ESIA Amendment Greece Annex 6.3 Avifauna Baseline Study

Transcription

1 ESIA Amendment Greece Annex 6.3 Avifauna Baseline Study

2 Page 2 of 49 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 4 General information on bird fauna of the lowlands in Eastern Macedonia- Rodopi 4 Main legislative issues 4 Concise review of the local bird fauna as determined in the TAP ESIA study (ESIA basecase) 5 Scope of work 5 2 METHODOLOGY 7 Sampling Methodology 7 Study sites 8 Estimation of the size and location of territories 9 Limitations, Uncertainties and Biases 9 3 Results 10 Confirmed bird species presence along the route 10 Bird species occupancy probabilities within the project area 13 Population data (incl. territories) 14 4 CONCLUSIONS 16 Principal species and areas of interest 17 List of tables Table 2-1 KOSMIO - Randomly selected sampling point 8 Table 2-2 NESTOS- Randomly selected sampling point 9 Table 3-1 Bird species of conservation interest present in the Study 10 Table 3-2 Probability of occupancy for common species along Kosmio rerouting 13 Table 3-3 Probability of occupancy for common species along Nestos rerouting 13 Table 3-4 Sampling points, where breeding territories of certain species of conservation concern have been detected. 14 Table 3-5 Species of conservation interest and their populations in Greece. 16 Table 4-1 Residency status for species observed along Nestos and Kosmio rerouting 17 List of Figures Figure II - 1 Roller territories in the Kosmio plain 23 Figure II - 2 Assumed territories of partridge and lark species in the Kosmio plain (West) 23 Figure II - 3 Assumed territories of partridge and lark species in the Kosmio plain (East) 24 Figure II - 4 View of the bee-eater/roller nesting grounds within a concrete producing facility in the Kosmio plain (territory nr.5) 24 Figure II - 5 A roller perching on the metallic marker of an existing natural gas pipeline in the Kosmio plain (territory nr.3) 24

3 Page 3 of 49

4 Page 4 of 49 1 INTRODUCTION General information on bird fauna of the lowlands in Eastern Macedonia- Rodopi Eastern Macedonia and Thrace are considered among the most important bird areas in Greece, due to their generally high bird species richness, as well as the occurrence of species of conservation concern (rare or threatened bird species) (Handrinos & Akriotis, 1997). As a result, several protected areas have been designated during the last decades according to national and European legislation. The project area lies in close vicinity to four Natura 2000 sites, classified as Special Protection s (SPA) (Kompsatos valley - GR ; Vistonis and Ismaris lakes, Porto Lagos lagoon, Alyki, Xirolimni and Karatza lagoons - GR ; Nestos delta, Keramoti lagoon and Thassopoula island- GR ; Nestos gorge - GR ), and to Wildlife Refuges ( Nevertheless, the present study focuses mainly on lowland and farmland species. Bird communities of agricultural areas and especially in regions where intensive agricultural practices are used, are generally characterized by lower species richness. Yet, farmland may be utilized as foraging habitat by several species of conservation interest, such as the White Stork (Ciconia ciconia) (PECBMS, ) and various raptor species like the Booted Eagle (Hieraaetus pennatus) or the Western Marsh Harrier (Circus aeruginosus) (Guerrero et al., 2012). On the other hand, agricultural land may be crucial for the conservation of other threatened species, such as the Roller (Coracias garrulus), the Grey Partridge (Perdix perdix), the Skylark (Alauda arvensis), the Greater Short-toed Lark (Calandrella brachydactyla), the Calandra Lark (Melanocorypha calandra) and the Lesser Grey Shrike (Lanius minor) (Guerrero et al., 2012; PECBMS, ). Main legislative issues The Birds Directive 2009/147/EC is the main legislative instrument for the protection of birds in the European Union and also in Greece. It is the EU s oldest piece of nature legislation and deals with the protection of habitats for endangered and migratory species. It provides an integrated scheme for the protection of certain species of conservation concern, listed in the Annex I of the directive, since it forbids any activity that directly threatens birds. Apart from the ratification of several pieces of European and international legislation, Greece retains a quite long list of older environmental laws, which provide for the protection of wildlife

5 Page 5 of 49 and its habitats (e.g. Law 1650/86 and Law 2637/1998 for the establishment of National Parks and Wildlife Refuges, respectively). Moreover, the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species provides an evaluation for the conservation status of plant and animal species at a worldwide scale ( A more detailed evaluation of the local populations status is available for Greece, reported in the Red Data Book of Threatened Animals of Greece (Legakis & Maragou, 2009). Greece has recently adopted the Important Bird s (IBAs) Programme, coordinated by Birdlife International, for the identification, monitoring and protection of key sites for important bird species or highly representative bird assemblages (Portolou et al., 2009) Concise review of the local bird fauna as determined in the TAP ESIA study (ESIA basecase) The TAP ESIA study recorded totally 141 different bird species for the whole eastern Macedonia- Thrace part of the Project. Observations refer to bird communities both during spring and autumn. Riparian forests and non-intensive cultivations in general were identified as bird-rich. Certain raptor species like the Levant Sparrowhawk (Accipiter brevipes), Long-legged Buzzard (Buteo rufinus), Lesser spotted Eagle (Aquila pomarina), Short-toed Eagle (Circaetus gallicus), and the Booted Eagle (Hieraaetus pennatus) were deemed significant for the area, followed by birds inhabiting the agricultural landscape including the Roller (Coracias garrulus), Bee-eater (Merops apiaster), Stone Curlew (Burhinus oedicnemus), Sand Martin (Riparia riparia), Woodlark (Lullula arborea) and Calandra Lark (Melanocorypha calandra). Selected places like the pine forest of Loutros in Evros, the Kompsatos and Philiouris river plains and the Wildlife refuge of Krinidos - Fillidos were found to be particularly important for those species. Scope of work The study focuses on the presence of avian species along Philippoi and Kosmio reroutings, in order to identify potential adverse effects on them. In addition, the study aims to present a preliminary estimate of the local occurence of certain bird species. Greater emphasis was given to the areas considered of conservation concern, i.e. species listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC) or in the Greek Red Data Book located in the vicinity of the reroutings. Although only part of the study area is located within the boundaries of nationally designated protected areas (National Parks, SPA s or Wildlife Refuges),

6 Page 6 of 49 species of special conservation interest are also known to occur in the broader area of the pipeline route (Handrinos & Akriotis, 1997). Therefore, the field survey has set the following objectives: A rough estimation of bird species richness and occupancy along the above mentioned sections of the pipeline route, An assessment of important bird habitats with emphasis on the identification of breeding territories and nesting sites of species of conservation concern.

7 Page 7 of 49 2 METHODOLOGY Sampling Methodology The proportion of sites occupied by a species of interest defines the occupancy of the area by this species. Multiple visits are paid to a number of sites during an appropriate season during which a species may be detectable; a likelihood-based method is then applied for estimating site occupancy when detection probabilities are < 1. This method estimates the proportion of sites (or sampled area) occupied by a species and it takes into account that a species may go undetected at several sites even when present. The patterns of detection and non-detection over the multiple visits for each site permit estimation of detection probabilities as well as the parameter of interest (i.e the proportion of sites occupied). Most sampling points were paid four (4) visits by the same group of observers within two (2) days. All observations are enlisted but the analysis proceeds with only taxa for which there are altogether at least twenty (20) observations in Nestos and Kosmio: the rest are considered as vagrants or of uncertain resident status. Opportunistic taxa or species definitely known to breed elsewhere and therefore recorded as foraging in the project area are no further analysed. The software PRESENCE was used to assess the results and the corresponding information per species and sampling area is presented in Supplements I and II. Two models were used: the single season, single group, survey-specific detection probability, no covariates model and the single season, single group, constant detection probability, no covariates one. The full results data set is presented in Appendix 5: the top ranked model is the one with the smallest AIC value. The theoretical background of occupancy modelling is presented in in McKenzie & al (2002) and Donovan & Hines (2007).

8 Page 8 of 49 Observation at pre-defined points by means of expert judgment - Field work schedule The bird surveys were conducted between along the following reroutings: IP IP251-15: Kosmio rerouting IP : Nestos rerouting Bird data either at randomly selected points or at sites examined by decision of the experts were collected with the point count method (Bibby et al., 2000). All birds detected by sight or sound were recorded during a 10-min time frame and within a 100m-radius circle around each selected point. Each sampling point, situated in close proximity to the pipeline route (<300m), was visited four times during (i.e. bird breeding season) by the same two observers, under suitable weather conditions (no rain or strong wind). Sampling was performed in the (approx. between 8:30-13:30), as well as in the (approx. between 18:00-21:00). Early observations correspond to birds highest activity, yet all field trips took place 1-2 h after sunrise due to safety reasons. Bird observation points were visited in reverse order each time, in order to reduce possible time of the day effects on species activity and thus, on their detection probability. Study sites Presence/absence data were collected for all bird species in eight (8) randomly selected sampling points within the Nestos and Kosmio project area respectively. Table 2-1 KOSMIO - Randomly selected sampling point X Coord KOSMIO - Randomly selected sampling point (EGSA 87) Y Coord (EGSA 87) Random point Kosmio , ,84 Random point Kosmio , ,75 Random point Kosmio , ,26 Random point Kosmio , ,73 Random point Kosmio , ,45 Random point Kosmio , ,64 Random point Kosmio , ,63 Random point Kosmio , ,22 Source: EXERGIA Field Survey ( )

9 Page 9 of 49 Table 2-2 NESTOS- Randomly selected sampling point NESTOS- Randomly selected sampling point X Coord (EGSA 87) Y Coord (EGSA 87) RP Nestos , ,63 RP Nestos , ,98 RP Nestos , ,36 RP Nestos , ,47 RP Nestos , ,54 RP Nestos , ,93 RP Nestos , ,93 RP Nestos , ,41 Source: EXERGIA Field Survey ( ) Estimation of the size and location of territories Apart from the above-mentioned repetitive sampling, constant speed road transects (approx. 30km/h) were also performed in Philippoi and Kosmio reroutings areas. The purpose of the road transects was to identify potential breeding territories of species of conservation interest which could not be traced by random sampling and to assess possible suitable habitats outside the predefined sampling areas. With the use of this method, it was possible to cover a quite large area along the reroutings in a short time. Limitations, Uncertainties and Biases Field work was conducted exclusively in a very short time period in early summer (11-18/6/), when males are less active and audible. In addition, bird activity varies greatly depending on the species group and the time of the day. For the passerines, maximal activity is documented early in the, and to a lesser extent, late in the. Nevertheless, sampling took place in the after 8:30 am and also in the due to safety reasons. For this reason, point counts were repeated four times, in order to maximize the possibility for the observation of certain species. Despite the fact that most of the randomly selected sampling points were located along the pipeline route, in a few cases sampling was conducted in a short distance (<300 m). Since the habitat in the project area is rather homogeneous (agricultural land), no considerable differences in the species richness are expected to exist between the actual route and points located in close proximity. Occupancy modelling as applied in this report is based on two (2) predefined models with no covariates assessed; therefore the results might not always indicate a good fit for the particular data. The underlying assumptions in estimating occupancy (McKenzie & al (2002) are:

10 Page 10 of 49 Surveyed sites are occupied by the species of interest throughout the duration of the study with no sites becoming occupied or unoccupied during the survey season Species are not falsely detected but cam remain undetected if present Species detection at a site is assumed to be independent of species detection at other sites 3 Results Confirmed bird species presence along the route A total of 79 bird species were recorded in the project area, 22 of which are of conservation concern, either listed in the Annex I of the European Directive on the conservation of wild birds (2009/147/EC) or in any of the categories of imminent threat in the Red Data Book of the Threatened Animals of Greece (Table 3-1). Table 3-1 Bird species of conservation interest present in the Study Species Nestos Kosmio Annex I (2009/147/EC) HRDB Tadorna tadorna VU Perdix perdix EN Coturnix coturnix Tachybaptus ruficollis Podiceps cristatus Pelecanus onocrotalus I VU Ardeola ralloides I VU Egretta garzetta I (LC) Ardea cinerea Ciconia nigra I EN Ciconia ciconia I VU Circaetus gallicus I NT Circus aeruginosus I VU Accipiter nisus Accipiter brevipes I (NE) Buteo buteo Hieraaetus pennatus I EN Falco naumanni I VU Falco tinnunculus Falco subbuteo Gallinula chloropus Fulica atra Himantopus himantopus I (LC)

11 Page 11 of 49 Species Nestos Kosmio Annex I (2009/147/EC) HRDB Glareola pratincola I VU Charadrius dubius Tringa ochropus Larus michahellis Streptopelia decaocto Streptopelia turtur Cuculus canorus Athene noctua Apus melba Apus apus/pallidus Alcedo atthis I DD Merops apiaster Coracias garrulus I VU Upupa epops Dendrocopos syriacus I (NE) Melanocorypha calandra I VU Calandrella brachydactyla I (NE) Galerida cristata Alauda arvensis NT Hirundo rustica Delichon urbicum Cecropis daurica Motacilla flava Motacilla alba Luscinia megarhynchos Saxicola torquatus Oenanthe oenanthe Turdus merula Cettia cetti Cisticola juncidis Acrocephalus scirpaceus Acrocephalus arundinaceus Hippolais pallida Sylvia atricapilla Sylvia communis Parus major Remiz pendulinus Oriolus oriolus Lanius collurio I (NE) Lanius minor I NT

12 Page 12 of 49 Species Nestos Kosmio Annex I (2009/147/EC) HRDB Lanius senator Garrulus glandarius Pica pica Corvus monedula Corvus corone Sturnus vulgaris Sturnus roseus Passer domesticus Passer hispaniolensis Passer montanus Fringilla coelebs Carduelis chloris Carduelis carduelis Carduelis cannabina Emberiza melanocephala Emberiza calandra Total Annex I / HRDB 7 16 Notes: VU: Vulnerable, LC: Least Concern, NT: Near Threatened, EN: Endangered, DD: Data Deficient, NE: Not Evaluated. Source: EXERGIA (Field Survey, ) The great majority of the conservation-concern bird species as seen in Table 3-1 are nonpasserines. Yet, only a limited number of these species are expected to be affected by the TAP basecase, since most of them do not breed in the areas examined, but simply forage in various numbers or are vagrants. The White Stork (Ciconia ciconia) observed in both areas can be regarded as a representative example of this situation: white Storks foraging in the fields are known to breed within nearby human settlements; subsequently their breeding in no way is going to be affected. On the other hand, the Syrian Woodpecker (Dendrocopos syriacus), a protected species also observed in both areas, is breeding in trees which could lie in close proximity to the pipeline route. Assuming that trees are not going to be felled at any significant extent during the construction, this is also a species of little concern as regards to the project. Therefore, a distinction must be made between conservation-concern species. Of those breeding in the area, priority has to be given to ground-nesting species over those with arboreal nesting habits.

13 Page 13 of 49 This distinction is reflected in the remaining three passerines of conservation-concern (Alauda arvensis, Melanocorypha calandra, Calandrella brachydactylla). The endangered in Greece Perdix perdix also nests at the ground as well as the Annex I / Vulnerable in Greece Coracias garrulous, all of them recorded breeding along the Kosmio reroutings (Table 3.5). Bird species occupancy probabilities within the project area Occupancy modeling as applied for species with more than 20 records in the Kosmio area showed that Galerida cristata is by far the commonest (as far as presence is concerned) resident species (100% occupancy). Emberiza melanocephala and Luscinia megarynchos are expected to be present at approx. 70% of the sampling stations and Merops apiaster is expected to be present at approx. 41% of the sampling stations. Passer domesticus and Hirundo rustica are likely to be recorded at approx. 50% of the sampling area, similarly to what is indicated in the naïve occupancy estimate. Table 3-2 Probability of occupancy 1 for common species along Kosmio rerouting KOSMIO Naïve estimate probability of occupancy (ψ) (best fit) Merops apiaster 0,375 0,4109 Galerida cristata 1 1 Hirundo rustica 0,5 0,5479 Emberiza melanocephala 0,75 0,7559 Luscinia megarynchos 0,625 0,7285 Passer domesticus 0,5 0,5242 Hippolais pallida 0,625 0,625 Source: Exergia field survey () Table 3-3 Probability of occupancy 2 for common species along Nestos rerouting NESTOS Naïve estimate probability of occupancy (ψ) (best fit) Galerida cristata 0, Hirundo rustica 0, Motacilla flava 0,5 0,5 Luscinia megarynchos 0, Acrocephalus arundinaceus 0, Cettia cetti 1 1 Hippolais pallida 0, The entire list of the statistical parameters is given in Supplement V 2 The entire list of the statistical parameters is given in Appendix 5

14 Page 14 of 49 Passer domesticus 1 1 Source: Exergia field survey () Passer domesticus and Cettia cetti are widespread in the Nestos area, occupying all of the sampling stations. Hirundo rustica, Hippolais palida and Luscinia megarynchos are expected to occupy 89%, (the former) and 87% (the two remaining species) of the sampling stations. Galerida cristata is probably more widespread than what the naïve estimate indicates but apparently of relatively low detection probability (approx. 0,45, Appendix 5). Motacilla flava and Acrocephalus arundinaceus are estinated to occupy approx. 50% of the sampling stations. Population data (incl. territories) Observations at non-random sites revealed several breeding bird territories along or in close proximity to the pipeline route in Kosmio. The Roller (Coracias garrulus), the Grey Partridge (Perdix perdix), the Calandra Lark (Melanocorypha calandra), the Short-toed Lark (Calandrella brachydactyla) and the Skylark (Alauda arvensis) are the species of conservation concern that were observed to breed within the project area (xx) and are likely to be affected by the TAP construction works, considering their particular nesting behaviour. Table 3-4 Sampling points, where breeding territories of certain species of conservation concern have been detected. Survey point X Coord (EGSA 87) Y (EGSA 87) Annex I / HRDB species Εstimated number of territories within the ROW or in the immediate vicinity Remarks Kosmio_WP , ,75 Alauda arvensis 1 Kosmio_WP , ,26 Calandrella brachydactyla Melanocoryph a calandra Perdix 2 1 max. 1 near Kosmio_WP , ,47 Kosmio_WP , ,64 Coracias garrulus Alauda arvensis 1 1 Territory crossed by ROW

15 Page 15 of 49 near Kosmio_WP , ,47 Kosmio_WP , ,64 Coracias garrulus Melanocoryph a calandra 1 1 One nest along the ROW, located in a sandbank within the bounds of a concrete production plant, together with a Merops apiaster colony. Three (3) more territories nearby. Kosmio_WP , ,84 Calandrella brachydactyla Melanocoryph a calandra Perdix perdix 1 1 max. 1 Kosmio_WP , ,73 Alauda arvensis 1 The Kosmio plain proved to be an important habitat for the protected species of Coracias garrulus (Roller), especially within the borders of the Chatisio Wildlife Refuge. The field survey in the vicinity of the pipeline route revealed a rather large population of this territorial species. In addition, the repetitive point counts in combination with the road transects made possible the mapping of the territories whereas in some cases, the nests were located in precise positions. In conclusion, five (5) Roller territories were identified between sampling points 3 and 6 in the Kosmio plain (Supplement II). Each territory corresponded to a nest site, either directly observed or pinpointed with the best possible accuracy. This area amounts roughly to a 5x5 km square. Therefore, the population density of the species in this particular area can be calculated to 0.20 pairs per km 2, which is considered as significantly greater than the average 0.15 pairs/km 2, referred by Cramp (1985). More specifically, two of the nest-sites (Supplement II, Figure II-1) provisionally numbered (C. garrulus 2 territory and C. garrulus 4 territory) were actually found to be old woodpecker holes excavated in wooden poles of the public power network. Two more nest-sites were probably of the same type, a practice much favored by this species. Rollers are obligate, secondary holenesters, i.e. cavity-nesters that do not excavate their own cavity (Tucker & Heath, 1994). It is assumed that pairs numbered C. garrulus1 and C. garrulous 3 (Supplement II, Figure II- 1) used woodpecker holes excavated in trees, since the birds were repeatedly observed flying purposefully into specific tree stands. The fifth nest though is speculated to stand on a sandbank along with those of a Bee-eater (Merops apiaster) colony. The sandbank is actually part of a hillock situated into a fenced private

16 Page 16 of 49 property (a cement production plant) and thus hardly accessible (Supplement II, Figure II-4). This nest-site along with C_garrulus1 is located very close to the TAP pipeline route (x: ,50 y: ,47), at the Kosmio rerouting. Since nest-site C. garrulus5 seems to form part of a greater bird-colony, any protective measures should be enacted here perhaps more than on C. garrulus1, which also lies close to the pipeline route (x:611751,72 y: ,84). Research with marked birds has shown that Rollers display site fidelity for a number of years (Sosnowski & Chmielewski, 1996). Moreover, Avilés et al. (2000) propose that it is the loss of natural nest-sites, as a consequence of agricultural intensification and woodland management that has been the major cause of the Roller s decline. As a conclusion, the conservation of individual nest sites in the area appears to be crucial for this species. As regards to the other species of conservation interest, namely the Grey Partridge (Perdix perdix) and the Lark species (Alaudidae spp.), they all share exclusively ground-nesting habits. It was not possible to discover any nest of the aforementioned Partridge and Lark species, since ground-nesting species build concealed scrape nests. On the other hand, several territories were identified, even if not precisely located (Supplement II, Figures II-1 to II-3). Overall, according to recent, though not precise evaluations (Legakis & Maragou, 2009), the populations of these species show a declining trend. Nation-wide population estimations of the Roller, the Grey Partridge and the Lark species are given below (Table 3-6). There are no data on local populations so the national estimates are provided as the most precise alternative which is currently available. Table 3-5 Species of conservation interest and their populations in Greece. Common/Scientific Name Estimated population(pairs) Trends Reference Roller (Coracias garrulus) Negative Legakis & Maragou, 2009 Grey Partridge (Perdix perdix) 2,500-4,000 Negative Legakis & Maragou, 2009 Skylark (Alauda arvensis) 2,000-5,000 No data Handrinos & Akriotis, 1997 Calandra Lark (Melanocorypha calandra) 3,000-5,000 Negative Legakis & Maragou, 2009 Short-toed Lark (Calandrella brachydactyla) Source: Exergia field survey () 20,000-50,000 No data Handrinos & Akriotis, 1997

17 Page 17 of 49 4 CONCLUSIONS Principal species and areas of interest Several observations refer to bird species of conservation interest within the study area (Table 2-1) but very few are likely to be affected by the TAP construction works. Occupancy modeling has shown that resident populations across the random sets of sampling points in Nestos and Kosmio comprise common and widespread species. The remaining taxa are vagrants or foragers (e.g. Ciconia spp., Circaetus gallicus, Circus aeruginosus, Falco spp.) or are reported in very small numbers from the project areas. According to the TAP construction plans, stands of trees are not going to be damaged unless it is a necessity. Consequently, the focus should be on the groundnesting species (Table 4-1) Table 4-1 Residency status for species observed along Nestos and Kosmio rerouting Species Common name Records within the Nestos reroutings Perdix perdix Grey partridge Kosmio_WP3 Kosmio_WP7 Egretta garzetta Little egret 1 km northeast of Kosmio_Wp2 Expected range/stat us within the Nestos reroutings project area Reason of conservation interest {Annex I (2009/147/EC), Hellenic Red Data book} General comments breeding HRDB - EN Two (2) territories within or in the immediate vicinity of the ROW (Appendix 2) foraging Annex I (2009/147/E) A single individual Ciconia ciconia White stork Kosmio_Wp1 Kosmio_Wp2 Kosmio_Wp8 foraging Annex I (2009/147/EC) HRDB - VU Breeding in nearby human settlements, outside the project area Circaetus gallicus Short-toed eagle 1km southeast of Kosmio_Wp3 foraging Annex I (2009/147/EC) HRDB - NT A single individual Circus aeruginosus Western marsh harrier Kosmio_Wp1 Kosmio_Wp2 Kosmio_Wp3 Kosmio_Wp7 Accipiter brevipes Levant sparrowhawk 2km northeast of Kosmio_Wp3 foraging foraging Annex I (2009/147/EC) HRDB VU Annex I (2009/147/EC) Possibly breeding in suitable wetland habitat far to the south of the project area A single individual Buteo buteo Common buzzard Kosmio_Wp4 foraging Annex I Isolated

18 Page 18 of 49 Hieraaetus pennatus Booted eagle Kosmio_Wp5 (2009/147/EC) individuals, highly unlikely to breed within the project area 2km southwest of Kosmio_Wp4 foraging Annex I (2009/147/EC) HRDB - EN A single individual Falco naumanni Lesser kestrel Kosmio_Wp2 Kosmio_Wp4 Kosmio_Wp6 Kosmio_Wp7 Kosmio_Wp8 Glareola pratincola Common pratincole 2km south of Kosmio_Wp7 Coracias garrulus Roller Kosmio_Wp4 Kosmio_Wp5 Dendrocopos syriacus Melanocorypha calandra Calandrella brachydactyla Syrian woodpecker Calandra lark Greater short-toed lark between Kosmio_Wp3 and Kosmio_Wp5 Kosmio_Wp3 Kosmio_Wp6 Kosmio_Wp7 Kosmio_Wp3 Kosmio_Wp7 Alauda arvensis Eurasian skylark Kosmio_Wp2 Kosmio_Wp4 Kosmio_Wp8 foraging foraging breeding breeding breeding breeding Annex I (2009/147/EC) HRDB - VU Annex I (2009/147/EC) HRDB - VU Annex I (2009/147/EC) HRDB - VU Annex I (2009/147/EC) Annex I (2009/147/EC) HRDB - VU Annex I (2009/147/EC) >25 observations, breeding population is present in nearby human settlements (e.g.village Megalo Doukato) outside the project area A flock of a few individuals, possibly originating from the breeding populations along the coastal wetlands far southwest of the project area Five (5) territories within, in the immediate vicinity of the ROW in the vicinity of the project area (Appendix 2) Sparse population, nesting mainly in riparian tree stands Three (3) territories within, in the immediate vicinity of the ROW (Appendix 2) Three (3) territories within, in the immediate vicinity of the ROW (Appendix 2) breeding HRDB - NT Three (3) territories within, in the immediate vicinity of the ROW (Appendix 2)

19 Page 19 of 49 Lanius collurio Red-backed shrike Kosmio_Wp7 breeding (?) Lanius minor Woodchat shrike Kosmio_Wp8 breeding (?) Tadorna tadorna Common shelduck 1km south of Nestos_Wp3 Annex I (2009/147/EC) Annex I (2009/147/EC) HRDB - NT <5 observations, very small breeding population (if any) <5 observations, very small breeding population (if any) foraging HRDB - VU Two individuals, feeding at a rice paddy. Suitable breeding habitat far outside the project area Egretta garzetta Little egret Nestos_Wp3 foraging Annex I (2009/147/EC Ciconia ciconia White stork Nestos_Wp1 Nestos_Wp2 Nestos_Wp4 Nestos_Wp5 foraging Annex I (2009/147/EC Suitable breeding habitat far outside the project area Breeding in nearby human settlements, outside the project area Circus aeruginosus Western marsh harrier 1km west of Nestos_Wp1 foraging Annex I (2009/147/EC Suitable breeding habitat far outside the project area and 1km southeast of Nestos_Wp8 Falco naumanni Lesser kestrel Nestos_Wp5 Himantopus himantopus Dendrocopos syriacus Common stilt Nestos_Wp7 1km south of Nestos_Wp3 foraging foraging Annex I (2009/147/EC Annex I (2009/147/EC Syrian woodpecker Nestos_Wp5 breeding Annex I (2009/147/EC Breeding population is present in nearby human settlements outside the project area Few individuals, feeding at a rice paddy. Suitable breeding habitat far outside the project area <5 observations, very small breeding population

20 Page 20 of 49 Supplement I List of fieldwork points discussed in the report (and the field sheets) indicating the time and coordinates WP number Site Date 1 st visit Time 2 nd visit X EGSA 87 ) Y (EGSA 87) Nestos_Wp1 Nestos Baseline May 11/6/ 13:00 18: Nestos_Wp2 Nestos Baseline May 11/6/ 12:45 18: Nestos_Wp3 Nestos Baseline May 11/6/ 12:07 19: Nestos_Wp4 Nestos Baseline May 11/6/ 11:40 19: Nestos_Wp5 Nestos Baseline May 11/6/ 10:55 19: Nestos_Wp6 Nestos Baseline May 11/6/ 10:25 20: Nestos_Wp7 Nestos Baseline May 11/6/ 10:00 20: Nestos_Wp8 Nestos Baseline May 11/6/ 09:30 20: Nestos_Wp1 Nestos Baseline May 12/6/ 08:16 20: Nestos_Wp2 Nestos Baseline May 12/6/ 08:36 20: Nestos_Wp3 Nestos Baseline May 12/6/ 08:55 20: Nestos_Wp4 Nestos Baseline May 12/6/ 09:20 19: Nestos_Wp5 Nestos Baseline May 12/6/ 09:45 19: Nestos_Wp6 Nestos Baseline May 12/6/ 10:45 19: Nestos_Wp7 Nestos 12/6/ 11:05 18:

21 Page 21 of 49 WP number Site Date Nestos_Wp8 Kosmio_Wp1 Kosmio_Wp2 Kosmio_Wp3 Kosmio_Wp4 Kosmio_Wp5 Kosmio_Wp6 Kosmio_Wp7 Kosmio_Wp8 Kosmio_Wp1 Kosmio_Wp2 Kosmio_Wp3 Kosmio_Wp4 Kosmio_Wp5 Kosmio_Wp6 Baseline May Nestos Baseline May Kosmio Baseline May Kosmio Baseline May Kosmio Baseline May Kosmio Baseline May Kosmio Baseline May Kosmio Baseline May Kosmio Baseline May Kosmio Baseline May Kosmio Baseline May Kosmio Baseline May Kosmio Baseline May Kosmio Baseline May Kosmio Baseline May Kosmio Baseline May 1 st visit Time 2 nd visit X EGSA 87 ) Y (EGSA 87) 12/6/ 11:25 17: /6/ 13: /6/ 13: /6/ 12:30 21: /6/ 12:00 20: /6/ 11:20 20: /6/ 10:45 19: /6/ 10:00 19: /6/ 09:15 18: /6/ 08:30 18: /6/ 09:00 18: /6/ 09:35 18: /6/ 11:10 19: /6/ 11:40 20: /6/ 12:05 20:

22 Page 22 of 49 WP number Site Date Kosmio_Wp7 Kosmio_Wp8 Kosmio_Wp1 Kosmio_Wp2 Kosmio Baseline May Kosmio Baseline May Kosmio Baseline May Kosmio Baseline May 1 st visit Time 2 nd visit X EGSA 87 ) Y (EGSA 87) 17/6/ 12:25 20: /6/ 12:45 20: /6/ - 10: /6/ - 10:

23 Page 23 of 49 SUPPLEMENT II Recorded breeding territories within the project area Figure II - 1 Roller territories in the Kosmio plain Figure II - 2 Assumed territories of partridge and lark species in the Kosmio plain (West)

24 Page 24 of 49 Figure II - 3 Assumed territories of partridge and lark species in the Kosmio plain (East) Figure II - 4 View of the bee-eater/roller nesting grounds within a concrete producing facility in the Kosmio plain (territory nr.5) Figure II - 5 A roller perching on the metallic marker of an existing natural gas pipeline in the Kosmio plain (territory nr.3)

25 Page 25 of 49

26 Page 26 of 49 Supplement III List of species and observations per sampling area and period NESTOS (all randomly selected sampling points) 11th 11th 12th 12th SUM Species Egretta garzetta Ardea cinerea Ciconia ciconia Ciconia nigra Circus aeruginosus Buteo buteo Falco tinnunculus Falco naumanni Falco subbuteo Perdix perdix Coturnix coturnix Gallinula chloropus Larus michahelis Streptopelia decaocto Streptopelia turtur Cuculus canorus Apus melba Apus apus/pallidus

27 Page 27 of 49 Upupa epops Alcedo atthis Merops apiaster Coracias garrulus Dendrocopos syriacus Alauda arvensis Galerida cristata Calandrella brachydactyla Melanocorypha calandra Hirundo rustica Hirundo daurica Delichon urbica Motacilla flava Luscinia megarhynchos Oenanthe oenanthe Saxicola torquata Turdus merula Sylvia communis Acrocephalus arundinaceus Acrocephalus scirpaceus Cettia cetti

28 Page 28 of 49 Hippolais pallida Remiz pendulinus Lanius collurio Lanius senator Lanius minor Pica pica Corvus monedula Corvus corone Sturnus vulgaris Sturnus roseus Oriolus oriolus Passer domesticus Passer hispaniolensis Carduelis carduelis Emberiza melanocephala Miliaria calandra

29 Page 29 of 49 KOSMIO (all randomly selected sampling points) 16th 16th 17th 17th 18th TOTAL Egretta garzetta Ardea cinerea Ciconia ciconia Ciconia nigra Circus aeruginosus Buteo buteo Falco tinnunculus Falco naumanni Falco subbuteo Perdix perdix Coturnix coturnix Gallinula chloropus Larus michahelis Streptopelia decaocto Streptopelia turtur Cuculus canorus Apus melba Apus apus/pallidus Upupa epops

30 Page 30 of 49 Alcedo atthis Merops apiaster Coracias garrulus Dendrocopos syriacus Alauda arvensis Galerida cristata Calandrella brachydactyla Melanocorypha calandra Hirundo rustica Hirundo daurica Delichon urbica Motacilla flava Luscinia megarhynchos Oenanthe oenanthe Saxicola torquata Turdus merula Sylvia communis Acrocephalus arundinaceus Acrocephalus scirpaceus Cettia cetti Hippolais pallida

31 Page 31 of 49 Remiz pendulinus Lanius collurio Lanius senator Lanius minor Pica pica Corvus monedula Corvus corone Sturnus vulgaris Sturnus roseus Oriolus oriolus Passer domesticus Passer hispaniolensis Carduelis carduelis Emberiza melanocephala Miliaria calandra

32 Page 32 of 49 SUPPLEMENT IV Raw data (presence/absence) used for occupancy modelling Merops apiaster PRESENCE/ABSENCE 16th 16th 17th 17th 18th Kosmio_Wp1 0 missing Kosmio_Wp2 0 missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Galerida cristata PRESENCE/ABSENCE 16th 16th 17th 17th 18th Kosmio_Wp1 0 missing Kosmio_Wp2 1 missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing

33 Page 33 of 49 Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Hirundo rustica PRESENCE/ABSENCE 16th 16th 17th 17th 18th Kosmio_Wp1 0 missing Kosmio_Wp2 1 missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp Hirund o Luscinia megarhynchos PRESENCE/ABSENCE 16th 16th 17th 17th 18th Kosmio_Wp1 0 missing Kosmio_Wp2 1 missing Kosmio_Wp missing

34 Page 34 of 49 Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Hippolais pallida PRESENCE/ABSENCE 16th 16th 17th 17th 18th Kosmio_Wp1 0 missing Kosmio_Wp2 1 missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Passer domesticus PRESENCE/ABSENCE 16th 16th 17th 17th 18th

35 Page 35 of 49 Kosmio_Wp1 0 missing Kosmio_Wp2 1 missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Emberiza melanocephala PRESENCE/ABSENCE 16th 16th 17th 17th 18th Kosmio_Wp1 0 missing Kosmio_Wp2 0 missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Kosmio_Wp missing Galerida cristata PRESENCE/ABSENCE

36 Page 36 of 49 11th 11th 12th 12th afternonn Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Hirundo rustica PRESENCE/ABSENCE 11th 11th 12th 12th afternonn Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp

37 Page 37 of 49 Motacilla flava PRESENCE/ABSENCE 11th 11th 12th 12th afternonn Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Luscinia megarhynchos PRESENCE/ABSENCE 11th 11th 12th 12th Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp

38 Page 38 of 49 Nestos_Wp Acrocephalus arundinaceus PRESENCE/ABSENCE 11th 11th 12th 12th Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Cettia cetti PRESENCE/ABSENCE 11th 11th 12th 12th Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp

39 Page 39 of 49 Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Hippolais pallida PRESENCE/ABSENCE 11th 11th 12th 12th Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Passer domesticus PRESENCE/ABSENCE 11th 11th 12th 12th Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp

40 Page 40 of 49 Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp Nestos_Wp

41 Page 41 of 49 Supplement V KOSMIO Occupancy modeling statistical parameters Naïve estimate ψ se (ψ) 95% c.i. Ψ AIC δaic ΑΙC wt Model likelihood -2LogeL p1 (se) 95% c.i. p1 p2 (se) 95% c.i. p2 p3 (se) 95% c.i. p3 p4 (se) 95% c.i. p4 p5 (se) 95% c.i. p5 Merops apiaster 30 0,4563 0, group, 0,1269 -,7 0,801 0,4563 0,1835-0,4563 0, (0,1667 0,1835-0,4563 0,1835-0, constant P 0,375 0,4109 0,1937 0, ,76 (0,1667) 0,7581 (0,1667) 0,7581 ) 0,7581 (0,1667) 0,7581 (0,1667) 0, group. 33 0,6032 Survey- 0,1267 -,5 0,198 0,6032 0,1160-0,6420 0, (0,2991 0, specific P 0,375 0,4145 0,1962 0, ,79 6 0, ,55 (0,2991) 0,9462 (0,2833) 0,9526 ) 0, Galerida cristata 23 0,9063 0, group,,9 0,956 0,9063 0,7465-0,9063 0, (0,0515 0,7465-0,9063 0,7465-0, constant P ,91 (0,0515) 0,9695 (0,0515) 0,9695 ) 0,9695 (0,0515) 0,9695 (0,0515) 0, group. 30 0,8750 Survey-,0 0,043 0,8750 0, (0,1169 0,4627-0,8750 0, specific P ,18 5 0, ,09 (0,1169) 0, (0) 0-1 ) 0,9827 (0,1169) 0, (0) 0-1 Hirundo rustica

42 Page 42 of 49 KOSMIO Occupancy modeling statistical parameters Naïve estimate ψ se (ψ) 95% c.i. Ψ AIC δaic ΑΙC wt Model likelihood -2LogeL p1 (se) 95% c.i. p1 p2 (se) 95% c.i. p2 p3 (se) 95% c.i. p3 p4 (se) 95% c.i. p4 p5 (se) 95% c.i. p5 36 0,4563 0, group, 0,1974 -,6 0,4563 0,2115-0,4563 0, (0,1444 0,2115-0,4563 0,2115-0, constant P 0,5 0,5479 0,2016 0, , ,66 (0,1444) 0,7243 (0,1444) 0,7243 ) 0,7243 (0,1444) 0,7243 (0,1444) 0, group. 41 0,7043 Survey- 0,2009 -,0 0,4695 0,1095-0,3068 0, (0,2426 0, specific P 0,5 0,5325 0,1919 0, ,35 0,102 0, ,01 (0,2508) 0,8643 (0,2617) 0,8315 ) 0, (0) 0-1 Emberiza melanocep hala 41 0, group, ,8 0,891 0, , ( , , constant P 0,75 0, ,88 (0.0966) (0.0966) ) (0.0966) (0.0966) group Survey , , ( ( specific P 0,75 0, ,1 4,22 1 0, ,1 (0.1565) (0,2194) ) ) Luscinia megarynch os group, ,9 0, ( constant P 0,625 0, ,92 (0.1320) (0.1320) ) (0.1320) (0.1320) group Survey ,3 0, ( specific P 0,625 0, ,45 1 0, ,37 (0.2134) (0.3314) ) (0.2134) (0) 0-1

43 Page 43 of 49 KOSMIO Occupancy modeling statistical parameters Naïve estimate ψ se (ψ) 95% c.i. Ψ AIC δaic ΑΙC wt Model likelihood -2LogeL p1 (se) 95% c.i. p1 p2 (se) 95% c.i. p2 p3 (se) 95% c.i. p3 p4 (se) 95% c.i. p4 p5 (se) 95% c.i. p5 Passer domesticus group, ,6 0, ( constant P 0,5 0,5242 0, ,69 (0.1382) (0.1382) ) (0.1382) (0.1382) group. 42 0,7216 Survey ,2 0,059 0,4810 0,1148-0,3167 0, (0,2332 ),2104-0,4810 0, specific P 0,5 0,5197 0, ,53 2 0,063 30,22 (0,2505) 0,8688 (0,2656) 0,8371 ) 0,9618 (0,2505) 0,8688 1(0) 0-1 Hippolais pallida group, , ( constant P 0,625 0, ,68 0, ,22 (0.1196) (0.1196) ) (0.1196) (0.1196) group Survey , ( , specific P 0,625 0, ,584 0,711 28,54 1(0) 0-1 (0.2165) ) (0,2191) (0) 0-1 NESTOS Occupancy modeling statistical parameters Naïve estimate ψ se (ψ) 95% c.i. Ψ AIC δaic ΑΙC wt Model likelihood -2LogeL p1 (se) 95% c.i. p1 p2 (se) 95% c.i. p2 p3 (se) 95% c.i. p3 p4 (se) 95% c.i. p4

44 Page 44 of 49 KOSMIO Occupancy modeling statistical parameters Naïve estimate ψ se (ψ) 95% c.i. Ψ AIC δaic ΑΙC wt Model likelihood -2LogeL p1 (se) 95% c.i. p1 p2 (se) 95% c.i. p2 p3 (se) 95% c.i. p3 p4 (se) 95% c.i. p4 p5 (se) 95% c.i. p5 Galerida cristata 1 group, , ,91 41, constant P 0, , (0.1179) (0.1179) (0.1179) (0.1179) group. Survey ,08 40, ( (0. 0, specific P 0, , ,1 4, , (0.2086) ) 0, ) (0.1858) Hirundo rustica 1 group, 0, ,93 42, constant P , (0,0968) (0,0968) (0,0968) (0,0968) group. Survey- 0, ,06 41, specific P ,68 5,4 3 0, (0,1753) (0.1883) (0.1883) (0,1753) Motacilla flava 1 group, ,18 29, constant P 0, ,05 2, , (0.1112) (0.1112) (0.1112) (0.1112)

45 Page 45 of 49 KOSMIO Occupancy modeling statistical parameters Naïve estimate ψ se (ψ) 95% c.i. Ψ AIC δaic ΑΙC wt Model likelihood -2LogeL p1 (se) 95% c.i. p1 p2 (se) 95% c.i. p2 p3 (se) 95% c.i. p3 p4 (se) 95% c.i. p4 p5 (se) 95% c.i. p5 1 group. Survey ,81 20, 0, specific P 0,5 0, , (0) 0-1 (0,2165) (0) 0-1 (0.2165) Luscinia megarynchos 1 group, 0, ,57 35, constant P , (0.0789) (0.0789) (0.0789) (0.0789) group. Survey- 0,87 0,87 0, ,42 29, 0, specific P ,71 0, , (0,187) (0.1707) (0.1323) (0) Acrocephalus arundinaceus 1 group, ,84 31, constant P 0, , ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) group. Survey ,15 29, specific P 0, ,4 3, , (0.2538) (0.2018) (0.2667) (0.2018)

46 Page 46 of 49 KOSMIO Occupancy modeling statistical parameters Naïve estimate ψ se (ψ) 95% c.i. Ψ AIC δaic ΑΙC wt Model likelihood -2LogeL p1 (se) 95% c.i. p1 p2 (se) 95% c.i. p2 p3 (se) 95% c.i. p3 p4 (se) 95% c.i. p4 p5 (se) 95% c.i. p5 Cettia cetti 1 group, 0,83 35, 0,75 0,5741-0,75 0,75 0,5741-0,75 0, constant P , (0,0765) 0,8698 (0,0765) 0,5741-0,8698 (0,0765) 0,8698 (0,0765) 0, group. Survey- 0,16 33, specific P ,23 3, , (0.1169) (0.1712) (0.1169) (0.1712) Hippolais pallida 1 group, 0, ,86 35, constant P , (0.0789) (0.0789) (0.0789) (0.0789) group. Survey- 0, ,13 32, specific P ,8 3, , (0.1331) (0.1331) (0.1871) (0.1331) Passer domesticus 1 group, 0,61 35, 0, ,75 0, , constant P ,99 0, (0,765) (0,765) (0,765) (0,765)

47 Page 47 of 49 KOSMIO Occupancy modeling statistical parameters Naïve estimate ψ se (ψ) 95% c.i. Ψ AIC δaic ΑΙC wt Model likelihood -2LogeL p1 (se) 95% c.i. p1 p2 (se) 95% c.i. p2 p3 (se) 95% c.i. p3 p4 (se) 95% c.i. p4 p5 (se) 95% c.i. p5 1 group. Survey- 0,38 29, 0,5 0,75 0,3771-0,75 0, specific P , , (0) 0-1 (0,1768) 0,100` - 0,7999 (0,1531) 0,9370 (0,1531) 0,9370

48 Page 48 of 49 Statistical terms Definition Naïve estimate The proportion of the sampling sites where the species was recorded at least once ψ probability of occupancy, the percentage of sampling points where the species under analysis is expected to be present (although might not be always detected) sampling sites where the species was recorded at least once se (ψ) standard error of ψ 95% c.i. Ψ 95% confidence interval of ψ AIC Αkaike Information criterion δaic difference between the AIC values in the applied models ΑΙC wt AIC weights representing the relative likelihood of the model. Model likelihood the probability of the observed outcomes of the model given the particular parameter values -2LogeL log likelihood p1 (se) detection probability of the species in survey 1 (standard error) 95% c.i. p1 95% confidence interval of p1