Background to the PFRA European Overview UC10508

Transcription

1 Background to the PFRA European Overview UC10508 The individual Member State Reports reflect the situation as reported by the Member States to the European Commission in 2014 The situation in the MSs may have altered since then Assessment of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps Member State Report: PL - Poland Date that the assessment was completed: Information reported and assessed The schemas for electronically reporting/making information available to the Commission were filled in with a detailed level of information. Poland made available links to its national flood risk and flood hazard maps for all three of its units of management which have identified Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk (7 further UoMs have no such areas). Detailed summaries were also provided on the methods used to prepare the maps. Specific details of national maps for visualisation at the European level were also reported. No links to other relevant information on the preparation of the maps were provided. This report is structured according to a questionnaire that was completed for all Member States that reported on their flood hazard and risk maps. Questions 2 and 3 of the questionnaire were answered on the basis of a qualitative check of a subset of the Member State s flood hazard and flood risk maps located on national servers and/or web pages. All other questions (question 1 and questions 4 to 11) were answered on the basis of an assessment of numeric and summary information reported by the Member State on the methods used in the preparation of their maps. The report does not include indepth assessment of national background methodological reports which may have been referenced in the Member State s reports and/or provided with their electronic reports. This report includes information on what the Member State has included/considered or not included/considered in its flood risk and hazard maps and their development. This is a presentation of the facts on the electronic information reported to WISE by Member States and does not discuss which elements are mandatory according to the Directive and which are optional. Main outcomes of the assessment a) Good practices adopted: All maps are available to the public with adequate information provided low, medium and high probability scenarios were prepared. Maps present pretty much all of the required parameters and scenarios and are relatively easy to understand with clear legend, scale, coordinates and contextual information included online. b) Weaknesses: There are some allusions to the limitations and uncertainties of the maps but they are not explicitly stated. For example, "the speed and direction of water flow allow for more accurate assessment of the situation in the flood. However, they can only be obtained by the use of two-dimensional models, whose construction is very time consuming, and the duration of the calculations are much larger than for the one-dimensional models. Consequently, it was not possible to apply a two-dimensional model and representation of the water velocity to all areas. According to the regulation on preparation of maps, two-dimensional modelling was 1 of 25

2 carried out for all provincial cities and towns with county rights and other cities with a population of over people." Poland subsequently indicated that it only considered it appropriate (as required by the Directive) to present velocities for larger cities, as using two-dimensional modelling to derive velocities was not possible for all areas. c) Lessons to be learnt: Poland s maps are an example of good practice, but number of population affected should be better shown on the maps. d) Questions seeking clarification from Member State: How did PL choose the areas for which flood risk and hazard maps were prepared? Is PL planning to prepare maps for the remaining areas (for example, River Notec, Lake Goplo and small lakes around the Notec area)? (Noteć is a river in central Poland with a length of 388 km and a basin area of 17,330 km². It is a tributary of the Warta river and lies completely within Poland.) Poland subsequently informed that flood risk and hazard maps were prepared for areas (sections of rivers) that were identified as Areas of Potentially Significant Flood Risk (APSFR). In the first stage information was collected to establish flood risk and hazard and on this basis, areas potentially at risk of flooding were designated. In the second stage areas at risk of flooding were designated, based on the analysis of a matrix, taking into account criteria such as: a direct effect on the lives and health of people, economic areas and the effectiveness of flood protection structures. Points were allocated based on the analysis and those which had the highest number of points have been identified as areas at risk of flooding. In order to define the areas at risk of flooding it was assumed that each area would reach from the most upstream water-level gauge profile indicating the area of potentially significant flood risk, down to the estuary. The section upstream of the water level gauge, right up to the source, was not identified as an APSFR unless it achieved a sufficient number of points. An additional criterion was that the size of the catchment should be greater than 10km 2. 2 of 25

3 Mapping of areas of potential significant flood risk Question 1: What are the reasons reported in the FHRM schema for the non-inclusion of some APSFRs, elements or aspects in the flood hazard and flood risk maps? Poland prepared preliminary flood risk assessments and those were used as a basis to develop risk and hazard maps. In preliminary flood risk assessment, 253 rivers of a total length of 14,481 km were classified as those at risk and hydraulic modelling was carried out. Data required at this stage was Digital Terrain Models, cross sectional areas of rivers and hydrological data. The rest of areas will be investigated in the 2nd planning cycle. Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk (APSFR) and other risk areas identified by the assessment of flood risk and those for which maps were prepared Unit of Management Number of Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk (1) a) Identified according to Article 5 b) with links to national maps c) with details of maps provided to WISE FHRM information reported at Unit of Management scale (2) b) with links to national maps c) with details of maps provided to WISE Number of other areas with available national FHRM (3) b) with links to national maps PL1000 No significant flood risk areas identified No significant flood risk areas identified PL No No 0 PL3000 No significant flood risk areas identified No significant flood risk areas identified PL4000 No significant flood risk areas identified No significant flood risk areas identified PL5000 No significant flood risk areas identified No significant flood risk areas identified PL No No 0 PL6700 No significant flood risk areas identified No significant flood risk areas identified PL No No 0 PL8000 No significant flood risk areas identified No significant flood risk areas identified PL9000 No significant flood risk areas identified No significant flood risk areas identified Key: a) Article 5 requires the identification of areas of potential significant flood risk (APSFR) based on a new Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment or an existing one. b) Member States were asked to provide links to national web pages or viewers where maps of the flood hazard and flood risk associated with APSFRs could be viewed (column 1). Alternatively or additionally maps could be made available and reported at the level of the Unit of Management (column 2) or at other geographical scales (column 3), c) Member States were asked to provide numeric details (such as source of flooding, numbers of potentially affected inhabitants and types of potential adverse consequences) of the maps associated with the APSFR so that they could be depicted on a European map of flooding. The maps could be reported with the relevant APSFR code (column 1) and/or at the level of the Unit of Management (column 2). In some circumstances, (c) may be greater than (a), for example if additional APSFRs were identified after of 25

4 Content of flood hazard and flood risk maps Note: Not all of the maps prepared by Member States have been examined. Instead a subset was selected and reviewed by designated assessors. The maps for checking were selected on the basis of information provided by Member States with their Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments (PFRAs) in 2012 (where available) and the screening of the maps made available in the LinkToMS schema. The aim was to select a sufficient number of maps to reflect: Potential differences in methodologies, presentation and visualisation of maps between the Units of Management (UoM) within a Member State. Some Member States have a strong national approach, in others there are differences between administrative regions; Differences in sources of floods included in hazard and risk maps. Some APSFRs and UoM are associated with more than one source of flooding whereas others are not. The aim was to check maps associated with all possible types of flood associated with a Member State. For those Member States applying Article 4 and Article 13.1.a the selection of relevant flood types can be informed from the reporting of APSFR in March 2012; Differences in the Articles applied across a Member State and within UoMs. Whilst some Member States have applied only one Article across their whole territory and for all flood types, others have applied different Articles within a UoM and also according to flood types. The application of Article 13.1.b and Article 13.2 by some Member States in at least some of their UoMs. In these cases Member States may have provided UoM codes, other area codes or both: in these cases it was the flood maps associated with the areas that were checked. The objective was to check examples of maps within the linked areas in relation to all potential and relevant sources of flooding and that may have been mapped. Links to national web pages where examples of national maps can be viewed are given below. Question 2 Which types of flood, scenarios, hazard elements and potential adverse consequences have been mapped and visualised? Unit of PL2000 PL2000 PL6000 PL6000 PL7000 Management APSFR code PL_2000_R_ _0004 PL_2000_R_ _0001 PL_6000_R_ _0010 PL_6000_R_ _0077 PL_7000_R_ _0001 The provided link went straight to the APSFR Map located by searching for name of APSFR Source(s) of flooding mapped Mechanism(s) of flooding mapped Characteristic(s) Sea flooding and internal sea waters (1) Natural exceedance, Defence exceedance No information Fluvial Natural exceedance, Defence exceedance Sea flooding and internal sea waters Natural exceedance; defence exceedance 4 of 25 Fluvial Natural exceedance; defence exceedance. Fluvial Natural exceedance, defence exceedance.

5 Unit of PL2000 PL2000 PL6000 PL6000 PL7000 Management APSFR code PL_2000_R_ _0004 PL_2000_R_ _0001 PL_6000_R_ _0010 PL_6000_R_ _0077 PL_7000_R_ _0001 of flooding mapped Linked map available to public Mapped scenarios Floods with a low probability mapped Floods with a medium probability mapped Floods with a No (Sea flooding) (Fluvial) (Sea flooding) high probability mapped Separate maps or layers for each probability scenario Separate maps No or layers for each flood type More than one No No No No No scenario shown on the same Map More than one No No No No No source of flooding shown on the same Map Hazard Elements shown on map Flood extents Water depth Water levels Flow velocities No No No - only for provincial cities and towns with county rights, and also for other towns with a population of over 100,000 people 5 of 25 No

6 Unit of PL2000 PL2000 PL6000 PL6000 PL7000 Management APSFR code PL_2000_R_ _0004 PL_2000_R_ _0001 PL_6000_R_ _0010 PL_6000_R_ _0077 PL_7000_R_ _0001 Relevant water flow Flood Hazard and Flood Risk on the same map Separate maps of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Potential adverse consequences shown on: Number of Inhabitants potentially affected No No - only for provincial cities and towns with county rights, and also for other towns with a population of over 100,000 people No No No No No No No No No No No Human health The community Type and sectors of economic activity Land use Point locations for storage of chemicals, vital networks and services Property Infrastructure Location of Industrial Emissions Directive installations WFD Protected Areas Status of water bodies No No No No No 6 of 25

7 Unit of PL2000 PL2000 PL6000 PL6000 PL7000 Management APSFR code PL_2000_R_ _0004 PL_2000_R_ _0001 PL_6000_R_ _0010 PL_6000_R_ _0077 PL_7000_R_ _0001 Areas vulnerable to floods with high content of transported sediment and debris flow Other significant sources of pollution Cultural Heritage Other useful information Impacts of Climate Change Coastal protection defences in place No No No No No for sea water floods No for sea water floods No No (1) Map shows flooding from the sea, including marine internal waters. It does not mention fluvial floods, but the PL authorities have commented that fluvial floods are in fact shown on this map. Only sea water floods were subject to an assessment within the map of this particular area. Link to national maps: 7 of 25

8 Contextual information provided with maps Question 3 What contextual information was generally provided for each with the maps? Unit of Management PL2000 PL2000 PL6000 PL6000 PL7000 APSFR code PL_2000_R_ _0004 PL_2000_R_ _0001 PL_6000_R_ _0010 PL_6000_R_ _0077 PL_7000_R_ _0001 Contextual information on maps Title: brief description of the map Explanation to the public on how to understand and interpret the flood maps Responsible authority (organisation responsible for the development and publishing of the maps, with contact details) Date of preparation / publication Legend (textual description of symbols, colours, line features, etc.) Purpose of development and intended use Method of development Limitations of map and / or assessment of uncertainty No No No No No Disclaimer (to enforce explanatory information and limitations, and provide legal protection to the responsible authority against adverse consequences of misuse) North and scale: preferably using scale bar as this allows for changes in page size Scope and detail of the explanatory information: should be appropriate to the intended audience 8 of 25

9 Unit of Management PL2000 PL2000 PL6000 PL6000 PL7000 APSFR code PL_2000_R_ _0004 PL_2000_R_ _0001 PL_6000_R_ _0010 PL_6000_R_ _0077 PL_7000_R_ _0001 Intended audience & complexity: Maps intended for public use should be simple and selfexplanatory and include a clear legend, such that as little supporting or explanatory information as possible is required for correct interpretation. 9 of 25

10 Summary of findings from questions 2 and 3. Flood hazard maps were prepared for the following scenarios: Low probability of flooding - 0.2%; Medium probability of flooding - 1%; High probability of flooding - 10% (Poland used Article 6.6 of Floods Directive for the coastal areas and for those only medium and low probability scenarios were prepared); Damage to the levees / flood protection banks (a probability of 1% was used in modelling and construction of the technical zone of the sea coast (a probability of 0.2%). Those values resulted from inter alia the experience of earlier studies on flood protection. Poland was divided into equal sized squares (i.e. a grid) for which they provided maps, suggesting that one map does not cover a single water body boundary. Maps present pretty much all of the required parameters and scenarios and are relatively easy to understand with clear legend. The additional contextual information are included in the Rules on In the portal where maps can be accessed ( ), functions used are explained. Information required is generally presented on maps or listed in the legend (some areas do not have certain businesses / activities but those are still listed in the legend) and these include: Natural exceedance Defence exceedance Flood extents shown Water depth shown Water levels shown Flow velocities shown Relevant water flow shown Hospitals, schools, etc. A number of types and sectors of economic activity are presented (e.g. chemical industry; energy industry, mineral industry, production and processing of minerals, etc.). Land use presented, this includes (e.g. agriculture, industry, grasslands, forests, etc.) Industrial plants from the register of large enterprises with an increased risk of major accidents and other potential sources of contamination are presented Waste management facilities, landfills, factories, cemeteries Natura 2000, landscape parks, nature reserves Infrastructure such as utilities, power generation, transport, storage and communication UNESCO objects, monuments, heritage parks, museums, libraries, archives, etc. Each map has a title that includes information such as return periods, probability / likelihood and specify whether the map is risk or a hazard related and what type of flooding it covers. The National Water Management Board, European Commission, Fund for Environment Protection and Water Management, Institute of Meteorology and Water Management are mentioned in relation to responsible authority. After the assessment had been carried out, the PL authorities clarified that the National Water Management Board is the responsible 10 of 25

11 authority for the development of the maps, while the Institute of Meteorology and Water Management was assigned to draw up the maps. The European Commission and the Fund for Environment Protection and Water Management were mentioned as institutions financing the preparation of the maps. The year of publication of topography and hydrographical data is given. Some symbols are different colours depending on the type of area (e.g. agriculture); also different borders / colours / patterns / line features are used. There is a textual description of symbols. The purpose of development and intended use of maps and method of development are given ( and The maps also have a disclaimer stating that: All rights are reserved. Using the map only to the extent permitted by applicable law. Terms of maps contain rules on the website National Water Management Board. Scale, X,Y coordinates, latitude, meridian and a small part of PL map are all provided which allows the user to understand where they are. However, no north arrow is given (although maps are oriented to the north). Legend and aerial maps are also included. Poland used the same approach in between UoMs. Not all the information is presented on all maps. For example, there are no hospitals in some of the flood risk areas, so they are not marked on those maps, but the symbols in the legend explain how hospitals would be shown. WISE states that the flood hazard maps and flood risk maps show the number of people registered in the area and therefore potentially affected under the flood scenarios. However, this information was not presented on all the maps assessed (even though there were habitable buildings in the area). The instruction referred to in WISE also refers to a number of people in the area; it is stated on the map for Gora Kalwaria that there is no data There was no information on consequences on the status of water bodies and areas vulnerable to floods with a high content of transported sediment and debris flows on the maps assessed. Human health was not specifically presented on maps (such as might arise from pollution or interruption of services related to water supply and treatment, and would include fatalities), but things that could affect human health (e.g. waste management facilities, landfills, factories, cemeteries, etc.) are referred to in the legend. 11 of 25

12 Methodologies used to prepare flood hazard maps Question 4 What methods and relevant information have been used to identify, assess or calculate flooding hazards for the relevant scenarios, and are these compliant with the requirements of the Floods Directive? The sources of flood for which flood hazard maps have been published, or which have been assessed but flood hazard maps have not been published, were: Source of flooding Fluvial Pluvial Coastal Groundwater Artificial water bearing infrastructure Sewerage systems Other (described below if applicable) Published PL2000, PL5000, PL6000, PL7000, PL8000, PL9000 (e.g. Wroclawskie-Pracze Odrzanskie M B-d-3) PL2000,PL6000 (e.g. Leba- Wsch N C-a-4) Hazard assessed but not published Assessed as not being a separate significant source Assessed as not being a separate significant source Assessed as not being a separate significant source Neither published nor assessed Not applicable for any UoMs Not relevant Other: Not relevant Comments Only fluvial and coastal / sea water floods are relevant for Poland: both sources have been mapped, published and assessed. 12 of 25

13 A) Fluvial floods Scenarios mapped or assessed Scenario Return period e.g. 100 years Percentage e.g. 1% Low probability 1 in 500 years 0.2% Medium 1 in 100 years 1% probability High probability 1 in 10 years 10% Decimal e.g Other expression Summary of the information found and in particular any differences between the UoMs in the Member State. Low, medium and high probability maps were prepared. The title explains the return period and provides the percentage value. The sources included are rivers and minor watercourses. Elements mapped or assessed Scenario Flood extent Water Water/flow Other depth/level velocities Low probability e.g. Wroclawskie Odrzanskie M B-d-3 Medium probability e.g. Wroclawskie Odrzanskie M B-d-3 High probability e.g. Wroclawskie Odrzanskie M B-d-3 Summary of the information found and in particular any differences between the UoMs in the Member State. Two-dimensional modelling (or hybrid modelling) that allows for flood velocities and flow directions to be shown was only performed for the provincial cities and towns with county rights and other cities with a population of over 100,000 people. For some areas it was considered by the Poland authorities as not being appropriate (this is consistent with the requirements of the Directive). Two-dimensional modelling was performed for the scenario of damage to the levees / flood protection banks and technical zone of the coast and areas, where the limitations of 1D modelling would directly impact on the outcome. Flow velocities are presented with different colours, as follows: Less than 0.5 m/s m/s, 1-2 m/s. Greater than 2m/s. Water depth: Less than , - 4. Greater than of 25

14 Methods used Since the assessment was completed, the PL authorities have pointed towards a report on developing flood hazard maps and flood risk maps, which contains a more detailed methodology than that reported to WISE. It is available at this website: It has not been possible to assess the contents of this report, but where the report provides additional details on the issues raised in the table below, this has been highlighted. What scenarios were considered and tested in the development of the published maps? What were the reasons for the exclusion or inclusion of certain scenarios for the final published maps? How were return periods and/or probabilities of flooding calculated, for example what was the length of measurement series used in the calculations? How was the most appropriate scale of the map determined? For example, flood maps intended to raise public awareness should enable anyone to find out where there are risks of flooding. Maps for this purpose may have a relatively larger scale e.g. 1: 10,000 to 1: 25,000 compared to those used for national or regional planning purposes (1:100,000 to 1: 500,000). Also the mapping of some hazard features such as flow velocity may require a more detailed scale such as 1:1,000 or 1:5,000. What was the resolution of digital terrain models used to calculate flood hazards? How were existing flood defences taken into account? Scenarios resulted from inter alia the experience of earlier studies on flood protection and were prepared by directors of regional water management boards and finally agreed on stage amendment to the Water Law, transposing the provisions of the Floods Directive. Not much explanation is provided regarding the scenarios considered in first place. Poland prepared preliminary flood risk assessments and those were used as a basis to develop risk and hazard maps. In the preliminary flood risk assessment 253 rivers of a total length of 14,481 km were classified as those at risk and hydraulic modelling was carried out; the remaining areas will be investigated in the second planning cycle. Three scenarios were finally published, low (1 in 500 years); medium (1 in 100 years) and high (1 in 10 years) probability. Additionally, areas with the risk of damage or destruction of a flood barrier or protective structure of the technical zone were shown on the hazard and risk maps. The return period used was 1 in 100 years. Not explicitly mentioned, but legislative aspects referred to. Three scenarios were published, low (1 in 500 years); medium (1 in 100 years) and high (1 in 10 years). Not mentioned. Flood hazard maps and flood risk maps were developed using scale of 1:10,000. Maps were prepared in digital form, including a unified database of spatial and cartographic data at a scale of 1:10,000. The cartographic version includes the following file formats: TIFF, GeoTIFF, and PDF. The cartographic version of maps in PDF format are published on Hydroportalu KZGW at: The modelling process used spatial data acquired by airborne laser scanning, i.e. Digital Terrain Model, the accuracy of the altitude was cm and a Numerical Model Surface Terrain was used. Maps were prepared for flood defences, and damage to flood defences in areas with population over 100,000. Maps contain information on water depth and the speed and 14 of 25

15 How were existing infrastructure or buildings taken into account? What other data sets were used? What are the key assumptions of the method? What were the identified uncertainties in the methods and resultant maps and assessments? What were the shortcomings of the method? What were the advantages of the method? direction of water flow, determining the degree of risk for people and the way water impacts on buildings. Speed and direction of water flow are designated for areas where two-dimensional modelling was performed (over 100,000). Water depth has been determined based on the calculated water table elevation and NMT using ArcGIS software. Buildings do not seem to be referred to in relation to hazard maps, but they are on the risk maps. Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment, MIKE (hydraulic modelling), velocity data (30 years of flow monitoring), Digital Terrain Model, max flow levels during 2010 flooding were used. Flow data (at least 30 years period). For the purpose of maps new hydrological data were developed, taking into account the peak flows that occurred during the flood of Information about limitations was not provided. There is some mention in methodology, to explain to the general public the return period, but it is only generally stated that this is statistical calculation. Not mentioned. Not mentioned. 15 of 25

16 B) Pluvial floods Note: Pluvial floods are not applicable in Poland so no maps have been published. C) Coastal floods Scenarios mapped or assessed Scenario Return period e.g. 100 years Percentage e.g. 1% Low probability 1 in 500 years 0.2% Medium 1 in 100 years 1% probability High probability N/A N/A Decimal e.g Other expression Summary of the information found and in particular any differences between the UoMs in the Member State. Medium and low probability maps were prepared. The title explains the return period and provides the percentage value. No high probability maps were produced for areas assessed. The PL authorities have explained that this is because there is an adequate level of protection. Elements mapped or assessed Scenario Flood extent Water depth/level Water/flow velocities Low probability No Medium No probability High probability No No No Other Summary of the information found and in particular any differences between the UoMs in the Member State. For coastal areas of flood hazard maps have been limited to the scenario of low and medium probability of flooding. The scenario of high probability of flooding was not executed due to ensured proper protection of the area of the coast. To maintain the adequate protection for the coastal areas a number of programmes, plans and laws on coastal protection were prepared. The concept of the coastal belt that includes a zone of mutual direct impact of sea and land was used. Technical Belt is an area designed to maintain the edge that it complies with the requirements of safety and environmental protection. As a result, along the Polish coast, the storm surges is 10% likelihood of flooding and areas that can be flooded only includes beaches and sometimes foot of the dunes, the shores of internal waters and parts of the coast, which should be flooded due to environmental considerations. The entire length of the coastline (including the seaports and harbours) is fully protected against flooding from the sea of the probability of 5%. Places where flood water will overtop flood defence, height of flood defence and water depth (less than 0.5, 0.5-2, 2-4, greater than 4) were shown on the maps. Methods used Since the assessment was completed, the PL authorities have pointed towards a report on developing flood hazard maps and flood risk maps, which contains a more detailed methodology than that reported to WISE. It is available at this website: 16 of 25

17 It has not been possible to assess the contents of this report, but where the report provides additional details on the issues raised in the table below, this has been highlighted. What scenarios were considered and tested in the development of the published maps? What were the reasons for the exclusion or inclusion of certain scenarios for the final published maps? How were return periods and/or probabilities of flooding calculated, for example what was the length of measurement series used in the calculations? How was the most appropriate scale of the map determined? For example, flood maps intended to raise public awareness should enable anyone to find out where there are risks of flooding. Maps for this purpose may have a relatively larger scale e.g. 1: 10,000 to 1: 25,000 compared to those used for national or regional planning purposes (1:100,000 to 1: 500,000). Also the mapping of some hazard features such as flow velocity may require a more detailed scale such as 1:1,000 or 1:5,000. The scenarios resulted from, inter alia, the experience of earlier studies on flood protection and were prepared by directors of regional water management boards and finally agreed in amendments to the Water Law, transposing the provisions of the Floods Directive. WISE states that for coastal areas of flood hazard, maps have been limited to the scenario of low and medium probability of flooding. Maps assessed have both low and medium probability. For coastal areas, flood hazard maps have been limited to the scenario of low and medium probability of flooding. The scenario of high probability of flooding was not executed due to ensured proper protection of the coast. To maintain the adequate protection for the coastal areas a number of programs, plans and laws on coastal protection were prepared The concept of the coastal belt that includes a zone of mutual direct impact of sea and land was used. Technical Belt is an area designed to maintain the edge that it complies with the requirements of safety and environmental protection. As a result, along the PL coast, the storm surges is 10% likelihood of flooding and areas that can be flooded only includes, only beaches and sometimes foot of the dunes, and along the shores of internal waters only thoseand parts of the coast, which should be flooded due to environmental considerations. The entire length of the sea coast (including the seaports and harbours) is fully protected against flooding from the sea of the probability of 5%. Not explicitly mentioned, but legislative aspects referred to. Two scenarios were published, low (1 in 500 years) and medium (1 in 100 years). Same answer as fluvial flooding, but clear reference to coastal flooding was not given. The description is general. 17 of 25

18 What was the resolution of digital terrain models used to calculate flood hazards? How were existing flood defences taken into account? How were existing infrastructure or buildings taken into account? What other data sets were used? What are the key assumptions of the method? What were the identified uncertainties in the methods and resultant maps and assessments? What were the shortcomings of the method? What were the advantages of the method? Same answer as fluvial flooding, but clear reference to coastal flooding was not given. The description is general. Same answer as fluvial flooding, but clear reference to coastal flooding was not given. The description is general. Same answer as fluvial flooding, but clear reference to coastal flooding was not given. The description is general. Same answer as fluvial flooding, but clear reference to coastal flooding was not given. The description is general. Same answer as fluvial flooding, but clear reference to coastal flooding was not given. The description is general. Same answer as fluvial flooding, but clear reference to coastal flooding was not given. The description is general. Not mentioned. Not mentioned. 18 of 25

19 D) Groundwater floods Note: Groundwater flood hazards are not considered to be significant in Poland so no maps have been published. E) Floods from Artificial Water Bearing Infrastructure Note: Floods from Artificial Water Bearing Infrastructure are not applicable in Poland so no maps have been published. F) Floods from sewerage systems Note: Floods from sewerage systems are not applicable in Poland so no maps have been published. G). Other types of floods Note: Other types of floods were not reported. Methodologies used to prepare flood risk maps Question 5 What methods and relevant information have been used to prepare flood risk maps? Which potential adverse consequences are reported and how have they been identified and presented in flood risk maps? a) Risk to human health Human health was not specifically presented on maps (such as might arise from pollution or interruption of services related to water supply and treatment, and would include fatalities), but things that could affect human health (e.g. waste management facilities, landfills, factories, cemeteries, etc.) are referred to in the legend. WISE gives the following methodology: The number of people was determined based on the address information from the databases of Objects Topographic Data Base and Social Security Number; to achieve that spatial layer address points were linked to the number of people registered in a specific building. (this was not shown on all the maps assessed, due to lack of data e.g. Gora Kalwaria). The residential buildings and objects of particular social importance, for which the water depth is less than or equal to 2 m and the objects for which the water depth is greater than 2 m were presented. The water depth limit of 2 m, was adopted in connection with accepted ranges of water depth and their impact on the degree of threat to the population and buildings. Objects of particular social importance shown on flood risk maps (also those assessed for the purpose of this work) are: hospitals, schools, kindergartens, nurseries, hotels, shopping centres, homes and social care facilities, hospices, prisons, correctional facilities, detention centres, police and fire stations. [Source: WISE, FD.9.0 FHRM D.1 - Human health] No further information was provided. 19 of 25

20 b) Risk to economic activity In WISE economic activities were defined by the following land use: Residential areas (this includes different types of properties and also infrastructure between them, for example, block of flats and playgrounds, parks, green spaces, courtyards, porches, buildings, livestock, land development commercial, ecclesiastical, public administration, etc.); Industrial areas (this includes industrial and warehouse buildings, land for technical equipment or structures, waste disposal areas, heap, excavations, pit voids, other areas of industry and components); Communication areas (e.g. roads, track, paved roads, airports,, squares of pavement hard and without surface); Forests (includes forests, coppice, greenwood and nurseries); Farmland: arable land (arable land includes areas occupied by plants, field crops and orchards), grassland (includes meadows and pastures); Recreational areas (this includes mainly allotments, areas for sports and recreation centres, complexes, holiday homes, parks, green spaces in urban areas including lawns, botanical and zoological gardens, camping;); Water; or Other areas (include shrubs or wooded areas, areas of exposed land). These comprise a comprehensive list of all the areas. In addition, the buildings shown on the flood risk maps are assigned a specific function, which also shows the type of business activity. Industrial plants are divided according to the category of activities: energy, production and processing of metals, mineral, chemical, waste management and other activities (production and processing of paper and wood, intensive farming or rearing of poultry and pigs, production and processing of raw materials of plant and animal) in accordance with the division of Annex 1 to the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2010/75 / EU of 24 November 2010, on industrial emissions - IED. The information is visualized either using symbols, different colours for different types of area, also different borders colours/patterns- line features and contextual description of symbols. [Source: WISE FD.9.0 FHRM D.2 - Economic activity] No further information was provided. c) Risk to Installations covered by the requirements of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) or previously under the IPPC Directive Factories are presented on maps and are split by categories of activity in accordance with Annex 1 to the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2010/75 / EU of 24 November 2010., On industrial emissions - IED: energy, production and processing of metals, mineral, chemicals, waste management and other activities (production and processing of paper and wood, intensive farming or rearing of poultry and pigs, production and processing of raw materials of plant and animal). [Source: WISE FD.9.0 FHRM D.3 - Installations covered by the Industrial Emissions Directive] No further information was provided. 20 of 25

21 d) Risk to WFD protected areas WISE states that maps of flood risk and hazard areas are shown for each scenario for protected areas (as referred to in point 1 of Annex IV to Directive 2000/60 / EC (in accordance with Article 6.5c Floods Directive)). Areas taken into account: The recognition of surface water and groundwater and water protection zones, including areas designated for the abstraction of water intended for human consumption in accordance with paragraph (i); the use maps at the national level also includes recognition for the abstraction of water for other purposes than those specified in (i), Bathing waters designated under Directive 76/160EEC in accordance with subparagraph (iii); Areas for the protection of habitats and species - appropriate position within Natura 2000 designated under Directive 92/43 / EEC and Directive 79/409 / EEC, in accordance with paragraph (v). [Source: FD.9.0 FHRM D.4 - Areas Protected under the Water Framework Directive] No further information was provided. e) Other consequences considered For each flood scenario, flood risk is defined as potential loss in different land uses (residential, industrial and communication areas) and are shown on the maps in [zł / m 2 ] units. In calculating the potential losses in those land uses, the effect of the depth of flooding on the value of the losses in the area is taken into account. For other classes of land use, the constant value is applied, regardless of the depth of water due to the small effect of the depth of water on the losses in the area. The method for calculating the value of potential flood losses has been defined in the Regulation on the development of flood hazard maps and flood risk maps (available at: Areas and objects included on flood risk maps are as follows: cultural heritage, including areas and historical buildings, in particular those covered by the UNESCO World Heritage regulations, open-air museums and museums listed in the National Register of Museums, libraries with collections of the national library resources and national archives. For the potential outbreak due to water pollution, those were considered: sewage treatment plants, pumping stations, landfills, cemeteries. [Source: WISE FD.9.0 FHRM D.5 - Other relevant considerations] No further information was provided. 21 of 25

22 Justification for applying Article 6.6 Question 6 What are the justifications for applying Article 6.6 (coastal areas), if applied, and how has it been determined that an adequate level of protection is in place against coastal floods? For what probability were hazard maps prepared for coastal flooding? For what flooding probabilities were the existing flood defences considered to be adequate? Was the risk of failure of existing flood defences assessed? Was the risk of overtopping of existing flood defences assessed? Was the level of protection determined to be adequate in terms of: people potentially affected different types of economic activities in the areas potentially affected potential adverse consequences in relation to IED installations Potentially affected protected areas identified under the WFD Elements of cultural heritage that might be potentially affected Other potential consequences (if yes, described below) For coastal areas flood hazard maps were limited to the scenario of low and medium probability of flooding. The scenario of high probability of flooding was not executed due to ensured proper protection of the area of the coast Damage to the levees / flood protection banks (when determining those areas the flow of the probability of occurrence of 1% was included) and construction of the technical zone of the sea coast (flow probabilities of 0.2%). Those values resulted from inter alia the experience of earlier studies on flood protection. No information No information Summary of the information reported and in particular any differences between UoMs in the Member State. Poland prepared maps for low and medium scenarios for coastal areas. In WISE PL states that Article 6.6 is applied to the Odra and Vistula RBDs (the other RBDs do not extend to coastal waters). For the Vistula and Odra RBDs PL explains that flood hazard maps have been limited to the scenario of low and medium probability of flooding. It is not clear why PL states the application of Article 6.6, since the application of this article only requires maps for floods with a low probability, or extreme event scenarios, not medium scenarios. Explanation given by PL is vague and only states why high probability flooding maps were not executed (adequate protection of the area of the coast for more information see question 4). Coastal floods maps do not include information on the level of protection determined to be adequate in terms of people potentially affected, but these are referred to in the methodology, but not presented on maps. The maps include information on the different types of economic activity, consequences in relation to IED installations, protected areas and cultural heritage. No further detail was provided. The scope of information on flood risk maps for seawater flooding is the same as for the fluvial floods. 22 of 25

23 [Source: FD.9.0 FHRM B - Application of Article 6.6] Justification for applying Article 6.7 Article 6(7) has not been applied in any UoM in Poland (source: WISE Flood report: FD.9.0 FHRM C - Application of Article 6.7). Application of Article 13.1.b in accordance with requirements of the Floods Directive Note: Article 13.1.b has not been applied in any UoM in Poland (source: WISE Flood report FD.1.1 Specific Areas to which each Article has been applied.) Compliance of the use of Article 13.2 with the requirements of Article 6 Article. 13.(2) has not been applied in any UoM in Poland (Source: WISE Floods summary reports: FD.9.0 FHRM G - Use of Article 13.2) 23 of 25

24 Information exchanged between Member States and the preparation of coherent maps in international RBDs or UoMs Question 10 How has it been ensured that there was prior information exchange on the production of maps between Member States sharing international RBDs or UoMs, and how was it ensured that coherent maps were produced between the relevant Member States? The number of cross border Units of Management with shared flood risk areas in this Member State International UoMs within PL2000, PL6000, PL7000 reported in WISE. Summary of the information reported and in particular any differences between UoMs in the Member State. Poland reported information exchange between Slovakia, Ukraine, Czech, Germany and Russian Federation. In PL2000 international exchange of information with Slovakia is within the framework of the meetings of the Polish-Slovak Commission for Transboundary co-operation. No significant risks were identified in Dunajec catchment and the exchange of data and materials for the development of flood hazard maps was not necessary. Poland exchanges information with Ukraine as part of a cooperation agreement in the field of water management in transboundary waters. Poland requested data (acquisition in the field of surveying river crosssections and DTM) in connection with the development of flood hazard maps for the River Bug. The permit was not granted (from both Belarus and Ukraine) and risk maps were developed using data from the previous (LPIS) project. There were some further talks (e.g. starting in March 2000, but negotiation were suspended in 2006 and again resumed in 2013), but the agreement still has not been reached. In PL 6000 the exchange of information in Odra catchment area takes place in the framework of the International Commission for the Protection of the Oder by Pollution (MKOOpZ), Polish- German Committee on Boundary Waters and the Polish-Czech Intergovernmental Commission for the CBC on boundary waters. In PL7000 the co-operation with the Russian Federation in the field of water management is based on the 1964 Agreement between the Government of the Polish People's Republic and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This Agreement should be automatically renewed for a fixed period of 5 years, but there is no willingness from the Russian side to implement it. [Source: WISE FD.9.0 FHRM E - Coordination of the preparation of flood hazard and flood risk maps international Units of Management] 24 of 25

25 Consideration of climate change impacts in the preparation of the maps Question 11 How has climate change been taken into account when the flood hazard scenarios were identified? Climate change was not explicitly mentioned in Poland s reporting to the Commission on its methodologies for developing the flood hazard and risk maps. However, after the assessment was completed, the PL authorities explained that climate change had indeed been taken into account in the development of the sea water flood maps. The table and paragraphs below are completed on the basis of this additional information provided by the Polish authorities. Climate change has been taken into account For which sources of flooding For low probability scenario For medium probability scenario For high probability scenario Climate change trend scenarios have been obtained from the IPCC or other international sources Climate change trend scenarios have been obtained from the national research programmes Flood hazard scenarios are based on modelling of changes in flood hazard in relation to climate change Flood hazard scenarios included trend analysis of historical data of hydrological and meteorological observations Flood hazard scenarios included a statistical assessment of historical climate data Sea water No No No Summary of how climate change has been taken into account in the production of flood hazard maps, and highlight any differences between UoMs in the Member State Climate change has been taken into account in the development of the sea water flood maps. An increase in sea level along the Polish Baltic coast caused by climate change was included in the formula for calculating water level with a specified exceedance probability. For flood hazard maps, the increase for the years amounting to 5 cm was taken into account. The methodology made use of results from the CLIMATE project, which in turn makes use of scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). More information about the CLIMATE project is available at 25 of 25