.407 4371654.546

6 B 2018-05-07 Pernis apivorus Soaring PC 473219.054 4392408.019

7 R 2018-05-07 Lanius senator Feeding PC 472370.256 4391960.639

8 B 2018-05-10 Lanius collurio Roosting PC 466484.192 4388919.578

9 R 2018-05-10 Testudo marginata Roosting PC 465831.610 4388259.081

10 B 2018-05-11 Pernis apivorus Soaring PC 467904.096 4389221.628

11 B 2018-05-16 Dendrocopus medius Breeding PC 465582.823 4387769.518

12 B 2018-05-16 Dendrocopus medius Breeding PC 465369.357 4387642.175


14 B 2018-05-24 Pernis apivorus Flying 444317.719 4374200.866

15 B 2018-05-25 Circaetus gallicus Soaring PC 441023.347 4374393.526

16 B 2018-05-25 Pernis apivorus Soaring VP 458046.839 4383107.450

17 B 2018-05-26 Circaetus gallicus Passing PC 438510.868 4379203.742

18 B 2018-05-27 Circaetus gallicus Passing PC 437309.907 4381024.098

19 B 2018-05-27 Circaetus gallicus Passing VP 436313.735 4382554.719

20 B 2018-05-27 Buteo ruffinus Passing VP 436313.735 4382554.719

21 B 2018-05-27 Buteo ruffinus Passing VP 436313.735 4382554.719

22 B 2018-05-27 Buteo ruffinus Passing PC 437309.907 4381024.098

23 B 2018-05-27 Buteo ruffinus Passing PC 437309.907 4381024.098

24 B 2018-05-28 Circaetus gallicus Feeding PC 433096.847 4387177.485


26 B 2018-06-07 Pernis apivorus Flying PC 436155.100 4379278.675







33 R 2018-06-08 Lanius senator Presence LT 440093.190 4381586.594

34 B 2018-06-08 Circaetus gallicus Feeding LT 440093.190 4381586.594

35 B 2018-06-17 Buteo ruffinus Feeding Random 443419.845 4370933.897

36 B 2018-06-18 Circaetus gallicus Feeding VP 451346.576 4389557.807

37 B 2018-06-18 Pernis apivorus Flying VP 454478.067 4392138.015





`2 | P a g e

#

Tax

on

om

y


Coordinates

(WGS 84 UTM 34N)

X Y

41 B 2018-06-21 Dendrocopos medius Presence VP 460223.476 4396051.577



44 B 2018-06-21 Accipiter brevipes Presence PC 462352.151 4397353.845

45 B 2018-06-21 Accipiter brevipes Presence PC 462352.151 4397353.845


47 R 2018-06-24 Testudo marginata Presence Random 449461.364 4388145.398

48 B 2018-06-24 Pernis apivorus Flying Random 449474.675 4388133.879



51 B 2018-06-25 Dendrocopos medius Presence PC 472064.758 4404021.020

52 B 2018-06-25 Dendrocopus sp. Nest Presence PC 472151.921 4403925.142

53 B 2018-06-25 Lanius collurio Breeding LT 471465.798 4403538.874

54 B 2018-06-25 Lanius collurio Breeding LT 471465.798 4403538.874


56 M 2018-06-26 Ursus arctos droopings PC 466670.311 4400239.780

57 B 2018-06-27 Circaetus gallicus Flying 467468.780 4400629.030

58 B 2018-06-28 Plegadis falcinellus Flying LT 433020.934 4377521.453
















74 B 2018-06-28 Circaetus gallicus Flying LT 430982.697 4375564.937

75 R 2018-06-28 Emys orbicularis Presence LT 430982.697 4375564.937

76 R 2018-06-30 Lanius senator Presence PC 430771.586 4381521.579

77 R 2018-06-30 Lanius senator Presence PC 430771.586 4381521.579

78 B 2018-06-30 Lanius collurio Presence PC 431323.658 4382060.516



81 R 2018-06-30 Emys orbicularis PC 431662.509 4382618.801



`3 | P a g e

#

Tax

on

om

y


Coordinates

(WGS 84 UTM 34N)

X Y



85 B 2018-07-01 Circaetus gallicus Flying PC 438025.405 4387141.167

86 B 2018-07-01 Accipiter brevipes Presence VP 438257.534 4387416.895

87 B 2018-07-01 Accipiter brevipes Presence VP 438257.534 4387416.895

88 B 2018-07-01 Pernis apivorus Presence VP 438257.534 4387416.895

89 B 2018-07-01 Pernis apivorus Feeding PC 441394.764 4389730.434

90 B 2018-07-01 Pernis apivorus Feeding PC 441394.764 4389730.434

91 A 2018-07-03 Bombina variegata Breeding PC 449886.021 4395086.142








99 B 2018-07-04 Buteo ruffinus Feeding PC 453141.124 4398498.976

100 B 2018-07-05 Falco eleonorae Flying 463717.668 4398226.412

101 B 2018-07-05 Buteo ruffinus Flying 451349.916 4389556.898

102 B 2018-07-05 Buteo ruffinus Flying 451349.916 4389556.898




106 B 2018-10-11 Buteo ruffinus Flying VP 448273.940 4383923.038

107 B 2018-10-14 Dendrocopus medius Presence VP 444090.529 4392538.334

108 B 2018-10-16 Dendrocopus medius Presence VP 449403.990 4381291.783

109 B 2018-10-17 Milrus migrans Presence VP 451669.178 4376190.958

110 B 2018-11-09 Circus pygargus Flying VP 468420.283 4407035.190


4 | P a g e

Table 2: Flora records

# Species Name Line Date

Coordinates

(WGS 84 UTM 34N) Density Nuisance

X Y

1 Anacamptis pyramidalis HP_A6 4/5/2018 470404.698 4408495.333 No data available No disturbance

2 Platanus orientalis HP_A67 4/5/2018 436303.422 4385247.579 No data available No disturbance

3 Digitalis lanata HP_A69 4/5/2018 447331.490 4386876.067 No data available No disturbance


5 Ruscus aculeatus HP_A69 4/5/2018 447331.045 4386811.030 No data available No disturbance

6 Ruscus aculeatus IO17-10 5/5/2018 438472.100 4380702.610 No data available No disturbance

7 Bupleurum karglii IO17-10 5/5/2018 440726.960 4382015.564 No data available No disturbance






13 Platanus orientalis IO17-10 5/5/2018 439701.909 4381377.757 No data available No disturbance




17 Anacamptis pyramidalis IO17-12 5/5/2018 475501.720 4393645.672 No data available No disturbance





22 Anacamptis pyramidalis IO17-12 6/5/2018 473951.290 4392801.169 Rare No disturbance




5 | P a g e


Coordinates


X Y

25 Serapias vomeracea IO17-12 7/5/2018 474962.641 4393351.408 No data available No disturbance











36 Dictamnus albus IO17-12 7/5/2018 472061.598 4391794.720 No data available No disturbance





41 Quercus ithaburensis IO17-12 8/5/2018 471861.939 4391653.940 No data available No disturbance







48 ?Bupleurum karglii? IO17-12 8/5/2018 472022.710 4391761.790 No data available No disturbance


50 Dictamnus albus IO17-12 8/5/2018 472061.975 4391780.623 Rare No disturbance



6 | P a g e


Coordinates


X Y



54 Ophrys mammosa sudsp.

serotina IO17-12 9/5/2018 469996.671 4390543.135 No data available No disturbance







61 Lilium sp. IO17-12 9/5/2018 470336.007 4390743.149 No data available No disturbance


63 Lilium sp. IO17-12 9/5/2018 470340.738 4390746.460 No data available No disturbance




67 Quercus ithaburensis IO17-12 9/5/2018 468803.707 4389811.151 1 individual No disturbance













7 | P a g e


Coordinates


X Y








86 Quercus ithaburensis IO17-12 11/5/2018 468164.327 4389392.798 4 individuals No disturbance





91 Serapias vomeracea IO17-12 11/5/2018 468400.893 4389548.980 Rare No disturbance








99 Platanus orientalis IO17-12 12/5/2018 466010.056 4388019.671 1 individual No disturbance

100 Ruscus auleatus IO17-12 12/5/2018 466010.056 4388019.671 No data available No disturbance

101 Ruscus auleatus IO17-12 12/5/2018 466790.738 4388499.963 No data available No disturbance


103 Ophrys mammosa sudsp.

serotina IO17-12 13/5/2018 466788.939 4388500.951 6 individuals No disturbance




8 | P a g e


Coordinates


X Y

106 Anacamptis pyramidalis IO17-12 13/5/2018 460151.690 4384622.801 3 individuals No disturbance

107 Serapias vomeracea IO17-12 13/5/2018 460149.449 4384621.037 1 individual No disturbance

108 Abies borisii-regis IO17-12 13/5/2018 460462.772 4384819.533 1 individual No disturbance




112 Serapias vomeracea IO17-12 13/5/2018 460725.932 4384981.116 4 individuals No disturbance



115 Abies borisii-regis IO17-12 15/5/2018 464689.343 4387257.364 No data available No disturbance



















9 | P a g e


Coordinates


X Y







139 Ruscus aculeatus IO17-12 17/5/2018 457294.029 4382444.645 Abundant No disturbance

















156 ?Bupleurum karglii? IO17-13 18/5/2018 440305.592 4375959.315 Abundant No disturbance





10 | P a g e


Coordinates


X Y








167 Ruscus aculeatus IO17-09 21/5/2018 444419.686 4391873.998 IMG_2382

168 Platanus orientalis IO17-09 25/5/2018 446912.365 4386333.095 IMG_2276-2279,presence of the

species linear

169 Platanus orientalis IO17-09 25/5/2018 446953.055 4386321.605 IMG_2280-2281.Trees affected by

the funcus Ceratocystis platani.

170 Platanus orientalis IO17-09 30/5/2018 444974.311 4390598.521


172 Ophrys oestifera subsp.

cornutula HP_A11 1/6/2018 467485.336 4377973.056 No data available No disturbance


174 Serapias vomeracea HP_A12 2/6/2018 450422.595 4378682.961 No data available No disturbance


176 Digitalis lanata HP_A16 2/6/2018 440219.447 4381687.283 No data available No disturbance


178 Serapias vomeracea HP_A55 2/6/2018 461449.611 4383201.133 1 individual No disturbance


180 Anacamptis morio HP_A6 3/6/2018 470404.698 4408495.333 No data available No disturbance


182 Ruscus aculeatus HP_A7 4/6/2018 470006.721 4417111.057 No data available No disturbance

183 Anacamptis laxiflora HP_A70 4/6/2018 463394.846 4375886.966 No data available No disturbance





11 | P a g e


Coordinates


X Y




190 Ophrys oestrifera subsp.

leptomera IO17-12 14/6/2018 462521.293 4386038.539 No data available No disturbance























213 Platanus orientalis IO17-09 21/6/2018 448457.894 4383557.875 no cuttings


12 | P a g e


Coordinates


X Y

214 Ruscus aculeatus IO17-09 21/6/2018 448483.321 4383508.204 sparse in area. Photo: 2807

215 Platanus orientalis IO17-09 21/6/2018 448462.226 4383550.743 no cuttings




219 Ruscus aculeatus IO17-09 22/6/2018 444325.397 4392095.330


species linear


species linear







227 Anacamptis laxiflora HP_A12 1/7/2018 450422.595 4378682.961 No data available No disturbance



230 Ophrys epirotica HP_A70 4/7/2018 463394.846 4375886.966 No data available No disturbance












13 | P a g e


Coordinates


X Y








248 Platanus orientalis IO17-12 17/9/2018 445050.171 4374774.100 1 individual Dried



251 Alnus glutinosa IO17-13 18/9/2018 438460.725 4379282.945 No data available No disturbance













262 Platanus orientalis IO17-09 28/9/2018 446955.164 4386266.429 no impact IMG_2282.Tree on line.







14 | P a g e


Coordinates


X Y





























15 | P a g e


Coordinates


X Y









303 Platanus orientalis IO17-09 22/10/2018 446938.108 4386357.225 IMG_2276-2279, presence of the

species linear

304 Platanus orientalis IO17-09 22/10/2018 446936.876 4386352.794 IMG_2276-2279, presence of the

species linear





















16 | P a g e

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE MONITORING PROGRAM OF ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS FROM THE HYDROCARBON EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION

PROGRAM IN “IOANNINA” BLOCK IN THE REGION OF EPIRUS

YEAR 2018

Annex II

PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION

Prepared by:

March 2019

Documents

“IOANNINA” BLOCK IN THE REGION OF EPIRUS YEAR 2018 · exploration program in the Region of Epirus, and, in particular “Ioannina” block, to the “Energean Oil and Gas - AEGEAN