D.T2.2.6 Environmental Assessment Report Eisenerz 17.76 Mb

Project number: 639

Project acronym: trAILs

Project title: Alpine Industrial Landscapes Transformation

DELIVERABLE D.T2.2.6

environmental context assessment report TUM + VESTE

Work package: T2 T2 – Assess AILs: assessment procedure (pilot-based)

Activity: A.T2.2 A.T.2.1: Assessment framework

Organization: Technical University of Munich, Chair of Restoration Ecology

Deliverable date:

Version: September 2019 (final)

Dissemination level: final

Dissemination target: WP T3

This project is co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund through the Interreg Alpine Space programme

CONTENT

1 FOREWORD ...... 3

2 ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY ...... 5

3 PART 1: RESULTS OF THE AIL ASSESSMENT ...... 6

3.1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ...... 6

3.2 RESULTS OF THE ASSESSMENT – POTENTIALS AND PROBLEMS ...... 8

4 PART 2: PERFORMANCE OF THE AIL ASSESSMENT ...... 15

4.1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ...... 15

4.2 ANALYSIS ELEMENTS REVIEW ...... 19

4.3 PERFORMANCE CONCLUSION ...... 23

5 PART 3: FEEDBACK OF THE REGIONAL PARTNER ...... 24

6 APPENDIX ...... 25

7 REFERENCES ...... 50

Page | 2

1 FOREWORD

The assessment report has two parts. First part is a document providing essential knowledge of a specific AIL pilot area and second part is a record of reflection on the assessment method performance in the AIL pilot site. With the ‘learn-by-doing’ approach on four different pilot area, research project partners identify and gradually specify key elements of individual assessments that work for the AILs.

Assessment reports are part of the activity WP T2: Co-assessment of AILs actual conditions and in a set of five thematic assessment reports, five different deliverables for each pilot area:

• D.T2.2.2 – Existing policies on local/regional level assessment reports • D.T2.2.3 – Spatial and landscape assessment reports • D.T2.2.4 – Socio-demographic assessment reports • D.T2.2.5 – Economic context assessment reports • D.T2.2.6 – Environmental context assessment reports

Together with mini reports - D.T2.2.1, the assessment reports form an input for the workshops in the WP T3 (Fig. 1).

The template of the assessment report is structured to facilitate two main parts of the Co- assessment of AILs:

Part 1 – Assessment of AILs which constitutes main findings of the AILs actual conditions, results of the assessments, conclusions and recommendations. Its purpose is to be used for the activities in the WP T3 (the dossier) – workshops with relevant stakeholders.

Part 2 – Performance of the Assessment that investigates how the Assessment and its parts performed on the given AIL site. It is conducted through a reflection questionnaire for the research partner and regional partner of that AIL. Its purpose is to evaluate the analyses used in the assessment process and to monitor variability of the assessments throughout the AIL pilot sites.

Page | 3

Fig. 1: Scheme of the WPT2 Assessment Framework with the general structure of the assessment reports, their input source (WP T1 and site visits) and output purpose (workshops).

Page | 4

2 ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY

Alien plant = Plant taxa that occurs in a given area outside its region of origin due to intentional or accidental introduction as a result of human activity (Richardson et al. 2000).

Habitat type = A unit in an ecosystem that is defined by a unique vegetation structure and comprises an environment for specific species and species assemblages.

Ecosystem function = Energy, matter and information fluxes linking ecosystem compartments (Meyer et al. 2015).

Ecosystem service = Functions and products of an ecosystem that directly or indirectly benefit humans; often ecosystem functions are considered a service when they can be attributed an economical value (Meyer et al. 2015).

Indicator species = One or more taxa selected based on high sensitivity to a particular environment attribute, and then assessed to make inference about that attribute (Siddig et al. 2016).

Invasive plant = Naturalized plant species that sustains viable populations over several generations without human intervention and produces reproductive offspring in very large numbers providing the species with the potential to spread over large areas (Richardson et al. 2000).

Succession = Process of change observed in an ecological community in relation to species structure and assemblage with time after disturbance (Connell & Slatyer 1977).

Page | 5

3 PART 1: RESULTS OF THE AIL ASSESSMENT

3.1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

Brownfields can be ecologically valuable, since they often host a mosaic of numerous habitats within a small area, and thus support a high diversity of plant and animal species. However, they might be polluted due to former use and are often colonized by invasive alien species, that are negatively affecting human health, economy and biodiversity. Brownfields in the Alpine region could be an enrichment of the local biodiversity, but also threaten the largely undegraded and often rare Alpine ecosystems. Therefore, an ecological assessment of former brownfield sites is a prerequisite when aiming at their transformation.

For the industrial site “Münichtal” in Eisenerz we first assessed habitat units on aerial photographs and verified them in the field. Almost half of the site were vegetated and another fifth were not sealed by roads or buildings. These areas have considerable potential as habitats for plants and animals. As a high diversity of habitats is often correlated with a high number of species, we also sampled plants, butterflies, dragonflies, reptiles and their habitat structures during the summer months. Some of the identified species are rare and/or legal protected, and therefore have to be considered during the planning process. We also looked for invasive alien species that could affect human health, economy or biodiversity. Furthermore, soil samples were taken within each vegetation plot and analysed for their level of nutrients, as soil nutrients play an important role for plant diversity. Apart from the ecological potential, brownfields can also incorporate risks of erosion and pollution. The risk of erosion was assessed using the information about slope and bare soil. A report from the Austrian Umweltbundesamt (2012) points at the contamination risk of tar deposits in the area of the slag heap, that have to be considered in further planning and transformation strategies. To involve the local stakeholders into the planning process, it is important to hear their opinions on aesthetic value and ecosystem service of the brownfield “Münichtal”. Therefore, they were given pictures of each habitat unit together with a questionnaire on what they considered as “beautiful”, and which part of brownfield nature were most important to them.

Main out puts of the vegetation mapping:

• Two fern species, ten grasses, 99 herbs, eleven shrubs and 14 tree species were identified within the vegetation plots. • The highest number of species was found on the late successional stage dominated by shrublands. • Five of the plant species are rare in the Region of Styria, other 21 plants are listed as rare in other regions of Austria. Five species are completely or partly protected. • None of the rare/ protected species were found on managed green spaces.

Page | 6

Main outputs o f the mapping of invasive species:

• We identified six invasive alien species within the brownfield site. • Four of them might be problematic for biodiversity and/or cause economical damage.

Main outputs of the animal and habitat mapping:

• Two species of reptiles, three species of dragonflies and 24 butterfly species occurred on the site (list not exhaustive). • Two of the butterfly species are listed as near threatened, one is listed as critically endangered in Austria’s Red List of threatened butterflies. • Good habitats for reptiles exist around the slag heap and the garden area in the south.

Main ou tputs of the assessment of erosion risk:

• Erosion risk is high on the slag heap because of steep slopes, loose soil and little vegetation cover. • On most of the site, erosion risk is low because of large asphalted areas, high vegetation cover and little sloping.

Main ou tputs of the survey on perception of brownfields were :

• The late successional stages with shrubs and trees were seen as the most beautiful and most worth of protection by the stakeholders and locals. • Natural habitats, rare species, high biodiversity, healthy environment and recreational value were equally important elements of brownfield nature to the stakeholders. • Natural processes, erosion control and cooling effect were slightly less important to them.

Planning recommendations:

• Preserve existing habitats on the south end of the site, including the rail tracks. • Remove problematic tar deposits and slag, but preserve outer embankment and wood around the slag heap, if possible. • Increase vegetation cover around existing buildings. • Partly manage area of former swimming pool (by grazing, mowing, other disturbance) to avoid further shrub encroachment; create replacement habitat for dragonflies, if old pool is removed. • Remove fences to enable animal movements. • Include restoration of the nearby river in the transformation process, if possible. • Further observe the development of invasive alien species and be aware of possible contaminations at the site, which are not sufficiently known.

This survey gives an idea about the ecological value, restrictions and potential threats of the site. Before site transformation, another, more detailed survey on all planning-relevant species groups is necessary.

Page | 7

3.2 RESULTS OF THE ASSESSMENT – POTENTIALS AND PROBLEMS

Habitat s within Alpine post-industrial sites structurally differ from those of other land-use types like agricultural landscapes or nature conservation areas. More specifically, we found, that habitat units in brownfields are generally smaller and more diverse (Figs. A1, A2), which is similar to urban landscapes. However, in contrast to cities they host more early-successional habitats, since green spaces of brownfields usually experience more frequent and intense disturbance. This means, that they have a high potential for supporting wildlife, since diverse habitats attract a high diversity of plants and animals. However, we would expect that only small animals find sufficient space to complete their life cycle, while larger ones depend on sufficient landscape connectivity. Since habitats of the post-industrial sites differ from those in the surrounding Alpine landscapes, they potentially host different species, therefore enriching the regional species pool.

Vegetation structure The brownfield “Münichtal” in Eisenerz has 43% vegetated, 21% non-sealed and 36% constructed or asphalted areas (Fig. A3). Vegetated and particularly unmanaged (early, intermediate and late successional) areas are ecologically most interesting, while sealed or constructed surfaces are of limited ecological significance. However, especially old buildings could offer nesting, resting or breeding habitats for birds, bats or small mammals. Built-up areas of “Münichtal” cover less than the average of the four pilot sites, i.e. 19% compared to 30%. They are concentrated in the middle and south-east of the site, and they are surrounded by sealed areas (Fig. A4). However, some open habitats (bare soil, open trails, early and intermediate succession) are found close to buildings.

Furthermore, the slag heap hosts a big proportion of bare soil and open trails. Iron slag heaps show extreme environmental conditions, that can hinder the development of higher vegetation, e.g. of woody species. If other open habitats remain unmanaged for a long time period, they will turn into late-successional stages with shrubs and trees. Therefore, a later use should take into account a management, that imitates industrial disturbance in some areas in order to conserve early-successional stages. The late-successional shrubby and woody habitats are located in the outer range of the study site (Fig. A4). They offer habitats for different species, e.g. nesting habitats for birds, bats or beetles, and should remain largely unmanaged. Furthermore, there is a small open stream, the Große Fölz, between the slag heap and the main site; it flows into the Erzbach downstream of the site. There are some gardens and other managed green spaces on the southeast side of the site, which can be an interesting habitat for insects, e.g. butterflies.

Plant diversity Within the vegetation plots, we identified 34 species in early-successional and 60 in intermediate habitats, 38 in managed green space, 70 in late-succession shrubland, 67 in late-

Page | 8

succession woodland (Table A3, Fig. A5, list non-exhaustive). On average, 20.4 plants were found per plot with intermediate succession, 19.6 on plots with late succession shrub and 17.6 on plots with late succession wood; 16.2 on managed green spaces and 9.4 on early successional stages. Thus, late successional stages host the biggest number of plants in total, while intermediate successional stages show the biggest plant diversity per plot. Among the sampled plants were two fern species, ten grases, 99 herbs, eleven shrubs and 14 tree species.

Six of the sampled plant species are listed on the Red List of Endangered plant species of Austria (Niklfeld & Schratt-Ehrendorfer 1999): The European silver fir ( Abies alba , endangered), the Goldilocks Aster ( Aster linosyris , endangered), the Thin-spiked Wood Sedge ( Carex strigosa , highly endangered), the Bur Medick (Medicago minima , endangered and protected) and the Intermediate Wheatgrass (Elymus hispidus , regionally endangered). Protected species may not be removed from the site (Höllriegl & Zernig 2013); 21 more species are regionally endangered in other regions of Austria.

Four other occurring species are partly protected in Styria: European Columbine (Aquilegia vulgaris ), Oxlip ( Primula elatior ), Goat Willow (Salix caprea ) and Round-leaved Wintergreen (Pyrola rotundifolia ). It is forbidden to pull up roots and leaf rosettes of those plants, but it is allowed to pick posies. The rare species occurred in different successional stages. No rare or protected species were found on mown areas.

Invasive alien plants In total, six invasive alien species where found on the Münichtal site. Their location is marked in Figure A6. The Summer-Lilac (Buddleja davidii ) is originally an ornamental plant which could have been planted or spread from nearby gardens. It can alter vegetation structure and soil conditions by fixing nitrogen, thus affect biodiversity. However, as there was only found one individual on the whole site, it is not expected to cause any damage.

The Daisy Fleabane (Erigeron annuus ), occurs in higher abundances, but it is not known to have negative impact on biodiversity, human health or economy. However, it might threaten rare species in nutrient-poor grasslands (Info Flora 2014). The Small Balsam (Impatiens parviflora ) also occurs on several plots, but is only a threat to biodiversity when forming dense stocks. Smaller stocks of Small Balsam can be eradicated by tearing out the plants (Nehring et al. 2013)

The Japanese Knotweed (Reynoutria japonica ), the Canada Goldenrod (Solidago canadensis ), and the Himalayan Balsam (Impatiens glandulifera ) might be more problematic. They are known to affect biodiversity by forming the dominant vegetation and outcompeting other species (Gerber et al. 2008; Kowarik 2010; CABI 2019). Japanese Knotweed and Canada Goldenrod can also cause economical damage for water management, agriculture and forestry. Canada Goldenrod can be eradicated by mowing or grazing at least twice a year, and weeding young plants (Voser-Huber 1983; Starfinger & Kowarik 2003; Hartmann et al. 1995). Mowing plants before they are setting seeds is an effective method against Himalayan Balsam, especially if the plants are cut very near the ground (CABI 2019). Concerning the Japanese Knotweed, no

Page | 9

efficient methods for removing the species are known yet. Frequent mowing might reduce the stocks, however, this method is not always successful (Nehring et al. 2013).

Soil conditions Within the vegetation plots, we took soil samples and analysed soil pH, soil type, texture and nutrients (chloride, nitrate, phosphate, sulfate, natrium, ammonium, potassium, magnesium, calcium) in the lab. Soil pH decreased slightly with progressing succession, being slightly basic on bare soil, early and intermediate succession and neutral in shrub, wood and also mown areas. Therefore, there are currently no problems with acidification at the site.

The proportion of fine soil (<2 mm grain size) varied hardly between early-, intermediate- and late-successional stages. However, there was much more fine material on bare soil and mown areas (up to 80%). This is because most areas with bare soil are located at the slag heap, which consists mostly of lose material. The high proportion of lose material increases the risk of erosion. The soil on the slag heap is sandy, which means that water retention capacity, delivery of plant-available groundwater and nutrient supply is lower than on other locations at the brownfield, making plant establishment more difficult (Amelung et al. 2018).

A high level of nutrients is the main problem for failure of ecological restoration projects, as target plant species are outcompeted by other, more productive plants (Hölzel et al. 2009). Compared to limiting values from literature, the measured nutrient concentrations are low to medium (Blume et al. 2011). Only nitrate reaches high values on bare soil because of nearby compost heaps. Therefore, over-fertilization should not be a problem on the site.

Observed animals and quality of their habitats

During the two sampling dates in summer, we identified 25 butterfly species on the brownfield site; 13 species were found on intermediate successional stages, 11 on managed green spaces, eight on bare soil, four on early-successional stages, five in woods and three in shrub areas. Therefore, intermediate successional stages host most butterfly species. The site was divided into subareas for each successional stage. On average, the managed green spaces were most diverse: 1.4 species were found per subarea, compared to 1.1 species within intermediate succession. In general, the highest diversity of butterflies was found on the southern end of the site and between the rail tracks. This was most likely due to the presence of extensively mown grassland with high abundance of flowers. Near the buildings of the scrap yard almost no butterflies were present, because the green spaces there are small and mostly covered by old machinery. The old swimming pool also offers few blossoms and attracts few butterflies. The slag heap is an extreme habitat with a lot of disturbance, loose soil and little vegetation cover. However, heavy machinery for mining the slag created a micro relief with moist spots, and ruderal flowers on the embankment offer nectar.

Two of the occurring butterfly species, Clouded Apollo (Parnassius apollo) and Woodland Ringlet (Erebia medusa ) are listed as endangered in Austrias Red list for threatened butterflies

Page | 10

(Höttinger & Pennerstorfer 2015); the Osiris Blue (Cupido osiris) is even listed as near threatened. The rare species were found at areas with intermediate succession or managed green spaces with low mowing frequency on the south end of the pilot site and next to the slag heap (see Fig. A8).

Furthermore, the old swimming pool on the east side of the pilot site is now partly covered with reed and temporarily filled with water, which attracts dragonflies. Three species could be observed there. Apart from this temporary water body, the rest of the site offered no suitable reproduction habitats for dragonflies. However, open spaces might serve as a hunting habitat.

Reptiles are very sensitive to disturbance and therefore hard to spot. We were able to observe four reptiles while they were sunbathing, one Viviparous Lizard (Lacerta vivipara ) and three Common Wall Lizards (Podarcis muralis ). Therefore, it is assumed that at least the partly vegetated embankment between slag heap and wood, the old gardens on the southeast end of the site and the half-shaded grass areas next to the old swimming pool serve as habitats for thermoregulation and hiding places for lizards (see Fig A8). In addition, the whole site was assessed systematically regarding habitat structures for thermoregulation, egg-laying, hiding and hibernation (see Fig A10). As lizards and snakes require different habitat structures, the two groups were evaluated separately. For each structure, the subareas were evaluated with “A” for a good habitat quality, “B” for a medium habitat quality, and “C” for bad habitat quality (e.g. no structures present). For reasons of clarity, only subareas with “A” and “B” structures are displayed in the maps. Also, potential threats like disturbance and dereliction of habitat structures as well as structural diversity were taken into account.

The results can be summarized for four areas (Fig. A9):

1. The slag heap The wood area next to the slag heap offers places for hibernation, the outer embankment of the slag heap offers places for egg-laying and thermoregulation for both snakes and lizards. However, mining activities and occasional walkers with dogs are a threat in this part of the site. If the slag heap is depleted completely, the habitats for egg-laying and sunbathing will disappear. 2. The garden area The garden area offers at least places for thermoregulation and hiding, but few egg- laying spots. Old buildings and garden sheds could serve as alternative habitats for hibernation. The compost heaps next to the gardens are particularly promising as egg- laying habitats for snakes. Possible threats here are gardening activities (especially frequent mowing) and motocross drivers. 3. The former outdoor swimming pool The area is no suitable habitat for snakes. It can serve as place for hiding, thermoregulation and possibly hibernation for lizards, but it does not offer any egg- laying places. However, it is largely undisturbed, which is very positive.

Page | 11

4. The scrap yard This area is still very heavily used. Even though the asphalted areas and stored material offer a good habitat for sunbathing, the threats by traffic and industrial activities are so high that the area is not suitable for reptiles. Moreover, there are only few hiding places, thus no shelter from predators.

During the faunistic mapping we were also able to occasionally spot birds typical for gardens and forest edges. On the roof of the former transformer building we observed three young Common Kestrels (Falco tinnuculus ). Therefore, we assume that the building is used as a breeding habitat for these raptors.

Environmental threats: erosion, flooding, air and soil contamination We could estimate the degree of contamination based on existing data. Pollution and contamination is theoretically to be expected in the area of the slag heap. However, while the Umweltbundesamt GmbH (2012) estimated a low polluting potential of the slag itself, there are dangerous tar deposits in two areas (Fig. A5). The tar is a residue of gas production from 1925 and 1946 and could potentially contaminate the groundwater of the area in the future. A future use and transformation of the site has to avoid changes, that would affect the groundwater by considering (changed) surface water discharge (Umweltbundesamt GmbH 2012). Excavated and contaminated material has to be disposed following the legal requirements. Next to the scrapyard is another partly vegetated heap consisting of soil and construction waste of unknown origin. This area needs to be further analysed for contamination.

The risk of erosion was estimated from the slope, calculated from a digital elevation model (Geoinformation Land Steiermark 2019) and the vegetation cover at the time of vegetation sampling. The erosion risk is highest in areas with low vegetation cover and steep slopes. Therefore, the slag heap is most vulnerable to erosion. Fig. A10 shows the risk of erosion and contamination at the brownfield site.

There is no risk of flooding, as the only stream on site, the “Große Fölz”, is confined to an artificial channel a few meters below ground level. Iron dust from the scrap yard is the only possible air contamination, but the risk is very low and might only appear locally.

Stakeholder perception

In total, 51 people participated in the survey. Most of them were inhabitants or researchers, as the scientific partners from other university took part in the survey as well. The differences between the two groups were minimal, but inhabitants tended to give slightly higher ratings than the research partners (Fig. A11). Overall, late successional stages were perceived as the most aesthetic. Natural habitats, rare plants and animals, high biodiversity, a healthy environment and recreational value were regarded as equally important elements of brownfield nature. Natural processes, erosion control and microclimate were slightly less important to the stakeholders.

Page | 12

Summary and planning recommendations

An overview of potentials, threats and recommendations is provided in the Appendix (Fig. A12). Overall, the area around the slag heap with a mosaic of different vegetation types and the southern part of the brownfield around the garages and small gardens have the highest value for biodiversity. We recommend to preserve the habitats in the southern part, including the railway, as it can be an interesting site for reptiles. As the slag heap is also associated with some problems (erosion, contamination), removing the material and preserving the outer embankment and wood, or creating new similar habitats with different vegetation types might be the best option.

The asphalted part of the brownfield is of limited ecological importance. If the buildings are kept in use in the future, it is recommended to increase vegetation cover around them. This could be reached by unsealing and seeding, preferably with regional seeds or plants. Leaving the area to natural succession is also possible, but in this case a monitoring is required in the first years in order to avoid further spreading of invasive alien plants. If possible, it would be optimal to mow these green spaces just once or twice a year and not fertilize them, thus increasing flower diversity and offer a rich nectar habitat for insects. The plantation of trees links the advantages of being beneficial to wildlife (birds, bats, beetles …) and to humans by offering shade and cooling on hot summer days. Preserving some of the old buildings does not contradict ecological aims, as they offer nesting habitats to birds. Non-polluted and non- dangerous construction elements can also remain and be left to nature.

The area of the former outdoor swimming pool has not been disturbed for a long time and is already largely covered in wood and shrubs. These shrubs offer good cover for reptiles and the trees offer habitat to birds. However, it would be beneficial to partly manage the area (by mowing, grazing or other disturbance) in order to avoid further spreading of blackberries and complete shrub encroachment. The pool itself has become a habitat for dragonflies. In case of removal of the old pool, a replacement habitat for the dragonflies should be created. This could be an artificial pool with reed and other semi-aquatic plants or an excavated depression at a moist spot, which naturally fills with water. Additionally, the wired fence around the area inhibits movement of many animals and should be removed.

The stream “Große Fölz” is not directly part of the brownfield. However, landscape and aquatic organisms would benefit largely if the stream was included in the transformation process and given a more natural streambed and course. Planning buildings or intensive activities next to the stream should be avoided. Using it for energy production is not recommended, since it is not big enough for hydropower, while dams generally have a negative impact on riverine connectivity and biodiversity

In general, we recommend further observing the development of invasive alien species and taking measures to eradicate them, if necessary. Finally, we would like to point out that the species list in this survey does not show the complete species inventory of the site. It is

Page | 13

inevitable to do a detailed field survey on planning-relevant species before site transformation, in order to avoid harming rare and protected species and their habitats.

Page | 14

4 PART 2: PERFORMANCE OF THE AIL ASSESSMENT

4.1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

The ecological importance of brownfields

Brownfields can be highly diverse, including rare and endangered plant and animal species (Kattwinkel et al. 2011), since they offer a wide range of spatio-temporarily heterogeneous habitat conditions (Godefroid et al. 2007). For example, within one site, soils can be variable, e.g. sandy next to compacted soil, and contain diverse anthropogenic admixtures like rubble, metal or charcoal. During active industrial use sites are disturbed through for example traffic, construction, demolition, soil extraction and deposition. When an area is no longer used and disturbance stops, a series of plant communities develop, i.e. succession takes place. First short- lived, pioneer plants colonize, that can cope with unstable substrate and microclimatic fluctuations; later structurally more diverse communities with tall ruderal herbs establish. Finally, woody vegetation takes over, when areas remain undisturbed and unmanaged (Mathey et al. 2015). Most brownfields simultaneously support several of these successional stages on various substrates, which largely determine the species present, their diversity, ecosystem functions and services (Mathey et al. 2015).

Environmental conditions and organism assemblages in brownfields can be similar (“analogous”) to natural habitats or largely differ from pristine ecosystems (“novel”; Lundholm & Richardson 2010). Thus, anthropogenic ecosystems may host indigenous species, because they structurally and functionally resemble natural ecosystems. They may also act as a alternative habitat for species, whose natural environments have been degraded or destroyed. This is the case for example for the endangered amphibian species Bufo viridis , which has its largest populations in railway areas, or Alytes obstetricans , which regionally only occurs in brownfields (Rebele 1996). Climatic, hydrological and soil conditions of brownfields as well as species interactions might also be largely influenced by humans rendering direct comparisons with natural areas impossible (Lundholm & Richardson 2010). Such “novel ecosystems” often host invasive alien species that start spreading into the Alps (Dainese et al. 2014). Novel ecosystems have a considerable level of self-regulation in terms of ecosystem processes (e.g. decomposition, nutrient cycling, biomass production) and can be ecologically as interesting as ancient natural landscapes (Kowarik 2018).

Brownfields offer many important ecosystem services to people. The above-described provision of habitats to plant and animal species and near-natural ecosystem processes is an indirect benefit to humans. By preserving biodiversity, we preserve natural resources as the basis for economy and well-being (European Comission 2015). Besides that, brownfields also offer more direct services to humans. Within a matrix of sealed surfaces, green areas can regulate the microclimate and therefore locally mitigate climate change (Mathey et al. 2015). Vegetated areas

Page | 15

reduce erosion, that is especially relevant on mining sites; post-industrial wilderness can also provide a nature experience to humans (Kowarik 2018).

When brownfields need to be transformed due to social, economic or ecological reasons, impacts of future use on the above-described wilderness and their associated species, ecosystem processes and services need to be considered. In most European countries, it is necessary to estimate impacts of development projects (e.g. construction of factories, roads etc.) on species (and habitats) that are legally protected; and if the impact cannot be avoided, it usually needs to be compensated by establishment of new protected areas or restoration (Moilanen & Kotiaho 2018). Besides these legal requirements, a sustainable transformation needs to assume its ecological responsibility, e.g. by promoting endangered species or avoiding the spread of invasive alien species to intact natural ecosystems in the surroundings. Furthermore, in some cases an economic or social transformation might not be possible and the only sustainable future for the site would be “ecological transformation”. In this case, the environmental setting will be particularly important.

Motivation for the environmental assessment

While there is extensive literature on the diversity, ecosystem processes and services of brownfields or wastelands, most of them focus on urban areas, and no studies exist specifically on post-industrial landscapes in mountains. Thus, it is unknown how their species dynamics, ecosystem processes and services differ from lowland brownfields. Especially, the importance of some ecosystem services like habitat provision, hazard prevention, microclimate regulation or recreational services might be strongly affected by the surrounding environmental context. Alpine ecosystems, for example, are have more adverse habitat conditions and are less affected by intensive land use than those in the lowlands. This might make them less challenging for restoration, e.g. because plant invasions are less prominent (Alexander et al. 2016), and the need for a local cooling effect or leisure areas might also be less urgent than in urban areas.

The ecological assessment within trAILs aims at identifying the ecological value of Alpine post- industrial sites as basis for transformation, restoration or conservation. Specifically, we want to (i) provide an overview of the ecological status quo in terms of habitat and species diversity as well as ecosystem processes and services, (ii) develop recommendations for managing areas of high ecological value in order to ensure their conservation, and (iii) identify degraded or damaged areas as well as potential measures for their restoration.

Methods of the environmental assessment

The environmental assessment consists of three main steps (Fig. 2).

1) We sampled data on biodiversity, ecosystem processes and services (Table 1). We started by delimitating habitat units, mostly corresponding to successional stages on aerial photographs, that we later verified in the field (Table A1). Within each habitat unit, we assessed representative indicators for habitat and species diversity, ecosystem

Page | 16

processes and services (Table 1), including the aesthetic preferences of stakeholders at the workshop by showing them representative pictures of habitat units. Thus, we can include the recreational service function of brownfields into our analysis. At the workshop we also asked stakeholders to rank indicators according to their importance. 2) Results of individual indicators and stakeholder perception will then be combined using multifunctionality approaches (Byrnes et al. 2014, Manning et al. 2018). This will result in an integrative map showing conservation hotspots and their threats. Data of all four pilot sites will be compared using statistical modelling, that will inform about underlying drivers of species assemblages, ecosystem functions and services. 3) Finally, we will interpret results in order to derive general and site-specific management recommendations for Alpine post-industrial sites.

Fig. 2: The environmental assessment includes three main steps. Data will be sampled in the field as well as during the workshop. Maps of individual indicators can be brought to the workshop. Final planning recommendations are given after the workshop and explorative data analysis. For more details, see Table 1. ES = ecosystem.

Challenges of the environmental assessment

The main challenge of the ecological assessment was caused by the schedule of the trAILs project contrasting seasonal periods of ecological sampling.

1) Since the workshop in Eisenerz took place in early-May, we did not have any field results by then, since most ecological indicators can only be sampled from mid-May to September. Therefore, we could only present preliminary data based on aerial photographs and literature-based evidence.

Page | 17

2) While time and travel costs are restricted within the project, there are many potential taxonomic groups and indicators for ecosystem processes and services; many of them require frequent sampling over longer time periods (e.g. butterflies should be sampled at least three times) or the installation of measuring devices (e.g. temperature loggers). Since we could only assess selected indicators, we will give theoretical recommendations on a complete environmental assessment. We also carefully selected those indicators, that are most relevant to the project team and goals. 3) Another challenge were uncertain weather conditions. Sampling of animals requires favourable weather (e.g. at least 17°C with little wind for butterflies) in order to be reliable. Despite careful planning of the sampling dates, the conditions during sampling were not perfect. Also, the different target animal groups have different times of activity, e.g. amphibians are most active in spring, reptiles can be sampled best in spring and autumn, life cycles of butterflies differ between the species. Due to time restrictions, only two sampling dates for animals were possible, and therefore compromises had to be made.

Page | 18

4.2 ANALYSIS ELEMENTS REVIEW

Table 1: Environmental context assessment. The step numbers correspond to Fig. 2. Analysis element Output description Output usage Usefulness for this AIL Step

1. Landscape Assessment of habitat units based on Brownfields can be ecologically valuable. The structural comparison of brownfields structure aerial photographs. Habitat diversity and structures differ with other land-use types reveal their from other land-use types. degree of uniqueness that is worth being Comparison of brownfield structural

conserved. diversity with agricultural, natural and urban land use. Format: maps, graphs 2. Habitat diversity Definition of habitat units based on The definition of habitat units sets the The definition of habitat units could differ aerial photographs and site scale for further on-site analyses. They depending on the person mapping

1.1mapping Remote verification. are representative for certain plant and habitats on aerial photographs and/or on animal species, ecosystem functions and site. Assessment of structural diversity services. based on (i) diversity of habitats and (ii) plant communities (plant An increased diversity of habitats In order to increase the openness, height, food resources) increases the diversity of plants and representativeness of delimited habitat animals. units, an unambiguous and reproducible Certain plant and animal species depend protocol needs to be established. This

on a specific communities. protocol will evolve throughout the project. Formats: maps, graphs 1.2siteOnmapping

Page | 19

3. Species diversity Frequency and abundance of (non- Brownfields can be highly divers, While plants can be sampled in one site )native species, including degree of including rare and endangered plant and visit at any time between May and rarity. The analysis will include plants animal species. Some of them might be September, a representative assessment and two or three selected animal protected by law. We also expect a high of many animal taxonomic groups taxonomic groups (e.g. reptiles, abundance of invasive alien species. requires repeated surveys (e.g. three amphibians, butterflies, dragonflies, visits); this means it can be resource and Biodiversity status quo is the basis for carabids) time consuming. Therefore, we carefully identifying environmental targets (e.g. selected few three meaningful groups, conservation of protected species or that are ecologically meaningful at the diverse communities), environmental pilot site scale and useful in the future threats (e.g. invasive alien species) and planning process. environmental management options (e.g. managing green spaces). Formats: maps, tables, graphs 4. Habitat Assessment of (i) habitat conditions Specific habitat conditions and processes A representative and quantitative analysis conditions and including disturbance regime, soil (or functions) determine successional of some ecosystem processes and ecosystem moisture and contamination as well dynamics of (semi)natural ecosystems, services needs to be repeated at several processes as of (ii) ecosystem processes including the establishment of plant and points of time throughout the year (e.g. including soil biological activity and animal species. They (i) can be a soil biological activity differs according to soil nutrients. conservation target on their own, and (ii) season). This would require repeated site need to be taken into account for future visits, that are costly. Therefore, fewer

conservation and restoration strategies. measurements were done and only a few Formats: maps, tables, graphs conditions (disturbance regime, soil

Page | 20

5. Ecosystem Assessment of ecosystem processes, Vegetated areas of brownfields provide nutrients and soil structure) and services that are relevant for humans. It important ecosystem services, i.e. can be ecosystem services (erosion protection, includes an estimate of erosion useful for human purposes. They can aesthetic landscape appeal) could be protection (plant cover and slope), protect from erosion, have a cooling assessed. microclimate (temperature) and effect or serve as recreation areas. Therefore, a comparison between the four aesthetic landscape appeal (ranking pilot sites is possible, but comparison with of pictures by stakeholders at literature is not possible. workshops).

Formats: maps, tables, graphs, pictures

6. Stakeholder Ranking of most of the above Ecosystem services are perceived The questionnaire proved to be an perception mentioned analyses elements: (i) differently by different stakeholders. The important tool to find out what is species diversity, (ii) ecosystem perceived importance needs to be taken important for the stakeholders. It has also processes and (iii) ecosystem services into account for identifying been possible to get information from by stakeholders at workshops. environmental targets and for other local people and visitors, as the developing conservation or restoration questionnaire was distributed during a

strategies. festival.

1.3Workshopsurvey Format: table

Page | 21

7. Environmental Integration of status quo analyses A spatial visualisation of targets and The map makes it easy to sum up potentials and (species diversity, ecosystem threats will help identify conservation potentials, threats and planning threats functions and ecosystem services) and restoration zones. recommendations for different parts of and stakeholder ranking in order to the site and pass on the essential identify environmental potentials information of this assessment to the (targets) or threats, e.g. invasive alien stakeholders. species, erosion, contamination

2..1 Descriptive analysis Format: map

8. Underlying Statistical analyses for understanding Statistical analyses help understand Statistical analyses showed the most drivers) underlying drivers of species relationships between targets (plant and important differences in biodiversity

diversity, ecosystem functions and animal diversity, ecosystem processes within different parts of the site (e.g. other services using data of all four pilots. and services) and explanatory variables types of disturbance and successional

analysis (connectivity, habitat conditions) and stages).

serve as a basis for deriving Formats: statistical models, graphs

2.2.Explorative data management options. 9. Environmental Management measures for At the site scale: Spatially explicit Since planning recommendations are not management conserving or restoring biodiversity, strategy for valorising the AIL from an legally binding, the usefulness for the site

recommendations ecosystem processes and services environmental perspective cannot be evaluated yet.

At the Alpine scale: General guideline for

3. Planning 3. practitioners how to include Formats: map, text environmental aspects into their transformation strategy

Page | 22

4.3 PERFORMANCE CONCLUSION

Which elements of the method were found crucial based on the results of the assessment and table 1 ?

The mapping of habitat units is crucial, since it can be done on aerial photographs and even if it is not guaranteed, that it is without mistakes, it can serve as a basis for many further analyses. Therefore, it allowed us to estimate in a desktop research, which habitats are already present. The field sampling is crucial too, as a reliable evaluation of the habitat potential of the site is only possible if the occurring species are known. Also, it is essential to predict possible restrictions because of rare and protected species.

What modifications of the method will be considered for future assessments of AIL?

The mapping protocol for habitat units on aerial photographs will be gradually be adapted during the assessment of other pilots. The presented methods in the first draft were based on theoretical considerations, therefore, a modification of field methods was done after the first on-site mapping. For example, the number of vegetation plots was adapted to be representative for the actual area size for each habitat unit. Furthermore, the target species had to be changed as there were no suitable spawning grounds for amphibians present. However, we will make sure, that all four pilots are assessed with the same methods.

Page | 23

5 PART 3: FEEDBACK OF THE REGIONAL PARTNER

Do you find the results useful and which ones? The assessment provides new insights into the pilot site area, which hasn´t been regarded as ecologically valuable so far. E.g. 25 species of butterflies in this small habitat (one of them very rare and endangered) is quite impressing. The assessment supports the discussion of different scenarios (from renaturation to industrial use). In addition, the mapping of the habitat units gives a good overview about the environmental-related structure of the pilot site.

Have you learned something about the site that you did not know before? What was it? As stated above, the brownfield “Münichtal” in Eisenerz hasn´t been regarded as ecologically valuable so far. It´s interesting for the future to possess a detailed list of species including their frequency, abundance and degree of rarity (some of them endangered, on the “Red list” or protectes”). Although already known by “insiders”, the assessment has once more pointed out that some parts of the site (mainly the slag heap) are contaminated.

Will you be ab le to use any of the results and how? See above.

Will you be able to take any additional actions based on the assessment results, what are they? The analysis is very detailed and specific on the whole site area. There are different habitats within the site clearly marked for specific species. If new developments might happen in future on the site, the region has now a valuable tool to take into account the concerned species. Especially helpful are also the summarized planning recommendations for the site (Fig. A13).

Which analysis elements are more useful (look at the spreadsheet 4.2 and appendix results)? Species diversity list, stakeholder perception, overview of potentials/threats/planning recommendations, environmental potentials and threats

Any su ggestions to make this assessment method better? The results in the report are naturally based on scientific investigations and the first version of the report was mainly written in “scientific language”. E.g. the list of species was hard to read/understand for readers with a limited knowledge of biology. An assessment report used in a co-design workshop should be easier to understand. Following our suggestions, the report includes now also all German terms for the relevant species.

Page | 24

6 APPENDIX

Fig. A1 : Number of individual habitat units within a fixed landscape perimeter in brownfields compared to other land uses, i.e. agricultural land, nature conservation zones or urban landscapes. Results are based on all four pilot regions. Two circular areas of 3 ha were randomly selected per land use type and country. Different letters indicate significant differences.

Fig. A2 : Mean area of individual habitat units in brownfields compared to other land use types.

Page | 25

Table A1: Criteria for the delimitation of habitat units in AILs. Habitat units smaller than 10 m2 area or 2 m width are integrated into larger habitat units (exceptions: vegetated walls, single trees and bare as well as vegetated rocks).

Additional criteria for Habitat unit Mapping protocol for aerial photographs on -site verification

Successional stages

Bare rocks Vegetation cover <10%, consolidated substrate, min. area 4 m2

Vegetated rocks Vegetation cover >10%, consolidated substrate, min. area 4 m2 Vegetation cover <10%, Bare soil loose substrate Early succession with pioneer Vegetation cover <50% Potentially to be vegetation defined in the field Intermediate succession with Vegetation cover >50%, ruderal or herbaceous dominated by ruderal or herbaceous vegetation plants Late succession with Vegetation cover >50%, spontaneous shrubs dominated by shrub species Late succession with Vegetation cover >50%, spontaneous wood dominated by tree species Other habitat units

Sealed/ asphalted (e.g. traffic) Sealed or asphalted surface

Linear feature, frequently or permanently Open trails disturbed by traffic

Built-up (e.g. buildings) Temporary and permanent buildings

Artificial vegetated walls, min. length 20 m, Vegetated walls Potentially to be min. height 2 m defined in the field Vegetated area, that is regularly managed Managed green space (e.g. (mown, grazed, ...) or includes ornamental gardens) plants Trees or tree groups dominated by trees Single trees or tree groups with >50 cm DBH Ponds, ditches, rivers or streams, that are Open water permanently filled with water

Page | 26

Fig. A3 : Composition of habitat units in Eisenerz as delimited in Fig. A1.

Page | 27

Fig . A4: Habitat units of Eisenerz as defined in Table A1.

Page | 28

Table A2: Number and size of sampling plots per habitat unit for sampling structural diversity and plant species and collecting soil samples. Number and size of planned plots follows recommendations of Traxler (1997) and was adapted on site to match the relative the number of subareas for each successional stage

Area in Eisenerz Number of Si ze of mapped plots Habitat unit (m 2) mapped plots (m)

Successional stages

Bare rocks - 0

Vegetated rocks - 0

Bare soil 42,153 3 1x1

Early succession with pioneer 55,337 4 2x2 vegetation

Intermediate succession with ruderal 14,775 4 2x2 or herbaceous vegetation

Late succession with spontaneous 13,295 4 5x5 shrubs Late succession with spontaneous 45,377 4 5x5 wood Other habitat units

Sealed/ asphalted (e.g. traffic) 41,356 - -

Open trails 5,289 - -

Built-up (e.g. buildings) 37,703 - -

Vegetated walls - - 0,5x0,5

Managed green space (e.g. gardens) 14,847 4 2x2

Single trees or tree groups 430 - -

Open water 711 - -

Temporary water 260 - -

Page | 29

Table A 3: Occurring plant species and frequency for each successional stage.

Frequency ( no of ocurring plots / total number of plots) Invasive Scientific name Austrian name Red List Protected early intermediate managed late succ. species succ. succession green space late succ. shrub wood Fern Athyrium filix-femina Wald-Frauenfarn 1/4 Equisetum arvense Acker-Schachtelhalm 2/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 Grass Agrostis gigantea Riesen-Straußgras 1/4 1/4 Agrostis stolonifera Weißes Straußgras 2/4 1/4 Arrhenatherum elatius Gewöhnlicher 1/4 Glatthafer Brachypodium pinnatum Fieder-Zwenke 1/4 Brachypodium sylvaticum Wald-Zwenke 1/4 Carex humilis Erd-Segge 1/4 1/4 1/4 (r) Carex muricata Sparrige Segge 1/4 1/4 1/4 2/4 Carex strigosa Dünnährige Segge 1/4 2 Deschampsia cespitosa Rasen-Schmiele 1/4 1/4 1/4 Elymus hispidus Blaugrüne Quecke 1/4 r Festuca pratensis Wiesen-Schwingel 1/4 Festuca rubra Rot-Schwingel 2/4 4/4 1/4 1/4 Holcus mollis Weiches Honiggras 1/4 Hordelymus europaeus Waldgerste 1/4

Page | 30

Frequency ( no of ocurring plots / total number of plots) Invasive Scientific name Austrian name Red List Protected early intermediate managed late succ. species succ. succession green space late succ. shrub wood Phalaris arundinacea Rohr-Glanzras 1/4 Poa angustifolia Schmalblättriges 1/4 Wiesen-Rispengras Poa annua Einjähriges Rispengras 1/4 1/4 Poa compressa Platthalm-Rispengras 1/4 2/4 1/4 Poa pratensis Wiesen-Rispengras 1/4 2/4 Poa trivialis Gemeines Rispengras 1/4 3/4 2/4 2/4 Herbs Achillea millefolium Gewöhnliche 2/4 2/4 1/4 Schafgarbe Aegopodium podagraria Gewöhnlicher Giersch 1/4 1/4 2/4 Ajuga reptans kriechender Günsel 2/4 1/4 Alchemilla vulgaris agg . Gewönlicher 1/4 1/4 1/4 Frauenmantel Anemone nemorosa Buschwindröschen 1/4 Anthyllis vulneraria Wundklee 1/4 Aquilegia vulgaris Gewöhnliche Akelei 1/4 (r) partly Artemisia vulgaris Gewöhlicher Beifuß 2/4 ¾ Aster linosyris Gold-Aster 1/4 3 Astragalus glycyphyllos Süß-Tragant 1/4 1/4

Page | 31

Frequency ( no of ocurring plots / total number of plots) Invasive Scientific name Austrian name Red List Protected early intermediate managed late succ. species succ. succession green space late succ. shrub wood Ballota nigra Schwarznessel 1/4 Calamagrostis epigejos Land-Reitgras 1/4 2/4 1/4 Cardamine pratensis Wiesen-Schaumkraut 1/4 1/4 Cardaminopsis arenosa Sand-Schaumkresse 1/4 2/4 1/4 1/4 Carduus defloratus Alpen-Distel 1/4 (r) Carduus personata . Kletten-Distel 1/4 Cephalanthera Weißes Waldvögelein 1/4 (r) damasonium Cephalanthera longifolia Langblättriges 2/4 (r) Waldvögelein Cerastium brachypetalum Kleinblütiges Hornkraut 1/4 Cirsium arvense Acker-Kratzdistel 2/4 1/4 Cirsium oleraceum Kohl-Kratzdistel 1/4 1/4 Crepis biennis Wiesen-Pippau 1/4 1/4 Crepis nicaeensis Nizza-Pippau 1/4 Dactylis glomerata Wiesen-Knäuelgras 1/4 4/4 1/4 Dactylorhiza maculata ssp . Gefleckte Fingerwurz 1/4 (r) fuchsii Daucus carota Wilde Möhre 2/4 2/4 1/4 Erigeron acris Scharfes Berufkraut 1/4 2/4

Page | 32

Frequency ( no of ocurring plots / total number of plots) Invasive Scientific name Austrian name Red List Protected early intermediate managed late succ. species succ. succession green space late succ. shrub wood Erigeron annuus Einjähriges Berufkraut 2/4 1/4 1/4 x Eupatorium cannabinum. Wasserdost 1/4 1/4 Filipendula ulmaria Gewöhnliches Mädesüß 1/4 2/4 Fragaria vesca Walderdbeere 1/4 2/4 Galium aparine Kletten-Labkraut 1/4 1/4 1/4 Galium lucidum Glänzendes Labkraut 1/4 1/4 (r) Galium mollugo Wiesen-Labkraut 1/4 4/4 1/4 1/4 Geranium phaeum Brauner Storchschnabel 1/4 (r) Geranium pratense Wiesen-Storchschnabel 2/4 Geranium robertianum Stinkender 1/4 1/4 Storchschnabel Geum urbanum Gemeine Nelkenwurz 1/4 3/4 Glechoma hederacea Gewöhnlicher 1/4 1/4 2/4 1/4 1/4 Gundermann Hedera helix Efeu 2/4 Hepatica nobilis Leberblümchen 1/4 Heracleum sphondylium Wiesen-Bärenklau 2/4 Hieracium angustifolium Gletscher- 1/4 1/4 Habichtskraut Hieracium bifidum agg . Gabeligs Habichtkraust 1/4

Page | 33

Frequency ( no of ocurring plots / total number of plots) Invasive Scientific name Austrian name Red List Protected early intermediate managed late succ. species succ. succession green space late succ. shrub wood Hieracium murorum agg . Wald-Habichtskraut 1/4 2/4 1/4 Hieracium piloselloides Florentiner 1/4 2/4 Habichtskraut Hypericum maculatum geflecktes 2/4 1/4 2/4 1/4 (r) Johanniskraut Impatiens glandulifera Drüsiges Sprinkraut 1/4 x

Impatiens parviflora Kleines Springkraut 1/4 2/4

Lactuca serriola Wilder Lattich 1/4

Lamium galeobdolon Goldnessel 1/4

Lathyrus pratensis Wiesen-Platterbse 1/4

Leontodon hispidus Raues Milchkraut 1/4

Lotus corniculatus Gewöhnlicher Hornklee 1/4 4/4 2/4 3/4 1/4

Lunaria annua Garten-Mondviole 1/4

Medicago lupulina Hopfenklee 1/4

Medicago minima Zwerg-Schneckenklee 1/4 3 x

Melampyrum pratense Wiesen-Wachtelweizen 1/4 1/4

Melilotus indicus Indischer Honigklee 1/4 1/4

Myosotis arvensis Acker-Vergissmeinnicht 1/4

Myosotis sp . Vergissmeinnicht 1/4

Page | 34

Pastinaca sativa Pastinak 2/4 3/4 1/4 1/4

Phyteuma spicatum Ährige Rapunzel 1/4

Plantago lanceolata Spitwegerich 1/4 1/4

Plantago media Mittlerer Wegerich 1/4

Polygala amarella Sumpf-Kreublume 1/4 (r)

Polygala calcarea Kalk-Kreuzblume 1/4

Polygala vulgaris Gemeine Kreuzblume 1/4 (r)

Primula elatior Hohe Schlüsselblume 1/4 1/4 (r) partly

Prunella vulgaris Gewöhnliche Braunelle 1/4 1/4

Pyrola rotundifolia Rundblättriges 1/4 (r) partly Wintergrün

Ranunculus acris Scharfer Hahnenfuß 2/4 3/4

Ranunculus repens Kriechender Hahnenfuß 1/4

Reseda lutea Gelbe Resede 1/4

Rhinantus glacialis Grannen-Klappertopf 1/4

Rumex crispus Krauser Ampfer 1/4

Rumex obtusifolius Stumpfblättriger 1/4 Ampfer

Page | 35

Senecio incanus Graues Greiskraut 1/4

Silene flos-cuculi Kuckucks-Lichtnelke 1/4

Silene vulgaris Gemeines Leimkraut 1/4

Solidago canadensis Goldrute 1/4 3/4 1/4

Stellaria graminea Gras-Sternmiere 1/4

Taraxacum officinale agg . Gewöhnlicher 1/4 3/4 4/4 1/4 Löwenzahn

Trifolium pratense Rotklee 1/4 2/4 2/4 1/4

Tussilago farfara Huflattich 1/4 2/4 2/4

Urtica dioica Große Brennessel 1/4 2/4 2/4

Valeriana officinalis Baldrian 2/4 1/4 1/4 1/4

Verbascum densiflorum Großblütige 1/4 Königskerze

Verbascum nigrum Schwarze Königskerze 1/4 1/4

Veronica arvensis Feld-Ehrenpreis 1/4

Veronica chamaedrys Gamander-Ehrenpreis 1/4 2/4 1/4

Veronica teucrium Großer Ehrenpreis 1/4 1/4

Page | 36

Vicia dumetorum Hecken-Wicke 1/4 (r)

Vicia sepium Zaun-Wicke 1/4 1/4

Shrubs Buddleja davidii Schmetterlingsflieder 1/4 . Clematis vitalba Gewöhnliche Waldrebe 2/4 1/4 3/4 Cornus mas Kornelkirsche 1/4 (r) Lonicera xylosteum Rote Heckenkirsche 3/4 Reynoutria japonica 4 Japanischer x Staudenknöterich Ribes petraeum Felsen-Johannisbeere 1/4 Ribes rubrum Rote Johannisbeere 1/4 Rosa canina Hunds-Rose 1/4 Rubus caesius Kratzbeere 1/4 1/4 Rubus idaeus Himbeere 1/4 2/4 Salix myrsinifolia Schwarz-Weide 1/4 1/4 (r) Salix purpurea Purpur-Weide 1/4 2/4 2/4 1/4

Viburnum opulus Gemeiner Schneeball 1/4

Page | 37

Frequency ( no of ocurring plots / total number of plots) Invasive Scientific name Austrian name Red List Protected early intermediate managed late succ. species succ. succession green space late succ. shrub wood Trees Abies alba Weißtanne 1/4 3 Acer platanoides Spitzahorn 2/4 1/4 3/4 Alnus incana Grau-Erle 1/4 Betula pendula Hänge-Birke 2/4 1/4 2/4 1/4 Carpinus betulus Hainbuche 1/4 (r) Fagus sylvatica Rotbuche 1/4 Fraxinus excelsior Gemeine Esche 2/4 3/4 Larix decidua Lärche 3/4 Picea abies Gewöhnliche Fichte 1/4 2/4 2/4 3/4 Salix caprea Salweide 1/4 1/4 2/4 Salix elaeagnos Lavendel-Weide 1/4 3/4 (r) Sorbus aucuparia Eberesche 1/4 (r) Tilia platyphyllos Sommer-Linde 1/4 Ulmus glabra Berg-Ulme 1/4 (r)

* According to European List of Alien Invasive Species ² According to Geschützte Pflanzen Steiermark (2013) ³ Niklfeld, H., Schratt-Ehrendorfer, L. (1999): Rote Liste gefährdeter Farn- und Blütenpflanzen (Pteridophyta und Spermatophyta) Österreichs. 2. Fassung. In: Niklfeld, H. (Hrsg.): Rote Listen gefährdeter Pflanzen Österreichs. 2. Auflage. Grüne Reihe des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Jugend und Familie, Band 10. Graz, austria medien service: 33–152. 3=endangered, 2=highly endangered, r=regionally endangered 4 Found outside the vegetation plots

Page | 38

Fig. A 5: Map of vegetation plots (with rare and protected species) and mean number of plant species per plot for each successional stage.

Page | 39

Fig. A 6: Location of invasive alien species and mean coverage of invasive species per successional stage.

Page | 40

Fig . A7 : Soil condition within the vegetation plots (mean values per successional stage).

Page | 41

Table A4 : Occurring animals on the site and total frequency for the two field sampling days in June and July 2019. Taxonomic Scientific name German name Frequency group (total) Reptiles Lacerta vivipara Waldeidechse 1 Podarcis muralis Mauereidechse 3 Butterflies Aglais io Tagpfauenauge 1 Aglais urticae Kleiner Fuchs 2 Antocharis cardamines Aurorfalter 3 Aphantopus hyperantus Schornsteinfeger 2 Araschnia levana Landkärtchen 10 Argynnis paphia Kaisermantel 5 Carterocephalus palaemon Gelbwürfeliger Dickkopffalter 4 Cupido osiris Kleiner Alpenbläuling 1 (Critically Endangered) Erebia medusa Frühlings-Mohrenfalter 2 (Near threatened) Lasiommata maera Braunauge 1 Leptidea sinapis/ L. reali / Leguminosen-/Schmalflügelweißling 15 L. juvernica Limenitis camilla Kleiner Eisvogel 2 Maniola jurtina Großes Ochsenauge 18 Papilio machaon Schwalbenschwanz 4 Parnassius mnemosyne Schwarzer Apollo 1 (Near threatened) Pieris brassicae Großer Kohlweißling 4 Pieris bryoniae Bergweißling 2 Pieris napi Grünaderweißling 4 Pieris rapae Kleiner Kohlweißling 43 Polygonia c-album C-Falter 1 Polyommatus semiargus Rotkleebläuling 1 Schwarzkolbiger 4 Thymelicus lineola Braun-Dickkopffalter Thymelicus sylvestris Braunkolbiger Braun- Dickkopffalter 12 Vanessa atalanta Admiral 4 Vanessa cardui Distelfalter 2

Page | 42

Taxonomic Scientific name German name Frequency group (total) Dragonflies Aeshna cyanea Blaugrüne Moosjungfer 1 Libellula quadrimaculata Vierfleck 1 Pyrrhosoma nymphula Frühe Adonislibelle 1

Page | 43

Fig. A8: Occurring animals at the site.

Page | 44

Fig. A9: Subareas with different habitat potential for reptiles.

Page | 45

Fig. A10 : Assessment of reptile habitats.

Page | 46

Fig. A 11 : Map of erosion and contamination risk. The blue shaded outlined represents the assumed boundaries of the iron slag. The purple outlined surfaces show the tar deposits (Umweltbundesamt GmbH 2012 ).

Page | 47

Fig. A 12 : Results of the questionnaire on aesthetic value and importance of ecosystem services.

Page | 48

Fig. A1 3: Overview of potentials (P), threats (T) and planning recommendations (R).

Page | 49

7 REFERENCES

Alexander, J.M., Lembrechts, J.J., Cavieres, L.A., Daehler, C., Haider, S., Kueffer, C., Liu, G., McDougall, K., Milbau, A., Pauchard, A., Rew, L.J. & Seipel, T. 2016. Plant invasions into mountains and alpine ecosystems. Current status and future challenges. Alpine Botany 126: 89-103.

Amelung, W., Blume, H.-P., Fleige, H., Horn, R., Kandeler, E., Kögel-Knabner, I., Kretzschmar, R., Stahr, K. & Wilke, B.-M. 2018. Scheffer/Schachtschabel Lehrbuch der Bodenkunde. Springer-Verlag.

Anderson, J.O., Thundiyil, J.G. & Stolbach, A. 2012. Clearing the air: a review of the effects of particulate matter air pollution on human health. Journal of Medical Toxicology 8: 166-175.

Blume, H.-P., Stahr, K. & Leinweber, P. 2011. Bodenkundliches Praktikum: Eine Einführung in pedologisches Arbeiten für Ökologen, Land-und Forstwirte, Geo-und Umweltwissenschaftler. Springer-Verlag.

Byrnes, J.E.K., Gamfeldt, L., Isbell, F., Lefcheck, J.S., Griffin, J.N., Hector, A., Cardinale, B.J., Hooper, D.U., Dee, L.E., Emmett Duffy, J. & Freckleton, R. 2014. Investigating the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality. Challenges and solutions. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 5: 111- 124.

CABI 2019. Invasive Species Compendium. Impatiens glandulifera (Himalayan balsam).

Connell, J.H. & Slatyer, R.O. 1977. Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. American Naturalist 111: 1119-1144.

Dainese, M., Kühn, I. & Bragazza, L. 2014. Alien plant species distribution in the European Alps. Influence of species’ climatic requirements. Biological Invasions 16: 815-831.

European Comission (2015). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. The mid-term review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, Brussels.

Geoinformation Land Steiermark 2019. Digitales Geländemodell 10m Steiermark. Geoinformation Land Steiermark.

Gerber, E., Krebs, C., Murrell, C., Moretti, M., Rocklin, R. & Schaffner, U. 2008. Exotic invasive knotweeds (Fallopia spp.) negatively affect native plant and invertebrate assemblages in European riparian habitats. Biological Conservation 141. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320707004582.

Godefroid, S., Monbaliu, D. & Koedam, N. 2007. The role of soil and microclimatic variables in the distribution patterns of urban wasteland flora in Brussels, Belgium. Landscape and Urban Planning 80: 45-55.

Hartmann, E., Schuldes, H., Kübler, R. & Konold, W. 1995. Neophyten. Biologie, Verbreitung und Kontrolle ausgewählter Arten.

Höllriegl, R. & Zernig, K. 2013. Naturschutz in der Steiermark: Geschützte Pflanzen, Graz.

Hölzel, N., Rebele, F., Rosenthal, G. & Eichberg, C. 2009. Ökologische Grundlagen und limitierende Faktoren der Renaturierung. In: Zerbe, S. & Wiegleb, G. (eds.) Renaturierung von Ökosystemen in Mitteleuropa, pp. 23–53. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, Heidelberg.

Höttinger, H. & Pennerstorfer, J. 2015. Rote Liste der Tagschmetterlinge Österreichs (Lepidoptera:Papilionpidea & Hesperioidea). In: Umweltbundesamt GmbH (ed.) Rote Listen

Page | 50

gefährdeter Tiere Österreichs. Checklisten, Gefährdungsanalysen, Handlungsbedarf. Teil 1: Säugetiere, Vögel, Heuschrecken, Wasserkäfer, Netzflügler, Schnabelfliegen, Tagfalter., pp. 313–354.

Info Flora 2014. Einjähriges Berufkraut - Erigeron annuus (L.) Desf. s.l. Art der Schwarzen Liste. URL: www.infoflora.ch (Jul 23, 2019).

Kattwinkel, M., Biedermann, R. & Kleyer, M. 2011. Temporary conservation for urban biodiversity. Biological Conservation 144: 2335-2343.

Kowarik, I. 2010. Biologische Invasionen: Neophyten und Neozoen in Mitteleuropa, 2. ed. Ulmer, Stuttgart.

Kowarik, I. 2018. Urban wilderness. Supply, demand, and access. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 29: 336-347.

Lundholm, J.T. & Richardson, P.J. 2010. Habitat analogues for reconciliation ecology in urban and industrial environments. Journal of Applied Ecology 47: 966-975.

Manning, P., van der Plas, F., Soliveres, S., Allan, E., Maestre, F.T., Mace, G., Whittingham, M.J. & Fischer, M. 2018. Redefining ecosystem multifunctionality. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2: 427-436.

Mathey, J., Rößler, S., Banse, J., Lehmann, I. & Bräuer, A. 2015. Brownfields as an element of green infrastructure for implementing ecosystem services into urban areas. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 141: A4015001.

Meyer, S.T., Koch, C. & Weisser, W.W. 2015. Towards a standardized Rapid Ecosystem Function Assessment (REFA). Trends in Ecology & Evolution 30: 390-397.

Moilanen, A. & Kotiaho, J.S. 2018. Fifteen operationally important decisions in the planning of biodiversity offsets. Biological Conservation 227: 112-120.

Nehring, S., Kowarik, I., Rabitsch, W. & Essl, F. 2013. Naturschutzfachliche Invasivitätsbewertungen für in Deutschland wild lebende gebietsfremde Gefäßpflanzen. Unter Verwendung von Ergebnissen aus den F+E-Vorhaben FKZ 806 82 330, FKZ 3510 86 0500 und FKZ 3511 86 0300, Bonn.

Niklfeld, H. & Schratt-Ehrendorfer, L. 1999. Rote Liste gefährdeter Farn- und Blütenpflanzen (Pteridophyta und Spermatophyta) Österreichs. In: Niklfeld, H. (ed.) Rote Listen gefährdeter Pflanzen Österreichs. 2. Auflage, pp. 33–152, Graz.

Rebele, F. 1996. Typen von Industriebrachen und deren Bedeutung für Arten- und Biotopschutz. Gleditschia 24: 287-302.

Richardson, D.M., Pysek, P., Rejmanek, M., Barbour, M.G., Panetta, F.D. & West, C.J. 2000. Naturalization and invasion of alien plants. Concepts and definitions. Diversity and Distributions 6: 93-107.

Siddig, A.A.H., Ellison, A.M., Ochs, A., Villar-Leeman, C. & Lau, M.K. 2016. How do ecologists select and use indicator species to monitor ecological change? Insights from 14 years of publication in Ecological Indicators. Ecological Indicators 60: 223-230.

Starfinger, U. & Kowarik, I. 2003. Neobiota: Solidago canadensis.

Traxler, A. 1997. Handbuch des vegetationsökologischen Monitorings. Methoden, Praxis, angewandte Projekte, Wien.

Page | 51

Umweltbundesamt GmbH 2012. Altablagerung "Schlackenhalde Münichtal". Gefährdungsabschätzung und Prioritätenklassifizierung (§§ 13 und 14 Altlastensanierungsgesetz).

Voser-Huber, M.L. 1983. Studien an eingeburgerten Arten der Gattung Solidago L. Dissertationes Botanicae 68. Cramer. Vaduz. Liechtenstein.

Page | 52