Project number: 639

Project acronym: trAILs

Project title: Alpine Industrial Landscapes Transformation

DELIVERABLE D.T2.2.6

environmental context assessment report TUM + CAUE84

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

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

Technical University of Munich, Chair of Restoration Ecology Organization: Kerstin Bär, Johannes Kollmann

Deliverable date: 20.05.2020

Version: final

Dissemination level: final

Dissemination target: WP T2

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 ...... 9

4 PART 2: PERFORMANCE OF THE AIL ASSESSMENT ...... 20

4.1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ...... 20

4.2 ANALYSIS ELEMENTS REVIEW ...... 24

4.3 PERFORMANCE CONCLUSION ...... 28

5 PART 3: FEEDBACK OF THE REGIONAL PARTNER ...... 29

6 APPENDIX...... 32

6.1 APPENDIX A – GENERAL INFORMATION ...... 32

6.2 APPENDIX B – ASSESSMENT PILOT SITE L’ARGENTIERE ...... 34

6.3 APPENDIX C – ASSESSMENT LA ROCHE DE RAME ...... 63

7 REFERENCES ...... 70

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 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 and 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 intact and often rare Alpine ecosystems. Therefore, an ecological assessment of former brownfield sites is a prerequisite when aiming at their transformation.

We assessed habitat units on and near the former Pechiney site in L’Argentière-la Bessée based on aerial photographs and verified them in the field. Almost half of the site was vegetated. These areas have considerable potential as habitats for plants and animals. Thirteen different habitats could be assessed in the field. The high diversity of habitats correlates with a high number of species. Thus, we could identify 143 plant, 27 butterfly, two reptile, two dragonfly and three locust species. Especially the area along the rail tracks, along the small stream Fournel and the dump offer valuable habitats to lizards. Dragonflies and locusts occurred in high abundances. Some of the identified species are rare and/or legal protected, and therefore have to be considered during the planning process. However, we also found three invasive alien species. Two of them might have negative impacts on native biodiversity. Other ecological problems related to industrial brownfields are risk of erosion, unfavourable soil conditions which affect plant establishment, risk of flooding and pollution. The risk of erosion was assessed using the information about slope and vegetation cover. Existing data on pollution point out that two larger areas were contaminated with fluoride and hydrocarbons from aluminium processing. Measures for flood protection have been taken at the site, therefore, the risk of flooding is low. However, where the rivers Fournel and Durance meet, there is a small, occasionally flooded area which is beneficial for species specialized on floodplains.

We identified the follow main potentials of the site in L’Argentière:

 143 plant species in 13 habitat types  Conserve a large proportion of vegetated areas of different successional stages by keeping some of them unmanaged and implement mowing or imitation of industrial disturbances on others

 Diverse insect fauna, consisting of 27 butterfly, two dragonfly and at least three locust species, as well as several lizards in the southern part of the site  Conserve existing habitat structures (e.g. by occasional shrub clearance, applying an adequate mowing regime)  Consider improving habitat conditions on unused areas

Page | 6

 46% of asphalted and built-up surfaces concentrated in northern part of the site  Vegetation, particularly trees, would improve the microclimate, especially cooling, and at the same time generate habitats for wildlife

The main problems of the site are:

 Three invasive alien plants, among them two which might be problematic for native biodiversity (Robinia pseudoacacia, Buddleja davidii)  Monitor their development  If necessary, decide on suitable management measures in order to reduce or eradicate them

 Soil pollution with fluoride and hydrocarbons  Continue monitoring the level of contamination  In case of leaking or plans for using the site for purposes more vulnerable to pollution, industrial decontamination should be considered (preferably in situ)

On the La Roche de Rame site, a smaller survey than in L’Argentière was conducted. Habitat units were only assessed from aerial photographs. About half of the site consists of bare soil and bare rocks due to gravel mining in the southern part of the site. However, a faunistic monitoring conducted by the Community in 2012 and 2013 showed that especially this area is an important habitat for amphibians and reptiles. The vegetated areas are largely unmanaged. As a result, 25 bird, five mammal, eight butterfly- and one dragonfly species could be identified during the monitoring in 2012/2013. The Community of La Roche de Rame is inhabitated by a number of Red-List species, which could also occur on the brownfield site. During a short site visit in summer 2019, one endangered plant species was identified. However, the site is colonised by at least one invasive plant species; it is largely polluted with uranium, ferrochromes, copper, and mercury vulnerable to flooding.

Main potentials of the site in La Roche de Rame

 Areas with unmanaged vegetation, which can serve as habitats for birds, mammals, dragonflies, butterflies and reptiles  Create new green spaces by unsealing and natural succession or seeding  Conserve a large proportion of vegetated areas of different successional stages by keeping some of them unmanaged and implement mowing or imitation of industrial disturbances on others

Page | 7

 Several amphibians and reptiles, which benefit from the gravel excavation  mind these animals during mining activities and extend their habitats

 Several nature-protected areas around and on the pilot site  Integrate pilot site into these protected areas by nature restoration  Mind protected species and habitats during planning process

Main problems of the site:

 The site is polluted with several toxic substances, which could leak into the river during floods  Secure the contaminated areas near the river and remove polluted material from the river bank  Carry out industrial decontamination

 High risk of flooding on the site  No use that is potentially vulnerable to flooding should be situated within this area  Consider demolition of buildings and unsealing of areas next to the river (after the pollution problems have been solved), thus creating a more natural river landscape

Page | 8

3.2 RESULTS OF THE ASSESSMENT – POTENTIALS AND PROBLEMS

Habitats 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 (Fig. A1, Fig. 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 corresponding 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.

Current types and intensity of use

The northern part of the site consists of buildings of different age. Some of them are still used, e.g. as a restaurant, a laundry facility, and by the local fire fighters. The former hydropower station and the buildings next to it are unused and in decay. The southern part of the site is a revegetated hill of debris, which is now used by an archery club, promenaders and cyclists. Next to it is the community dump. Hence, there are different level of disturbance at the site (Fig. A3, which influence vegetation structure, soil conditions, biodiversity, habitat suitability for certain species. In addition, some parts of the site are more threatened by environmental risks due to former or current use than others.

Environmental threats: soil contamination, erosion and flooding

We estimated the degree of contamination based on existing data. According to the Ministry for the Ecological and Inclusive Transition (Ministère de la Transition écologique et solidaire) about 2 ha of the site are contaminated with fluoride from aluminium processing. The polluted area has been used as a community dump since 1999 and the fluoride concentration is measured twice a year. The polluted area appears secured for now, however, use of soil, subsoil and groundwater are restricted (Ministère de la Transition Écologique et Solidaire 2017b). Exposure to airborne fluoride over a long time or drinking fluoridated water affects health of humans and livestock, e.g. by leading to bone deformities and dental mottling (Choubisa and Choubisa 2016). Fluoride can result in accumulation of organic matter in the soil by decreasing microbial activities (Rao and Pal 1978). A high content of fluorides and acidic pH can also promote mobilization of heavy metals, thus lead to pollution with zinc, copper, lead and cadmium. These substances also affect soil microbial activities (García-Gil et al. 2013).

Furthermore, the area next to the former hydropower plant is polluted with hydrocarbons (Ministère de la Transition Écologique et Solidaire 2017a). Hydrocarbons can be a threat to human health, as they are known to cause cancer (Mastrangelo et al. 1996). The site is being monitored and a fuel distribution station has been set up to prevent the pollution of the subsoil. The polluted

Page | 9

areas are highlighted in Fig. A4. Other pollutants from aluminium smelting can be sulphur and persistent organic pollutants like Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (Colombo et al. 2011; Wannaz et al. 2012). As for the former Péchiney Aluminium plant, no pollution with these substances has been reported so far.

Even though the polluted areas currently cause no problems, decontamination might be necessary in future (e.g. due to change of utilization of the site, change of groundwater conditions). One opportunity to decontaminate the soil in-situ, i.e. without removing it, is phytoremediation. In this process, living green plants are used to remove, degradate or contain contaminants. Phytoremediation is feasible for shallow sites with low to moderate levels of contamination (Chandra et al. 2017). To reduce pollution with hydrocarbons, e.g. Black nightshade (Solanum nigrum), Alfalfa (Medicago sativa), Tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), Ryegrass (Lolium perenne), White clover (Trifolium repens) and Celery (Apium graveolens) could be planted on the affected site. These plant species have been reported to be able to take up hydrocarbons or stimulate microbial communities which decrease hydrocarbons (Meng et al. 2011; Kumar et al. 2017; Sun et al. 2011). Studies showed that potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) can accumulate fluoride in their tissue and could therefore be used for phytoremediation of soils contaminated with fluoride (Das et al. 2015). After phytoremediation, plants can be harvested and used for energy production through pyrolysis, gasification or combustion (Sas-Nowosielska et al. 2004). Furthermore, phytoremediation is cost effective and needs little energy. However, it is mediated by soil chemistry, plant physiology and other environmental factors. Thus, there is no guarantee for success (Chandra et al. 2017).

The risk of erosion (Fig. A4) was estimated from slope and vegetation cover at the time of field sampling in July 2019. As there was no detailed digital elevation model available, slope was only roughly estimated in the field. There is mostly no erosion risk at the northern part of the site due to a high degree of sealing. The risk of erosion is estimated as ‘low’ on compacted surfaces with a vegetation cover of more than 30%, and ‘moderate’ on compacted surfaces with less than 30% vegetation cover. Therefore, most of the areas around the central buildings show a moderate risk of erosion. Despite the slopes of the rubble heap, the erosion risk is mostly low in the southern part of the site due to a vegetation cover of more than 70%. The risk is also low along the river due to a constructed embankment.

Most of the former Péchiney site lies within the natural flooding zone of the river Durance (Fig. A5). However, flood protection measures have been taken to secure the site. The river course is constrained by an embankment along most of the brownfield. Therefore, the risk of flooding is currently low. As a negative aspect, natural river dynamics and lateral connectivity of the Durance is hindered by the shore embankment. Only at the mouth of stream Fournel, a small area is still flooded regularly. More detailed information on the risk of flooding can be found at the spatial assessment report.

Page | 10

Vegetation structure

The brownfield “Péchiney” in L’Argentière-la Bessée has 46% vegetated, 9% non-sealed and 46% constructed or asphalted areas (Fig. A6). 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 “Péchiney” cover 24% of the site, which is about the average for all four pilot sites (25%). They are concentrated in the north of the site and surrounded by sealed areas (Fig. A7). Few managed green spaces are found close to the buildings, as well as some areas with bare soil, which serve as parking lots. Within the fenced area next to the former hydroelectric plant, natural succession led to a mosaic of shrubs and trees breaking through the asphalt.

The southern part of the site is ecological most interesting, as pioneer vegetation, bare rocks and walls, unmanaged and managed green spaces with spots of bare soil, shrubs and trees occur together on a small space (Fig. A4). Especially the green spaces on the hill and along the slopes are interesting habitats for insects, e.g. butterflies. Other valuable structures are the rail tracks and the walls on the western side of the site, which are mostly unvegetated but can serve as habitat structures for other animals than insectes. Furthermore, there are two rivers next to the site: the Durance and the Fournel.

Plant diversity

Within the vegetation plots, we identified 39 species in early-successional and 56 in intermediate habitats, 57 in managed green space, 68 in late-succession shrubland, 47 in late-succession woodland (Fig. A8, Table A3, list non-exhaustive). On average, 23 plants were found per plot with late-succession shrubland, 19 plants per plot with intermediate succession, 15 per plot on managed green spaces, 14 per plot with late succession wood; and 10 in early-successional stages. Thus, late-successional stages host the biggest number of plants in total, and the highest plant diversity per plot. Among the sampled plants were two fern species, ten grasses, 99 herbs, eleven shrubs and 14 tree species. Outside the vegetation plots, the orchid Broad-leaved helleborine (Epipactis helleborine) occurred on several spots. This orchid is protected in France and other European countries through the Berne Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Info Flora 2018). It may not be damaged or removed. The location is marked in Fig. A9.

Invasive alien plants

In total, three invasive alien species were found on the brownfield site in L’Argentière (Fig. A10). Their location is marked in Fig. A11. The Daisy Fleabane (Erigeron annuus) might threaten rare species in nutrient-poor grasslands if occurring in higher abundances (Info Flora 2014). However, as it was only found on few locations within the site and it is not assumed to cause any damage. The Summer-Lilac (Buddleja davidii) is originally an ornamental plant which could have been

Page | 11

planted or spread from nearby gardens. It can alter vegetation structure and soil conditions by fixing nitrogen, thus affecting biodiversity. It occurred on four spots within the mapped perimeter. Therefore, measures for management should be taken in order to avoid further spreading. Summer-Lilac can be eradicated by and digging out young shrubs (CABI 2019a). Bigger shrubs should be uprooted or hoed up. To prevent the Summer lilac from spreading further, barren areas near the Summer lilac should be planted and seed with native plants (Amt der Steiermärkischen Landesregierung oJ).

The black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) is even more problematic. Robinia pseudoacacia is threatening biodiversity by outcompeting rare species in (semi)dry habitats like for example gravel-sand pits (Řehounková and Prach 2008). It can become the dominating tree species in urban wastelands and brownfields. It is changing light conditions and the microclimate, and alters soil conditions by fixing nitrogen, which in turn can endanger specialised plants and invertebrates (Rice et al. 2004). Numerous individuals of this species were found in the southern part of the site. Thus, it should be reduced by repeated cutting. Also, competion by other trees (e.g. through succession) is known to reduce black locust stocks (Vítková et al. 2017).

Soil conditions

Within the vegetation plots, we took soil samples and analysed soil pH, soil type, texture and nutrients (chloride, nitrate, phosphate, sulphate, sodium, ammonium, potassium, magnesium, calcium) in the lab. In general, pH tends to decrease with progressive succession, as more and more organic material is accumulating, which releases humic acid. This leads to soil acidification (Amelung et al. 2018). In L’Argentière, soil pH hardly differed between the vegetation types. It was basic on bare soil and neutral in all other successional stages (Fig. A12, Fig. A13). Therefore, there are currently no problems with acidification at the site. The basic pH on bare soil results most likely from the debris on the southern part of the site.

The proportion of fine soil (<2 mm grain size) varied hardly between the different successional stages, being around 50% on average. A few samples showed contents of 70% to 83% fine soil, but there was no clear pattern which areas have a high content of fine soil and would therefore be more vulnerable to erosion.

The soil was mostly sandy, which means that water retention capacity, delivery of plant-available soil water and nutrient supply are low. This slows down succession and results in a sparse vegetation cover (Amelung et al. 2018), which can be beneficial for butterflies (Loram 2004). Also, spreading of some invasive alien plants is reduced by the poor nutrient supply. For example, Giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) preferably invades nutrient-rich sites (Starfinger and Kowarik 2003).

High level of nutrients are the main problem for failure of many ecological restoration projects, as target plant species are outcompeted by more productive plants (Hölzel et al. 2009). Compared to limiting values from the literature (Blume et al. 2011), the measured concentrations of chloride,

Page | 12

sulphate and magnesium were low to medium. Concentrations for nitrate were low on early, intermediate and late-succession shrublands, but increased on bare soil and late-successional sites with woody species (Blume et al. 2011). On average, the soil samples contained 30.4 mg/l nitrate on plots with wood species. This most likely resulted from the presence of the Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), a plant species with symbiotic nitrogen fixation. In general, soil nitrogen increases with succession due to the accumulation of organic material (Rebele and Dettmar 1996). Therefore, also areas with other wood species (apart from Black locust) might be rich in nitrogen. On bare soil of the rubble heap, up to 496 mg/l of nitrate were measured. One possible explanation is that nutrient-rich soil was dumped there, but plant development has been disturbed by occasional traffic. The levels of potassium and calcium were also increased on bare soil. In contrast to nitrate, ammonium was increased on all plots, most likely because nitrate is washed out more easily than ammonium (Pulford 1991).

Overall, there were some areas with highly fertilized soil, especially on the northern end of the rubble heap and along the narrow pass. In order to avoid the development of a homogenous vegetation dominated by invasive and highly productive plants, measures against eutrophication should be taken. First, the invasive plant Black locust should be controlled (see section invasive alien plants). Second, plants with a high need for nitrogen should be planted on the eutrophic sites. Here, the vegetation should be regularly mown with removal. After a couple of years, the concentration of nutrients should then reach a low level. Then, the areas can be sown with local seeds and mown less frequently (Kiehl 2009).

Nature-protection areas

The southern tip around the stream Fournel is part of the Natura 2000 protected area “Stepique Durancien et Queyrassin”, the whole site is part of the extension zone of the National parc Écrins. The boundaries of these protected areas are displayed in the spatial assessment report. The network of protected areas enables species movement and exchange between different populations. Some species occurring within the protected areas might also occur on the pilot site. Therefore, these species should be kept in mind during the planning process and their habitats should be maintained or improved, if possible. The national park Écrins hosts more than 1500 plant and animal species, a complete list can be found on the website of INPN (https://inpn.mnhn.fr/espace/protege/FR3400005/tab/especes). Animals protected by Annex II of the Council Directive 92/43/EEC (“Natura 2000 directive”) are displayed in Table A5 (source: “c”). Future use of the site might be restricted by regulations or contradict development goals of the protected areas. Therefore, early consultations with nature conservation agencies are recommended to identify and to avoid potential conflicts.

Observed animals and quality of their habitats

During the two sampling dates in summer, we identified 27 butterfly species on the brownfield site; 24 species were found on intermediate-successional stages, 16 on early-successional stages, 13 on managed green spaces, 15 on bare soil, 11 in shrublands, and ten in woodlands. Thus,

Page | 13

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: 1.3 species were found per subarea, followed by 1.1 species per subarea within intermediate succession. In general, the highest diversity of butterflies was found on the vegetated rubble heap on the southern part of the site. Also, the community dump with vegetated earth mounds and the managed green space north of the rubble heap were inhabitated by many various butterfly species. This was most likely due to the presence of extensively mown grassland with high abundance of flowers. On the green spaces near building almost no butterflies were present, because these areas are small and some occasionally used for storage or as parking lots. Habitat suitability for butterflies was assessed by combining flower richness and vegetation cover per subarea with the average number of food plants for caterpillars and nectar plants for adults within each successional stage (Fig. A16). Most of the rubble heap is very suitable for butterflies, while the edge areas are not suitable. Only non-sealed surfaces were taken into account. One of the occurring butterflies, the Turquoise blue (Polyommatus dorylas) is listed as endangered in the French Red list for threatened butterflies (UICN France et al. 2014). The rare butterfly was found on the sparsely vegetated narrow pass near the rail tracks (Fig. A15).

Within the brownfield there are no suitable waterbodies that could serve as reproduction habitats for dragonflies. However, the vegetated rubble heap is used as a hunting habitat by dragonflies, and at least 16 individuals of the Red-veined darter (Sympetrum fonscolombii) could be observed there. One individual of Featherleg (Platycnemis latipes) was found next to the river Durance. Furthermore, the southern part of the site was inhabitated by at least three species of locusts, which occurred in high abundances: The blue-winged grasshopper (Oedipoda caerulescens), the red-wingend grasshopper (Oedipoda germanica) and the Great green bush-cricket (Tettigonia viridissima).

However, not only insects find suitable habitats on and around the rubble heap, as several Common Wall Lizard (Podarcis muralis), among them young individuals, and Western Green lizards (Lacerta bilineata) were observed. They occurred on the walls near the rail tracks, under the footbridge on the southern end of the site, on stone heaps and on debris close to the recycling centre.

The northern part of the site, which mostly consists of sealed areas and buildings, is unsuitable for reptiles due to a high level of disturbance and lack of hiding places. At the most, the closed down buildings could serve as alternative hibernation and thermoregulation habitats. On a central yard, several heaps with woodchips are stored (Fig. A17), and these can serve as egg-laying spots for snakes (Assmann 2013). In the western part of the site, which is used by a few smaller companies, a few gravel heaps can serve as habitats for sunbathing and egg-laying of lizards. The community dump with earth mounds and wood piles is also suitable egg-laying and sunbathing habitats for lizards and snakes. The extensive grassland on the big rubble heap in the south is crossed by many spots of bare soil, thus lizards can find a lot of egg-laying sites there. Places for

Page | 14

thermoregulation can be found all over the place, especially along the Durance and on the rubble heap. However, these areas are often used for leisure activities. Overall, the whole western and southern part of the site offers good or even very good reptile habitats.

Stakeholder perception

In order to gather information on stakeholders opinion on the aesthetic value of different vegetation types at the Péchiney brownfield, a questionnaire was distributed via an online platform and during the workshop. However, the results are not representative due to a low number of participants. During the round table discussion, it turned out that the risk of pollution and the connection between the site and the river are important environmental aspects to the stakeholders. While some stakeholders perceived the site as “ugly”, others appreciated its character and history. Most stakeholders agreed that the natural character of the southern part of the site should be maintained/ reinforced and there should be a link between the southern and northern (urban) part.

Summary and planning recommendations

An overview of potentials, threats and recommendations is provided in the Appendix (Fig. A19).

Especially the western part of the site with walls and spots of bare soil on the slopes, the community dump and the occasionally flooded area where the Fournel flows into the Durance are very valuable habitats to reptiles. These structures should be preserved and shrubs should be cut back regularly or removed every few years. It is recommended to limit leisure activities to the eastern part of the site in order to avoid disturbances of reptiles.

Because of sunny hills and many different flowers, the extensive grassland on the southern part of the site is very valuable to many insects. Therefore, the extensive mowing regime should be continued. Additionally, the southern tip of the site is part of the Natura 2000 protected area “Steppique Durancien et Queyrassin”. Therefore, regulations concerning protected habitats and species within the Natura 2000 site have to be obeyed.

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.

Page | 15

In general, we recommend to continue monitoring 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 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 | 16

Short assessment on brownfield site in La Roche-de-Rame

Surrounding nature-protection areas

There are many nature-protection areas in immediate vicinity of the former MGI site. A complete list and the location of these protected areas is displayed in the spatial assessment report. Especially noteworthy are the Natura 2000 protected area “Durancien et Queyrassin“ and the biosphere reservate “Mont viso“, the extension zone of National Park “Écrins” and the Zone humide et plans d’eau “Secteur de la Durance, de sa source au Bueche“, as they cover large areas in the region and include parts of the pilot site. The network of protected areas enables species movement and exchange between different populations. Some species occurring within the nature protected areas might also occur on the pilot site. Therefore, these species should be kept in mind during the planning process, and their habitats should be maintained or improved, if possible. Furthermore, a future use of the site might be restricted by regulations or contradict development goals of the protected areas. Early consultations with nature conservation agencies are recommended to identify and avoid possible conflicts.

Environmental threats: soil contamination and flooding

A large area of the former MG Industry site is polluted with mercury, ferrochromes and copper. Depollution activities have already been carried out, but the site is not completely cleaned up. Groundwater quality is monitored regularly (Ministère de la Transition Écologique et Solidaire 2019). Mercury and chromium are cancerogenic, acute exposure can cause internal bleedings, damage of liver and kidney and respiratory problems (Gibb et al. 2000; Martin and Griswold 2009; Mohan and Pittman Jr 2006; Richard and Bourg 1991). Also, long-term exposure to high levels of copper can cause liver and kidney damage (Mahurpawar 2015). Furthermore, parts of the active PVC plant are polluted with uranium (Fig. A20). Decontamination work has been carried out and radiological control was established in 1996. In case of demolition of the affected building, a special supervision is needed. The groundwater can only be used for industrial purposes (Ministère de la Transition Écologique et Solidaire 2015).

The site is close to the river Durance and the flood risk has been evaluated as «intermediate» (Commune de La Roche de Rame 2010) (Fig. A21). A more detailed evaluation of flood risk can be found at the spatial assessment report. Due to climate change, flood peaks increased in the alpine region during the last century and 100-year flood events are expected to occur five times more frequent than in the past (Allamano et al. 2009). Although a flood protection wall is already in place at the La-Roche-de-Rame site, this protection might not be sufficient for future floods. Polluted material could be washed into the river during flooding or leak into the river through the groundwater. Although no such incident has been officially reported yet, the risk should be taken seriously. Either the site should be depolluted completely, or better flood prevention measures should be implemented. In any case, polluted material should be moved as far away as possible from the riverside.

Page | 17

Vegetation structure

Vegetation structure was assessed from aerial photographs and not verified in detail in the field, as the trAILs project focusses on the site in L’Argentière and most of the site in La Roche-de- Rame is not accessible for the public. About 40% of the brownfield and the nearby gravel pit are vegetated, 45% of the area is not sealed. During a short site visit in November 2019, it turned out that natural succession has already lead to a mosaic of different successional stages on a high proportion of the area previously identified as “bare soil”. Thus, the vegetated areas most likely make up more than the 40% identified by remote mapping, and vegetation cover is constantly increasing. Only 15% of the site is constructed or asphalted (Fig. A22). The sealed surfaces and buildings are concentrated in the northeast of the site (Fig. A23). The northern part of the site is still used by the company “Extruflex” producing PVC. It is ecologically less interesting than the rest of the site. While the central part of the site (the former MG Industry factory) is largely undisturbed, the southern part is intensively disturbed by mining activities. These activities lead to the development of temporary waterbodies, bare habitats and pioneer vegetation.

Occurring and potentially occurring animals

During a field survey conducted by the community of La Roche-de-Rame in 2012 and 2013, two amphibian species and three reptile species were observed (SAGE Environnement 2013) (Table A5). Five amphibian and five reptile species were documented in the community of La Roche-de- Rame (INPN 2019d) Therefore, it is concluded that the area is important for preserving these animal groups. Amphibians and reptiles should be especially considered as target species during the planning process. Furthermore, 25 species of birds, five species of mammals, eight butterfly species and one dragonfly species could be identified during the field survey (SAGE Environnement 2013). The community of La Roche-de-Rame hosts 101 butterfly, 123 bird, 18 dragonfly and 37 mammal species in total. A selection of this list is provided by the Appendix (Table A5, marked with letter “a”). The complete species list for the community can be found on the website of INPN (https://inpn.mnhn.fr/collTerr/commune/05122/tab/especes). This list can be used as a base for more detailed faunistic surveys on the site. Four of the butterfly species are listed as “vulnerable”, one as “near threatened” in the Red List of endangered species of the Region Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (INPN 2019c), and one is “near threatened” in the Red List of endangered species of France. Five more butterfly species are protected by French or European law. Most of the Red-List species occur on dry calcareous grassland, for example the Spring ringlet (Erebia epistygne), Nickerl’s Fritillary (Melitaea aurelia) and the Hermit (Chazara briseis) (INPN 2019a, 2019b, 2019e). Therefore, sunny, dry slopes with sparse vegetation cover should be preserved.

Additionally, species living in nearby protected areas could also occur on the pilot site, if suitable habitats exist. Therefore, Table A5 also includes amphibians, reptiles, mammals, butterflies and dragonflies protected by Annex II of the Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 (“Natura 2000 directive”).

Page | 18

Planning-relevant plants

Around the former MGI site and the Extruflex site, one invasive plant was identified. The Canadian fleabane (Conyza canadensis) can have negative impacts on agriculture and natural ecosystems by altering the carbon-nitrogen ratio. It can be controlled by tillage, hand-weeding, the use of living mulches and cover plants. It can also be eradicated by applying herbicides, though it is resistant to some substances. So far, no successful biological countermeasures were reported (CABI 2019b).

Two more plant species around the brownfield in La Roche-de-Rame are rare or protected in France. The Yellow hornpoppy (Glaucium flavum) is an indigenous plant in the Mediterranean, but can be invasive on other coastal areas around the globe. According to thr Red List of endangered plants in France, it is vulnerable or near threatened in some regions (INPN 2020b). Epipactis placentina is endangered worldwide, throughout Europe and within the French alpine region. It is protected by the Washington Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (INPN 2020a). Therefore, this species should be preserved.

Summary and planning recommendations

Although being highly polluted, the site offers a high ecological potential due to the location near the river Durance and a mix of disturbed and undisturbed areas, which result in a mosaic of bare soil, temporary waterbodies, pioneer vegetation, dry grassland and shrublands. Especially amphibians and reptiles find good habitat conditions in La Roche-de-Rame. Specialised butterfly species could benefit from the sparse vegetation cover. Therefore, it is recommended to keep these animal groups in mind when planning site transformation and to support the development of their habitats. Furthermore, we recommend to conduct a more detailed survey on plant species, as already one rare species could be found around the brownfield site. However, the most important goal should be to decontamiate the site as far as possible and to minimize the risk of toxic substances being washed into the Durance.

Page | 19

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

Page | 20

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 and 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 processes and services (Table 1), including the aesthetic preferences of stakeholders by conducting an online-survey, showing them representative pictures of habitat units. Thus, we can

Page | 21

include the recreational service function of brownfields into our analysis. In this survey 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 L’Argentière takes place in February, we had to do field-sampling in the year before, since most ecological indicators can only be sampled from mid-May to September. 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

Page | 22

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 | 23

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

types. 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

1.1 Remote mapping 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 protocol was established.

depend on a specific communities.

Formats: maps, graphs

1.2 On site mapping

Page | 24

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 visit at any time between May and rarity. The analysis includes plants and animal species. Some of them September, a representative assessment and three selected animal taxonomic might be protected by law. We also of many animal taxonomic groups groups (reptiles, butterflies, expected a high abundance of invasive requires repeated surveys (e.g. three dragonflies). Another animal group, alien species. visits); this means it can be resource and the locusts, was included because of time consuming. Therefore, we carefully Biodiversity status quo is the basis for high abundances. selected three animal groups, that are identifying environmental targets (e.g. ecologically meaningful at the pilot site conservation of protected species or scale and useful in the future planning diverse communities), environmental process. threats (e.g. invasive alien species) and environmental management options Formats: maps, tables, graphs (e.g. managing green spaces). 4. Habitat Assessment of (i) habitat conditions Specific habitat conditions and A representative and quantitative analysis conditions and including soil pH, soil type and processes (or functions) determine of some ecosystem processes and ecosystem contamination as well as of (ii) successional dynamics of (semi)natural services needs to be repeated at several processes ecosystem processes including soil ecosystems, including the establishment points of time throughout the year (e.g. nutrients and erosion. of plant and animal species. They (i) can soil biological activity differs according to be a conservation target on their own, season). This would require repeated site

and (ii) need to be taken into account visits, that are costly. Therefore, fewer Formats: maps, tables, graphs for future conservation and restoration measurements were done and only a few strategies. conditions (disturbance regime, soil

Page | 25

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 ecosystem services (erosion protection, includes an estimate of erosion be useful for human purposes. They can aesthetic landscape appeal) could be protection (plant cover and slope), protect from erosion, have a cooling assessed. and aesthetic landscape appeal effect or serve as recreation areas. Therefore, a comparison between the (ranking of pictures by stakeholders four pilot sites is possible, but at workshops and online). comparison with literature is not possible.

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 was processes and (iii) ecosystem into account for identifying distributed via an online platform and will services by stakeholders at environmental targets and for be distributed at the workshop. workshops. developing conservation or restoration strategies.

1.3 Workshop survey Format: table

Page | 26

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. services using data of all four pilots. and services) and explanatory variables other types of disturbance and (connectivity, habitat conditions) and successional stages). analysis serve as a basis for deriving Formats: statistical models, graphs management options.

2.2. Explorative data 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

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

Page | 27

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 reproduction habitats for amphibians and dragonflies present. However, we will make sure that all four pilots are assessed with similar methods.

Furthermore, an additional map, showing the type and intensity of use of different parts of the site, has been added after the regional partners feedback and will be added for future assessments. In order to improve the dialogue with the stakeholders on environmental aspects, we will prepare additional questions and add them to the existing survey or include them during the round table discussions. Perhaps we will provide a short summary with questions prior to the stakeholder workshops, as suggested by the regional partner.

Page | 28

5 PART 3: FEEDBACK OF THE REGIONAL PARTNER

Do you find the results useful and which ones? Yes - 3.1 The general theoretical background information reminds us of the importance of taking account of the biodiversity dimension in brownfield sites, particularly in the Alps (richness and also risks of 'pollution' of remarkable natural environments in the Alps by invasive plants). They also show the resilience of these degraded areas. I had the impression that this environmental theme seemed a little secondary to the participants of the different workshops compared to the other themes (including in the 2 other pilot sites investigated), perhaps because these sites are very denatured and also not intended to be renatured). This short chapter re-explains this interest well. - 3.1 the inventory of the site (here of the 2 sites) with their "potential" and "main problems" parts, which proposes in a few words some initial recommendations. Concerning this pilot site, the environmental aspect seems to me to be especially important for the following points - in l'Argentière on the southern part of the site, which is in a renatured area (and a priori intended to remain in a "natural" area). The naturalistic data will be useful for the project approach. - in La Roche de Rame, the natural environment that borders the site and makes it a rather confidential part of the landscape is also consequent. The naturalist data will be useful for the project approach at least at this level. - Chapter 3.2 is interesting because it is relatively detailed and makes a good complement / gives a better understanding of the assessment book, which is very good but very synthetic. The synthesis of existing data on soil pollution is also welcome (these data did not seem very well known by the participants, they were awaiting for information). The part "Sumary and planning recommendations" is also welcome because it initiates a project / site management approach. - Chapter 4.1 Theoretical background information recalling the potential interest of brownfield sites for biodiversity (hosting of threatened species) especially in the Alps and the risks (invasive species). It also recalls the contribution of trAILs on a little studied subject in the context of the Alps. - 6.1. 6.1. Allows a clear view of the role of brownfields for biodiversity in the local context. This is very good, but it is not clear what the (geographical) extent of this context is. A small map would help to clarify it. - Mapping is very interesting and very technical. The A16 and A21 maps on contamination risks seem important to me.

Have you learned something about the site that you did not know before? What was it? I had no idea and no information on the biodiversity aspect of brownfields and the potential value of brownfields for biodiversity. This enlightened me on this subject.

Page | 29

Will you be able to use any of the results and how? Yes To raise the awareness of local stakeholders on the importance of the biodiversity dimension in the framework of a development project To develop development / management programs : o From pollution maps: for requests for specific analyses + advanced analyses if necessary according to experts. o For ideas / recommendations: . to question/define zones/options of use with regard to pollutants distribution on the site . to choose/propose sectors to be preserved/renatured: by relying on the natural dynamics identified (excluding invasive species). . For invasive species control programs, if there are significant risks.

Will you be able to take any additional actions based on the assessment results, what are they? No

Which analysis elements are more useful (look at the spreadsheet 4.2 and appendix results)? 4.2 : Maps (in particular landscape structure) and local stakeholders perceptions 6.1 Appendix A : land use graphics (with may be an associated cartography in addition ?) 6.2 appendix B : - graphicals elements - Fig A5 : about direct surrondings (may be need a little localization on map / see next question ?) - Fig A7/A8 /A11 : pictures/map of invasive alien / protected species -Fig A16/17/18 : special appreciation for “overwiew of potentials, threats and planning recommandations” card.

Any suggestions to make this assessment method better? I) For environment subject introduction and "attractiveness" (in particular to communicate with a non-specialist audience):

It would be in my opinion welcome to present 2 complementary points (maps) to introduce and explain the natural dynamics on the site / so that one can visualize what is able to feed or slow down the natural dynamics on the wasteland site (to be presented in the order proposed below?):

1) Map (to be added) on the close environmental context - 1 or 2 very simple maps of the brownfield site with its different types of surrounding environments. e.g. for l'Argentière:

Page | 30

on a large scale: urbanised/agricultural valley bottom/wooded slopes (with type of afforestation…). On the scale of the site's surroundings: urban areas, channelled Durance, railway line on embankments, Fournel stream, former renatured landfill, on Durance left bank: rocky escarpment and material dump, hydroelectric canal and wooded banks...); for Eisenerz brownfield: wooded slopes...

2) Map (to be added) on the current (estimated) uses of the site: we could distinguish the current areas with still strong pressures from human activities (building, traffic, storage, etc.) from areas that are quieter or abandoned. Perhaps with some approximate dates of abandonment, redevelopment, etc. in the legend to estimate the direction and speed of these dynamics.

3) the pollution map. This is one of the major problems in brownfield…

4) the flood risk map, which is closely linked to the problem of environment risk of contamination.

- 5,6,7,8 ...Maps on habitats, species... would come next.

This logical sequence of maps would show surrounding environments "influences", the uses and pollution present on the brownfield, to arrive at flora/fauna dynamics and resiliences on the neglected and polluted site.

II) For communication/inter-relationship with local stakeholders: in addition to the assessment book (which is very concise and above all descriptive of the state of the site) and this document (which is more detailed and includes recommendations), it might be necessary to produce a small document for local stakeholders, which would be completed by a series of questions and recommendations (as indicated in part 3). 1, no more), so that, while in the evaluation phase, paths could be launched to initiate the "project" phase of trAILs. This document could include a short questionnaire on these subjects, to obtain more points of view from local actors, who seemed to me (apart from the interviews) to be more spectators than actors in this evaluation part (especially on this environmental subject).

Page | 31

6 APPENDIX

6.1 APPENDIX A – GENERAL INFORMATION

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 | 32

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 | 33

6.2 APPENDIX B – ASSESSMENT PILOT SITE L’ARGENTIERE

Fig. A3: Type and intensity of current use of the site.

Page | 34

Fig. A4: Map of erosion and contamination risk. The outline represent the assumed boundaries of the contaminated plots listed in the French database on polluted or potentially polluted sites (BASOL). The shaded areas show the erosion risk, which was estimated from vegetation cover, degree of sealing / compaction and slope.

Page | 35

Fig. A5: Risk of flooding near L’Argentière, based on the French “Atlas de zones inondables” (CAREX Environnement 2004).

Page | 36

Fig. A6: Composition of habitat units in L’Argentière-la Bessée as delimited in Fig. A1.

Page | 37

Fig. A7: Habitat units of L’Argentière- la Bessée as defined in Table A1.

Page | 38

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 Number of Size of mapped plots Habitat unit L’Argentière (m2) mapped plots (m)

Successional stages

Bare rocks 5,087 0

Vegetated rocks - 0

Bare soil 18,955 3 1x1

Early succession with pioneer 67,688 5 2x2 vegetation

Intermediate succession with ruderal 34,391 5 2x2 or herbaceous vegetation

Late succession with spontaneous 5,935 5 5x5 shrubs Late succession with spontaneous 10,619 5 5x5 wood Complex mosaic of different - - successional stages Other habitat units

Sealed/ asphalted (e.g. traffic) 68,598 - -

Open trails 3,595 - -

Built-up (e.g. buildings) 79,474 - -

Vegetated walls - - -

Managed green space (e.g. gardens) 21,529 5 2x2

Single trees or tree groups 1,164 - -

Open water 1,283 - -

Temporary water - - -

Page | 39

A) The river Fournel flows into the river Durance B) Managed green space on top of the rubble on the southern end of the site. heap, which serves as habitat for many insects.

C) A part of the community dump with gravel, D) A narrow pass with stone walls and gappy earth mounds and wood offers potential vegetated slopes on the western end of the habitats for reptiles site, which is inhabitated by lizards.

Fig. A8: Habitats and landscapes of the “Péchiney” site and its direct surroundings within the delimited perimeter (Fig. A1)

Page | 40

Table A3: Occurring plant species on the Argentière site and frequency for each successional stage.

Frequency (no of ocurring plots) Invasive Scientific name French name early intermediate managed late succ. late succ. species* succ. succession green space shrub wood ² Fern

Equisetum arvense Prêle des champs 1

Grass

Achnatherum Calamagrostide calamagrostis argentée 1 2 5 3

Arrhenatherum elatius Avoine élevée 1

Bromus erectus Brome dressé 2 1

Bromus inermis Brome sans arêtes 2 1 1 1 Bromus sterilis Brome stérile 1 Bromus tectorum Brome des toits 1 1 1 1 Calamagrostis canescens Calamagrostide blanchâtre 1 Carex hirta Laîche hérissée 1 Carex otrubae Laîche des bosquets 1 Dactylis glomerata Dactyle aggloméré 2 Elymus repens Chiendent rampant 1 1 1 1 2 Festuca ovina Fétuque ovine 2 2 Festuca rubra Fétuque rouge 1 2 2 Lolium perenne Ivraie vivace 1 1

Page | 41

Frequency (no of ocurring plots) Invasive Scientific name French name early intermediate managed late succ. late succ. species* succ. succession green space shrub wood ² Luzula multiflora Luzule multiflore 1 Poa compressa Pâturin comprimé 1 2 1 2 Poa nemoralis Pâturin des bois 1 Poa pratensis Pâturin des prés 1 Herbs

Achillea millefolium Achillée millefeuille 2 3 4 1

Agrimonia eupatoria Aigremoine eupatoire 2

Alliaria petiolata Alliaire officinale 2

Anthemis tinctoria Anthémis des teinturiers 1

Anthyllis vulneraria Anthyllide vulnéraire 1

Artemisia vulgaris Armoise commune 4 4 1

Asperula cynanchica Aspérule à l'esquinancie 1 2

Bassia scoparia Ansérine à balais 1

Campanula patula Campanule étalée 1

Carlina vulgaris Carline commune 1

Centaurea scabiosa Centaurée scabieuse 1

Centranthus angustifolius Centranthe à feuilles étroites 1

Page | 42

Frequency (no of ocurring plots) Invasive Scientific name French name early intermediate managed late succ. late succ. species* succ. succession green space shrub wood ²

Cephalanthera Céphalanthère de damasonium Damas 1

Cerastium brachypetalum Céraiste à pétales courts 3

Cerastium pumilum Céraiste nain 1 1 1

Cerastium tomentosum Céraiste tomenteux 1

Chelidonium majus Chélidoine 1

Chenopodium album Chénopode blanc 1 1 1 2

Chondrilla juncea Chondrille à tige de jonc 2 1 1

Cirsium arvense Cirse des champs 1 1 2

Convolvulus arvensis Liseron des champs 1 1 1 1

Crepis biennis Crépide bisannuelle 2 2 2

Crepis capillaris Crépide capillaire 1

Crepis conyzifolia Crépide à grands capitules 1 1

Crepis nicaeensis Crépide de Nice 1

Cynoglossum officinale Langue de chien 1

Daucus carota Carotte sauvage 2 1 2 2 1

Page | 43

Frequency (no of ocurring plots) Invasive Scientific name French name early intermediate managed late succ. late succ. species* succ. succession green space shrub wood ²

Diplotaxis tenuifolia Diplotaxis à feuilles ténues 2 1 1

Echinops ritro Azurite 1 x

Echium vulgare Vipérine commune 1 2 1

Epipactis helleborine Epipactis à larges (protected)* feuilles Erigeron annuus* Vergerette annuelle x

Erysimum virgatum Vélar en baguette 1

Euphorbia cyparissias Euphorbe petit cyprès 1

Euphorbia platyphyllos Euphorbe à larges feuilles 1

Galium aparine Gaillet gratteron 2 2

Galium mollugo Gaillet mollugine 1 2 1 2

Geranium rotundifolium Géranium à feuilles rondes 1

Helleborus foetidus Hellébore fétide 1 1

Herniaria incana - 1

Hieracium murorum Epervière des bois 1

Hieracium pilosella Epervière piloselle 1

Hieracium piloselloides Epervière florentine 1 5 4 1

Page | 44

Frequency (no of ocurring plots) Invasive Scientific name French name early intermediate managed late succ. late succ. species* succ. succession green space shrub wood ²

Hieracium spec. Epervière 1

Hippocrepis comosa Hippocrépide commune 2

Hypericum perforatum Millepertuis perforé 2

Iris x germanica - 1

Isatis tinctoria Pastel 2 3

Koeleria vallesiana Koelérie du Valais 1

Lactuca perennis Laitue vivace 3 1 3 1

Lactuca serriola Laitue serriole 1 1 1 1 1

Lactuca virosa Laitue vénéneuse 1

Lapsana communis Lapsane commune 1 2

Laserpitium siler Laser siler 1

Lathyrus sylvestris Gesse des bois 1

Lepidium virginicum Passerage de Virginie 1 3 2

Leucanthemum vulgare Marguerite 1

Linaria repens Linaire striée 1

Linum perenne Lin vivaceae 3

Lotus alpinus Lotier des Alpes 1

Lotus corniculatus Lotier corniculé 1 1

Page | 45

Frequency (no of ocurring plots) Invasive Scientific name French name early intermediate managed late succ. late succ. species* succ. succession green space shrub wood ²

Medicago lupulina Luzerne lupuline 1 3

Medicago sativa Luzerne cultivée 1 3 3 1

Melica ciliata Mélique ciliée 3 1 3 2

Melilotus albus Mélilot blanc 2 1 1 1

Melilotus officinalis Mélilot officinal 2

Minuartia rubra Minuartie rouge 1

Myosotis spec. Myosotis 1

Oenothera biennis Onagre bisannuelle 1

Oxytropis pilosa Oxytropis poilu 1

Petrorhagia prolifera Petrorhagie prolifère 1

Peucedanum austriacum subsp. Rablense Peucédan de Raible 1

Picris echioides Picride vipérine 2

Picris hieracioides Picride amère 2 1 1 1

Pimpinella saxifraga Boucage saxifrage 1

Plantago lanceolata Plantain lancéolé 2 1 2 2 1

Plantago media Plantain moyen 1 1

Polygonum aviculare Renouée des oiseaux 1 1

Potentilla inclinata Potentille grisâtre 1

Page | 46

Frequency (no of ocurring plots) Invasive Scientific name French name early intermediate managed late succ. late succ. species* succ. succession green space shrub wood ²

Potentilla reptans Quintefeuille 1

Potentilla verna Potentille du printemps 3

Pulmonaria mollis Pulmonaire molle 1 1

Reseda lutea Réséda jaune 2 2 1 1

Rumex crispus Rumex crépu 1

Rumex scutatus Rumex à écussons 1 1

Sanguisorba minor Petite pimprenelle 2 4 3 1

Saponaria ocymoides Saponaire rose 2

Scorzonera laciniata Scorsonère en lanières 1 1 1 1

Securigera varia Coronille bigarrée 1 2

Sedum acre Orpin âcre 1 1

Sedum album Orpin blanc 1

Sedum rupestre Orpin des rochers 2 3 2

Senecio erucifolius Séneçon à feuilles de roquette 1 1 1

Silene pratensis Silène des prés 1

Silene vulgaris Silène enflé 1

Solanum nigrum Morelle noire 1

Page | 47

Frequency (no of ocurring plots) Invasive Scientific name French name early intermediate managed late succ. late succ. species* succ. succession green space shrub wood ²

Stachys recta Epiaire droite 2

Taraxacum officinale Pissenlit officinal 3 5 3 3

Tragopogon pratensis Salsifis des prés 1 1

Trifolium pratense Trèfle des prés 1

Trifolium repens Trèfle rampant 1

Trinia glauca Trinie glauque 1

Tripleurospermum inodorum Camomille inodore 1 1

Valeriana officinalis Valériane officinale 1

Verbascum thapsus Molène thapsus 1

Veronica praecox Véronique précoce 1

Veronica serpyllifolia Véronique à feuilles de serpolet 1

Vicia cracca Vesce cracca 1 1 2

Shrubs Berberis vulgaris Épine vinette 1 Buddleja davidii Buddléia de David 1 x

Clematis vitalba Clématite blanche 1 1 3 4

Cornus sanguinea Cornouiller sanguin 3 2

Page | 48

Frequency (no of ocurring plots) Invasive Scientific name French name early intermediate managed late succ. late succ. species* succ. succession green space shrub wood ² Rosa arvensis Rose des champs 2 1 Rosa canina Rosier des chiens 2 1 Rubus caesius Ronce bleuâtre 2 1 2 2 Trees Betula pendula Bouleau verruqueux 2 Juglans regia Noyer royal 1 Populus nigra Peuplier noir 2 Prunus mahaleb Merisier odorant 4 3 Prunus spec. Merisier 1 Robinia pseudoacacia Robinier 3 3 x Salix alba Saule blanc 2 1 Salix elaeagnos Saule drapé 1 Sorbus aria - 1 1

* outside the vegetation plots

*² According to European List of Alien Invasive Species

Page | 49

Fig. A9: Map of vegetation plots (with protected species) and mean number of plant species per plot for each successional stage.

Page | 50

A) Erigeron annuus – Daisy fleabane B) Robinia pseudoacacia – Black locust

C) Buddleja davidii – Summer lilac D) Conyza canadensis – Canadian fleabane Fig. A10: Invasive alien species found during the site mapping in L’Argentière (A-C) and La Roche de Rame (D-E). Sources: Pictures A, B: K. Strobl (June 2019). Picture C: Mihailo Grbić © wikimedia commons CC BY-SA 3.0 sr, Picture D: Rasbak © wikimedia commons CC BY-SA 3.0

Page | 51

Fig. A11: Location of invasive alien species and mean coverage of invasive species per successional stage.

Page | 52

Fig. A12: Soil conditions within the vegetation plots (mean values per succession stage)

Page | 53

sodium

Fig. A13: Plots with medium to high level of nitrate, ammonium, calcium and/or sodium.

Page | 54

Table A4: Occurring animals on the site and total frequency for the two field sampling days in June and July 2019. Taxonomic Scientific name French name Frequency group (total) Reptiles Lacerta bilineata Lézard vert occidental 3 Podarcis muralis Lézard des murailles 3 Butterflies Aglais urticae Petite tortue 5 Aporia crataegi Gazé 18 Arethusana arethusa Petit agreste 2 Boloria dia Petite violette 2 Brintesia circe Silène 1 Coenonympha arcania Céphale 1 Coenonympha pamphilus Fadet commun 20 Colias croceus Souci 8 Colias hyale / Colias Soufré / Fluoré 7 alfacariensis Glaucopsyhce alexis Azuré de cytises 5 Iphiclides podalirius Flambé 3 Lasiommata maera Némusien 6 Lasiommata megera Mégère 8 Leptidea sinapis/ L. reali / L. Piéride de la moutarde / Péride de Réal / 3 juvernica Piéride irlandaise Melanargia galathea Demi-deuil 36 Melitaea athalia / Mélitée du mélampyre / Mélitée de 3 M. parthenoides scabieuses Pieris rapae Piéride de la rave 58 Plebejus idas Azuré du genêt 4 Plebejus idas / P. argus / Azuré du genêt / Azuré de l'ajonc / Azuré 6 P. argyrognomon de coronilles Polyommatus bellargus Azuré bleu céleste 1 Polyommatus coridon Argus bleu-nacré 2 Polyommatus dorylas Azuré du méliot 1 (Near threatened) Polyommatus icarus Argus bleu 40 Pontia daplidice Piéride du réséda 36 Satyrus ferula Grande coronide 8

Page | 55

Taxonomic Scientific name French name Frequency group (total) Thymelicus acteon Hespérie du chiendent 1 Thymelicus lineola Hespérie du dactyle 1 Dragonflies Platycenemis latipes Pennipatte blanchâtre 1 Sympetrum fonscolombii Sympétrum à nervures rouges 16 (min) Oedipoda caerulescens - many

Locusts Oedipoda germanica - many Tettigonia viridissima Grande sauterelle verte many

Page | 56

A) Epipactis helleborine- Broad-leaved helleborine B) Polyommatus dorylas – Turquoise blue

D) Glaucium flavum – Yellow hornpoppy

C) Epipactis placentina - Fig. A14: Rare and protected species in L’Argentière (A-B) and La Roche de Rame (C-D). Sources: A, C, D: K. Strobl (June 2019), B Harald Süpfle © wikimedia commons CC BY-SA 3.0

Page | 57

Fig. A15: Occurring animals at the site. Locusts are not displayed in this map, as they occurred all over the rubble heap.

Page | 58

Fig. A16: Habitat suitability for butterflies.

Page | 59

Fig. A17: Habitat structures for reptiles on the L’Argentière site.

Page | 60

Fig. A18: Assessment of reptile habitats.

Page | 61

Fig. A19: Overview of potentials (P), threats (T) and planning recommendations (R).

Page | 62

6.3 APPENDIX C – ASSESSMENT LA ROCHE DE RAME

Fig. A20: Map of erosion and contamination risk. The outline represent the assumed boundaries of the contaminated plots listed in the French database on polluted or potentially polluted sites (BASOL).

Page | 63

Fig. A21: Risk of flooding near La Roche-de-Rame, based on the French “Atlas des zones inondables” (CAREX Environnement 2004).

Page | 64

Fig. A22: Composition of habitat units in La Roche de Rame as delimited in Fig. A1.

Page | 65

Fig. A23: Habitat units in La Roche de Rame as delimited in Fig. A1.

Page | 66

Table A5: List of occurring and possible occuring animals at the La Roche de Rame site. Highlighted species are listed on the regional Red List of endangered species (INPN 2019c) or protected. a) species on the List of occurring species in the Community La Roche de Rame (INPN 2019d) (list non-exhaustive) b) species identified on site during field mapping for a faunistic report on the site in 2012 and 2013 (SAGE Environnement 2013) c) species listed in the standard-data form for the nearby Natura 2000 protected area (INPN and MNHN 2010) (only certain taxonomix groups). Taxonomic group Scientific name French name Source Amphibians Alytes obstetricans Alyte accoucheur a+b Bufo bufo Crapaud commun a+b Bombina variegata Sonneur à ventre jaune c Epidalea calamita Crapaud calamite a Ichthyosaura alpestris Triton alpestre a Pelophylax ridibundus Grenouille rieuse a Rana temporaria Grenouille rousse a+b Reptiles Coronella austriaca Coronelle lisse a+b Emys orbicularis Cistude d'Europe c Hierophis viridiflavus Couleuvre verte et jaune a Lacerta bilineata Lézard vert occidental a+b Natrix helvetica Couleuvre helvétique a Natrix maura Couleuvre vipérine a Podarcis muralis Lézard des murailles a+b Vipera aspis Vipère aspic a Butterflies Aglais urticae Petite tortue b Antocharis cardamines Aurore b Aporia crataegi Gazé b Chazara briseis (vulnerable) Hermite a Charcharodus baeticus (vulnerable) Hespérie de la Ballote a Colias palaeno (protected) Solitaire a Erebia epistygne (vulnerable) Moiré provençal a Euphydryas aurinia Damier de la Succise c Maculinea alcon (near threatened in Azuré de la Croisette a France + protected) Maculinea arion (protected) Azuré du Serpolet a Melanargia galathea Demi-deuil b

Page | 67

Taxonomic group Scientific name French name Source Melitaea aurelia (near threatened) Mélitée des digitales a Melitaea didyma Mélitée orangée b Nymphalis antiopa (vulnerable) Morio a Papilio alexanor (protected) Alexanor a Papilio machaon Machaon b Parnassius apollo (protected) Apollon a Polyommatus icarus Azuré commun b Vanessa cardui Belle-Dame b Zerynthia rumina (protected) Proserpine a Anax parthenope Anax napolitain a Coenagrion mercuriale Agrion de Mercure c Coenagrion puella Agrion jouvencelle a Enallagma cyathigerum Agrion porte-coupe a Gomphus puchellus Gomphe joli a Ischnura elegans Agrion élégant a Ischnura pumilio Agrion nain a Dragonflies Libellula depressa Libellule déprimée a+b Onychogomphus forcipatus Gomphe à forceps a Orthetrum cancellatum Orthétrum réticulé a Somatochlora alpestris Cordulie alpestre a Sympétrum a Sympetrum folscolombii de Fonscolombe Sympetrum sanguineum Sympétrum sanguin a Sympetrum vulgatum Sympétrum commun a Barbastella barbastellus (protected) Barbastelle d'Europe a+c Hypsugo savii (protected) Vespère de Savi a Capreolus capreolus Chevreuil b Martes foina Fouine a+b Mammals Martes martes Martre de pins a

Meles meles Blaireau a+b Mustela erminea Hermine a Mustela nivalis Belette d'Europe a Myotis blythii (protected) Petit Murin c

Page | 68

Taxonomic group Scientific name French name Source Myotis myotis (protected) Grand Murin a+b Orcytolagus cuninculus Lapin de Garenne b Pipistrellus kuhlii (protected) Pipistrelle de Kuhl a Pipistrellus pipistrellis (protected) Pipistrelle commune a Rhinolophus ferrumequinum Grand rhinolophe a+c (protected) Rhinolophus hipposideros (protected) Petite rhinolophe c Sus scrofa Sanglier b Vulpes vulpes Renard roux a+b Ardea cinerea Héron cendré b Apus apus Martinet noir b Buteo buteo Buse variable b Certhia brachydactyla Grimpereau de jardins b Columba palumbus Pigeon ramier b Corvus corone corone Corneille noire b Cyanistes caeruleus Mésange bleue b Delicon urbica Hirondelle de fenêtre b Dendrocopos major Moineau domestique b Erithacus rubecula Rougegorge familier b Falco tinunculus Faucon crécerelle b Birds Fringilla coelebs Pinson des arbes b (only species during Garrulus glandarius Geai de chênes b field mapping by SAGE Environnement) Hirundo rustica Hirondelle rustique b Parus major Mésange charbonniére b Passer domesticus Moineau domestique b Pica pica Pie bavarde b Phylloscopus collybita Pouillot véloce b Prunella modularis Accenteur mouchet b Stretopelia decaocto Tourterelle turque b Sturnus vulgaris Etourneau sansonnet b Sylvia anticapilla Fauvette à tête noire b Troglodytes troglodytes Troglodyte mignong b Turdus merula Merle noir b

Page | 69

7 REFERENCES

Alexander, J. M.; Lembrechts, J. J.; Cavieres, L. A.; Daehler, C.; Haider, S.; Kueffer, C. et al. (2016): Plant invasions into mountains and alpine ecosystems. Current status and future challenges. In Alpine Botany 126 (2), pp. 89–103. DOI: 10.1007/s00035-016-0172-8.

Allamano, P.; Claps, P.; Laio, F. (2009): Global warming increases flood risk in mountainous areas. In Geophys. Res. Lett. 36 (24). DOI: 10.1029/2009GL041395.

Amelung, W.; Blume, H.-P.; Fleige, H.; Horn, R.; Kandeler, E.; Kögel-Knabner, I. et al. (2018): Scheffer/Schachtschabel Lehrbuch der Bodenkunde: Springer-Verlag.

Amt der Steiermärkischen Landesregierung (Ed.) (oJ): Sommerflieder. Available online at https://www.verwaltung.steiermark.at/cms/beitrag/10787143/74837516/.

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. et al. (2014): Investigating the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality. Challenges and solutions. In Methods in Ecology and Evolution 5 (2), pp. 111–124. DOI: 10.1111/2041-210X.12143.

CABI (2019a): Invasive Species Compendium. Buddleja davidii (Summer lilac). Available online at https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/10314#tosummaryOfInvasiveness.

CABI (2019b): Invasive Species Compendium. Conyza canadensis., checked on 1/14/2020.

CAREX Environnement (Ed.) (2004): Cartographie des zones inondables. Departement des Hautes-Alpes. Available online at http://www.basecommunale.paca.developpement- durable.gouv.fr/pdf/fiches/azi/carex_05_phase1_2004.pdf, checked on 1/20/2020.

Chandra, R.; Kumar, V.; Tripathi, S.; Sharma, P. (2017): Phytoremedation of Industrial Pollutants and Life Cycle Assessment. In Ram Chandra, N. K. Dubey, Vineet Kumar (Eds.): Phytoremediation of Environmental Pollutants. Milton, UNITED KINGDOM: CRC Press LLC, pp. 441–469.

Choubisa, S. L.; Choubisa, D. (2016): Status of industrial fluoride pollution and its diverse adverse health effects in man and domestic animals in India. In Environmental Science and Pollution Research 23 (8), pp. 7244–7254. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-016-6319-8.

Colombo, A.; Benfenati, E.; Bugatti, S. G.; Celeste, G.; Lodi, M.; Rotella, G. et al. (2011): Concentrations of PCDD/PCDF in soil close to a secondary aluminum smelter. In Chemosphere 85 (11), pp. 1719–1724. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.09.018.

Commune de La Roche de Rame (Ed.) (2010): Entre Lacs et Durance (DICRIM Document d’Information Communal sur les Risques Majeurs).

Page | 70

Connell, J. H.; Slatyer, R. O. (1977): Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. In The American Naturalist 111 (982), pp. 1119–1144.

Dainese, M.; Kühn, I.; Bragazza, L. (2014): Alien plant species distribution in the European Alps. Influence of species’ climatic requirements. In Biol Invasions 16 (4), pp. 815–831. DOI: 10.1007/s10530-013-0540-x.

Das, C.; Dey, U.; Chakraborty, D.; Datta, J. K.; Mondal, N. K. (2015): Fluoride toxicity effects in potato plant (Solanum tuberosum L.) grown in contaminated soils. In Octa Journal of Environmental Research 3 (2).

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.

García-Gil, J. C.; Kobza, J.; Soler-Rovira, P.; Javoreková, S. (2013): Soil microbial and enzyme activities response to pollution near an aluminium smelter. In Clean Soil Air Water 41 (5), pp. 485– 492. DOI: 10.1002/clen.201200099.

Gibb, H. J.; Lees, P. S. J.; Pinsky, P. F.; Rooney, B. C. (2000): Clinical findings of irritation among chromium chemical production workers. In Am. J. Ind. Med. 38 (2), pp. 127–131. DOI: 10.1002/1097- 0274(200008)38:2<127::AID-AJIM2>3.0.CO;2-Q.

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. In Landscape and Urban Planning 80 (1-2), pp. 45–55. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.06.001.

Hölzel, N.; Rebele, F.; Rosenthal, G.; Eichberg, C. (2009): Ökologische Grundlagen und limitierende Faktoren der Renaturierung. In Stefan Zerbe, Gerhard Wiegleb (Eds.): Renaturierung von Ökosystemen in Mitteleuropa. Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, pp. 23–53. Available online at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8274-2161-6_2.

Info Flora (2018): Epipactis helleborine. Available online at https://www.infoflora.ch/de/flora/epipactis-helleborine.html, checked on 12/4/2019.

INPN-Inventaire National du Patrimoine Naturel (Ed.) (2020a): Epipactis placentina Bongiorni & Grünanger, 1993. Available online at https://inpn.mnhn.fr/espece/cd_nom/96469/tab/statut.

INPN-Inventaire National du Patrimonie Naturel (Ed.) (2019a): Chazara briseis (Linnaeus, 1764). Available online at https://inpn.mnhn.fr/espece/cd_nom/53425, checked on 1/28/2020.

INPN-Inventaire National du Patrimonie Naturel (Ed.) (2019b): Erebia epistygne (Hübner, 1819). Available online at https://inpn.mnhn.fr/espece/cd_nom/53520?lg=en, checked on 1/14/2020.

INPN-Inventaire National du Patrimonie Naturel (Ed.) (2019c): Liste des espèces menacées. Commune Roche de Rame. Available online at https://inpn.mnhn.fr/collTerr/commune/05122/tab/especesmenacees, checked on 1/14/2020.

Page | 71

INPN-Inventaire National du Patrimonie Naturel (Ed.) (2019d): Liste des espèces recensées. Commune Roche de Rame. Available online at https://inpn.mnhn.fr/collTerr/commune/05122/tab/especesrecensees, checked on 2/25/2019.

INPN-Inventaire National du Patrimonie Naturel (Ed.) (2019e): Melitaea aurelia (Nickerl, 1850). Available online at https://inpn.mnhn.fr/espece/cd_nom/219811/tab/habitats, checked on 1/28/2020.

INPN-Inventaire National du Patrimonie Naturel (Ed.) (2020b): Glaucium flavum Crantz, 1763. Available online at https://inpn.mnhn.fr/espece/cd_nom/100289/tab/statut, updated on 1/14/2020.

INPN-Inventaire National du Patrimonie Naturel; MNHN-Musée national d'histoire naturelle (Eds.) (2010): NATURA 2000 - Formulaire standard de donnees. FR9301502 - Steppique Durancien et Queyrassin, checked on 1/15/2020.

Kattwinkel, M.; Biedermann, R.; Kleyer, M. (2011): Temporary conservation for urban biodiversity. In Biological Conservation 144 (9), pp. 2335–2343. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.06.012.

Kiehl, K. (2009): Renaturierung von Kalkmagerrasen. In Stefan Zerbe, Gerhard Wiegleb (Eds.): Renaturierung von Ökosystemen in Mitteleuropa. Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, pp. 265–282. Available online at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8274-2161-6_10.

Kowarik, I. (2018): Urban wilderness. Supply, demand, and access. In Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 29, pp. 336–347. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2017.05.017.

Kumar, D.; Kumar, S.; Kumar, N. (2017): Common Weeds as Potentail Tools for In Situ Phytoremedation and Eco-Restoration of Industrially Polluted Sites. In Ram Chandra, N. K. Dubey, Vineet Kumar (Eds.): Phytoremediation of Environmental Pollutants. Milton, UNITED KINGDOM: CRC Press LLC.

Loram, A. (2004): The ecological factors governing the persistence of butterflies in urban areas.

Lundholm, J. T.; Richardson, P. J. (2010): Habitat analogues for reconciliation ecology in urban and industrial environments. In Journal of Applied Ecology 47 (5), pp. 966–975. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365- 2664.2010.01857.x.

Mahurpawar, M. (2015): Effects of heavy metals on human health. In International journal of research - granthaalayah, pp. 1–7.

Manning, P.; van der Plas, F.; Soliveres, S.; Allan, E.; Maestre, F. T.; Mace, G. et al. (2018): Redefining ecosystem multifunctionality. In Nature ecology & evolution 2 (3), pp. 427–436. DOI: 10.1038/s41559-017-0461-7.

Martin, S.; Griswold, W. (2009): Human health effects of heavy metals. In Environmental Science and Technology briefs for citizens 15, pp. 1–6.

Page | 72

Mastrangelo, G.; Fadda, E.; Marzia, V. (1996): Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and cancer in man. In Environmental health perspectives 104 (11), pp. 1166–1170. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.961041166.

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. In Journal of Urban Planning and Development 141 (3), pp. A4015001. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000275.

Meng, L.; Qiao, M.; Arp, H. P. H. (2011): Phytoremediation efficiency of a PAH-contaminated industrial soil using ryegrass, white clover, and celery as mono- and mixed cultures. In Journal of Soils and Sediments 11 (3), pp. 482–490. DOI: 10.1007/s11368-010-0319-y.

Meyer, S. T.; Koch, C.; Weisser, W. W. (2015): Towards a standardized Rapid Ecosystem Function Assessment (REFA). In Trends in Ecology & Evolution 30 (7), pp. 390–397. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2015.04.006.

Ministère de la Transition Écologique et Solidaire (Ed.) (2015): Base de données BASOL sur les sites et sols pollués. Site: Lelièvre Recyclage. Available online at https://basol.developpement- durable.gouv.fr/fiche.php?page=1&index_sp=05.0010.

Ministère de la Transition Écologique et Solidaire (Ed.) (2017a): Base de données BASOL sur les sites et sols pollués. Site: AFP Entrepries (Ex FAP). Available online at https://basol.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/fiche.php?page=1&index_sp=05.0006.

Ministère de la Transition Écologique et Solidaire (Ed.) (2017b): Base de données BASOL sur les sites et sols pollués. Site: Crassier RIO TINTO ALCAN (Ex Péchiney). Available online at https://basol.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/fiche.php?page=1&index_sp=05.0001.

Ministère de la Transition Écologique et Solidaire (Ed.) (2019): Base de données BASOL sur les sites et sols pollués. Site: RIO TINTO ALCAN et MG INDUSTRIES. Available online at https://basol.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/fiche.php?page=1&index_sp=05.0005.

Mohan, D.; Pittman Jr, C. U. (2006): Activated carbons and low cost adsorbents for remediation of tri-and hexavalent chromium from water. In Journal of hazardous materials 137 (2), pp. 762–811.

Moilanen, A.; Kotiaho, J. S. (2018): Fifteen operationally important decisions in the planning of biodiversity offsets. In Biological Conservation 227, pp. 112–120. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.09.002.

Pulford, I. D. (1991): Nutrient Provision and Cycling in Soils in Urban Areas (Wiley Online Books).

Rao, D. N.; Pal, D. (1978): Effect of fluoride pollution on the organic matter content of soil. In Plant and Soil 49 (3), pp. 653–656. DOI: 10.1007/BF02183290.

Rebele, F. (1996): Typen von Industriebrachen und deren Bedeutung für Arten- und Biotopschutz. In Gleditschia 24 (1/2), pp. 287–302.

Rebele, F.; Dettmar, J. (1996): Industriebrachen: Ökologie und Management: 46 Farbfotos auf Tafeln, 49 Schwarzwiessfotos und Zeichnungen, 20 Tabellen: Verlag Eugen Ulmer.

Page | 73

Řehounková, K.; Prach, K. (2008): Spontaneous vegetation succession in gravel–sand pits: A potential for restoration. In Restoration Ecology 16 (2), pp. 305–312. DOI: 10.1111/j.1526- 100X.2007.00316.x.

Rice, S. K.; Westerman, B.; Federici, R. (2004): Impacts of the exotic, nitrogen-fixing black locust Robinia pseudoacacia on nitrogen-cycling in a pine oak ecosystem. In Plant Ecology (174), pp. 97– 107.

Richard, F. C.; Bourg, A. C.M. (1991): Aqueous geochemistry of chromium: A review. In Water Research 25 (7), pp. 807–816. DOI: 10.1016/0043-1354(91)90160-R.

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. In Diversity and Distributions 6 (2), pp. 93–107. DOI: 10.1046/j.1472-4642.2000.00083.x.

SAGE Environnement (2013): Aménagement et extension de la Zone d'Activités du Planet à la Roche de Rame. Investigations ecologiques complementaires. Version provisoire. Edited by Communaute de Communes du Pays des Ecrins. Anney-le-Vieux.

Sas-Nowosielska, A.; Kucharski, R.; Małkowski, E.; Pogrzeba, M.; Kuperberg, J.M.; Kryński, K. (2004): Phytoextraction crop disposal—an unsolved problem. In Environmental Pollution 128 (3), pp. 373– 379. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2003.09.012.

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. In Ecological Indicators 60, pp. 223–230. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.06.036.

Starfinger, U.; Kowarik, I. (2003): Neobiota: Heracleum mantegazzianum. Edited by Bundesamt für Naturschutz. Available online at https://neobiota.bfn.de/handbuch/gefaesspflanzen/heracleum- mantegazzianum.html, checked on 1/8/2020.

Sun, M.; Fu, D.; Teng, Y.; Shen, Y.; Luo, Y.; Li, Z.; Christie, P. (2011): In situ phytoremediation of PAH- contaminated soil by intercropping alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) with tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.) and associated soil microbial activity. In Journal of Soils and Sediments 11 (6), pp. 980–989. DOI: 10.1007/s11368-011-0382-z.

Traxler, A. (1997): Handbuch des vegetationsökologischen Monitorings. Methoden, Praxis, angewandte Projekte. Wien (Österreich / Umweltbundesamt: Monographien).

UICN France; MNHN; OPIE; SEF (Eds.) (2014): La Liste rouge des espéces menacées en France. Papillons de jour de France métropolitaine. Paris.

Vítková, M.; Müllerová, J.; Sádlo, J.; Pergl, J.; Pyšek, P. (2017): Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) beloved and despised: a story of an invasive tree in Central Europe. In Forest Ecology and Management 384, pp. 287–302. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2016.10.057.

Page | 74

Wannaz, E. D.; Rodriguez, J. H.; Wolfsberger, T.; Carreras, H. A.; Pignata, M. L.; Fangmeier, A.; Franzaring, J. (2012): Accumulation of Aluminium and Physiological Status of Tree Foliage in the Vicinity of a Large Aluminium Smelter. In The Scientific World Journal 2012, p. 7. DOI: 10.1100/2012/865927.

Page | 75