Background to the PFRA European Overview UC10508

Transcription

1 26 vember 2014 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: ES - Spain Date that the assessment was completed: 26 vember 2014 Information reported and assessed The schemas for electronically reporting/making information available to the Commission were filled in entirely with a wealth of information. Spain made available links to its national flood risk and flood hazard maps for all 25 of its units of management (UoM). Very 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 for all UoMs, and links to other relevant information on the preparation of the maps were also 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. Supplementary information has been provided by the ES authorities in April 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: Most of the Spanish portals provide specific and detailed information on flood hazard scenarios and risks. Though the information is only slowly being integrated in the National portal, it aims to become a robust portal, accessible for all type of users, with interesting additional help functions. Most of the portals allow the combination of information with other topics, either from cadastre or the WFD RBMPs or monitoring networks - though it has to be recognised that several of these information options remain blank. b) Weaknesses: Most of the Spanish portals have limited appeal and usefulness for potentially interested users (they currently focus more on the exchange with technicians from other administrative bodies than providing information to the interested public/individuals). This is mainly due to the functionalities/ navigation. 1 of 27

2 26 vember 2014 With regards to the functionalities and usability of the portals, most of them provide different layers that can be selected. Though this system is a good approach, the technical jargon used, the difficulty to access and the practical absence of support to users place numerous obstacles to the potential users. It is highly recommended to provide either more support functions, or to better link the portals with the administrative websites; eventually "FAQs" could be developed so to guide users through the process of selection layers and clicking icons. Information on the flood sources, mechanisms and characteristics is not always displayed (e.g. Regional-ES014) as supposed to be developed for the APSFRs and according to the Floods Directive. The information on risks is complete on the effects of floods on population, economy, environment or cultural heritage (in particular for the National SNCZI; in most of the portals complementary information can be clicked by pop-up boxes which are usually full of acronyms and abbreviations and hence difficult to understand for non-technicians. additional information on, for example, flood evacuation ways or similar, is provided. In general, no information is provided on the dates when the assessments have been carried out or when updates are scheduled - within the screening, no information post-2012 has been found, and in some RBDs (e.g. ES080) the latest floods were reported from 2009, despite more recent flood events. As the ES authorities have informed subsequently, updates are foreseen for c) Lessons to be learnt: The information on FHRM is being made accessible stepwise to the public, thus showing an increased usefulness of the portals. This is also applicable to help tools, such as pop-up boxes or a planned video. Though such an approach allows to improve the tools and incorporate e.g. user requests in FAQs or videos, it can be confusing for portal users (when visiting the portal, no information is displayed on the status of the portal, e.g. information imports that are finished, ongoing or planned). A more transparent approach might be useful. Though technicians understand the jargon of the Floods Directive and the portals, this is difficult for other non-technical users, like e.g. house owners eventually located in a flood area. On the other hand, as informed by the Spanish authorities subsequently, only in February 2015, APSFRs layers were consulted more than 13,000 times and flood-prone areas layers, more than 150,000. Floodprone areas layers are the most consulted layers of those provide by the Ministry in the whole geoportal. The Spanish authorities might want to investigate further on the usefulness of the information provided for current and potential portal users (e.g. surveys, feedback options) to ensure all of them experience a useful portal visit in the future. Finally, timely-generated information on climate change is needed to take into consideration climate change effects within the FRMPs. For the first planning cycle, it seems that this has only very partially been considered, and the approach should be improved for further planning cycles and flood risk management. d) Questions seeking clarification from Member State: 1 - Can ES confirm that no information about population data is included within the flood risk map layers of the SNCZI, or otherwise provide the specific ways to identify this information in the National portals? The ES Authorities subsequently confirmed (and provided examples) that all the flood risk maps for both fluvial and coastal flooding show information on the population potentially affected. 2 - Can ES confirm that no Flood hazard maps showing the extension (and water depth) of the floods are included in the National SNCZI portal, or otherwise provide the specific ways to identify this 2 of 27

3 26 vember 2014 information in the different portals? In the National portal there appears only to be a small line, which appears to be incorrect. The ES Authorities stated that the National SNCZI ( portal provides the information about Floods Directive for Spain, though the upload of information is still taking place until Summer Currently some FHRM indicate only the river stretch as a line, but full information on extend and depth will be available Can ES clarify if any and which "help functions" are being provided by the different portals? Are FAQs available to guide users through the portal's functionalities? The ES Authorities provided details on the help function and user guides available through the map portals. The viewer associated with the portals include links to general navigation support; tutorials n flood hazard and flood risk maps; explanatory text; 25 downloadable help documents on the GIS layers dealing with the Floods Directive; query functions; and, training courses for specific users such as Civil Protection Authorities. With the objective of raising public awareness, there will be continued work to improve the information available and its accessibility. 4 - Can ES clarify which is the scale of the maps of the Regional portals of the Basque Country and Galicia (e.g. when the portal starts, and the maximum legible scale)? How is this information displayed to the user? The ES Authorities subsequently confirmed that in the Galicia-Costa portal there is no legible scale but a scale would be incorporated in the near future. In the case of the Basque Country portal, a dynamic graphical scale is displayed on the map and this varies as a function of the related zoom. It is also shown when printing a particular map of interest. 5 - Can ES clarify if the information contained in "overlapping" portals (e.g. ES014 (Galicia - National), ES017 (National - Pais Vasco); ES091 (Ebro - País Vasco)) is fully coherent? Are, for example, the studies undertaken in ES091 for the Ebro portal and the País Vasco portal, the same, or have different studies with eventually different results been developed? The ES Authorities subsequently confirmed that the information is fully coherent and that there was only one study in the overlapping area. 6 - Can ES clarify when, how often and how the maps/layers will be updated? It has been noticed that some RBDs refer to the most recent events in 2008, 2009 or 2011; no information from 2013 or 2014 has been found. Will any information on these updates been displayed? How will the users know which information is (still) valid? The ES Authorities have stated that in accordance with Article 14 of the Foods Directive, the flood hazard maps and the flood risk maps shall be reviewed, and if necessary updated, by 22 December 2019 and every six years thereafter. Maps displaying information about a single (recent) flood event complement existing information but they are not Floods Directive maps. The information obtained and the lessons learnt from the latest flood events are being used to calibrate hydraulic models used in the preparation of maps. All information in the national official viewers under the Floods Directive and all the information provided are valid and updated. The successive updating replaces previous information in a way that the information available for the public through the viewer is always updated, official and valid. 7 - The PDF links reported/provided for ES040 refer only to step 1 of the FD, the PFRA; is updated information also available at the RBA level or shall only the National SNCZI be consulted? The ES Authorities acknowledged that this was an error and the links have been updated. 3 of 27

4 26 vember Within the screening assessment of the Cantabrian portal, it has been impossible to access the flood hazard maps via selecting the selection tools (linear, area). Can further guidance be provided for an appropriate proceeding? The ES Authorities indicated that work is underway to include FHRM in the Cantabrian portal but for the moment, the FHRM are available as PDF files. 4 of 27

5 26 vember 2014 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? Several UoMs (ES018, ES040, ES060, ES063, ES064, ES070, ES110) have reported a grouping of previously foreseen APSFRs (FD.9.0 FHRM A - Methodologies used to prepare flood hazard maps). further reasons have been reported for any non-inclusion. The ES Authorities subsequently provided clarification of the changes in the APSFR identified by the PFRA and those subsequently mapped. In some cases it has been considered appropriate to increase the number of APSFRs (leading to an increase in numbers), especially those due to coastal flooding, while others have been grouped together (leading to a decrease in numbers). 5 of 27

6 26 vember 2014 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 ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES 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 27

7 26 vember 2014 Content of flood hazard and flood risk maps te: t all of the maps prepared by Member States have been examined. Instead a subset was selected and reviewed by designated assessors, covering the National portal and the different regional or river-basin-district portals. 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. 7 of 27

8 26 vember 2014 Question 2 Which types of flood, scenarios, hazard elements and potential adverse consequences have been mapped and visualised? National portal - SNCZI Regional RBD portals RBD portals Unit of management ES050 ES014 ES017 ES018 ES091 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) 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 high probability mapped. Users browse through the viewer to select the APSFR they are interested in. 6 options to select: Fluvial, Fluvial-Pluvial, Fluvial- Seawater, Fluvial- Groundwater, Seawater, Pluvial. The portal offers two GIS layers named "APSFR" and "coastal APSFR" though no information is provided on their differences (it can be assumed that it is either due to their localisation or source of flooding). way has been identified to access an APSFR by a search function (limited to province, municipality and UoM). APSFR codes appear only if the user clicks with the "i" button on one area, and then a small box shows mainly administrative information. Finally, the portal offers several entries to "flood areas": a) fluvial flood areas "under consultation", b) coastal flood areas under consultation, and c) flood areas. Meanwhile a) and b) include additional (activated) layers showing the extent of the floods under different scenarios, this information is not provided for the layers under c). The ES Authorities clarified that areas include in c) above are flood-prone areas in stretches that are not classified as APSFR. These flood-prone areas are very important to the general management of the river basin, Fluvial, Coastal Fluvial information given for fluvial. Natural exceedance ne ne information given ne ne ne information ne given In progress, only available as PDF maps (1) In progress, only available as PDF maps Should be included by May 2015 (1) (1) In progress, only available as PDF maps (1) 8 of 27

9 26 vember 2014 National portal - SNCZI Regional RBD portals RBD portals Unit of management ES050 ES014 ES017 ES018 ES091 Separate maps or layers for each probability scenario Separate maps or layers for each flood type More than one scenario shown on the same Map More than one source of flooding shown on the same Map Hazard Elements shown on map Flood extents Water depth two categories: fluvial/pluvial or coastal (1) (1) (1) (1) In progress, only available as PDF maps (1) In progress, only available as PDF maps (1) Water levels (1) Flow velocities (1) Relevant water flow (1) Flood Hazard and Flood (1) Risk on the same map Separate maps of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Potential adverse consequences shown on: Number of Inhabitants In progress, potentially affected only available as PDF maps (1) Human health (1) (1) The community (1) (1) Type and sectors of economic activity Land use In progress, only available as PDF maps (1) In progress, only available as PDF maps 9 of 27

10 26 vember 2014 National portal - SNCZI Regional RBD portals RBD portals Unit of management ES050 ES014 ES017 ES018 ES091 Point locations for storage of chemicals, vital networks and services In progress, only available as PDF maps (1) Property (1) Infrastructure Location of Industrial Emissions Directive installations WFD Protected Areas Status of water bodies Areas vulnerable to floods with high content of transported sediment and debris flow Other significant sources of pollution In progress, only available as PDF maps (1) * (1) In progress, only available as PDF maps (1) In progress, only available as PDF maps (1) In progress, only available as PDF maps (1) (1) (1) Cultural Heritage Other useful information Impacts of Climate Change (1) Coastal protection defences in place (1) N/A Link to national maps: Links to Regional maps: (Galicia, ES014) and (Basque Country, ES017). Links to River Basin District maps: (Cantabrian RBD, ES017 and ES018) and (Ebro RBD, ES091). The assessment in plain text is from the original checking of the national maps on-line (1) Indicates the subsequent statement from the ES Authorities on which elements are included on the checked maps. 10 of 27

11 26 vember 2014 Contextual information provided with maps Question 3 What contextual information was generally provided with the maps? Unit of Management National Regional River Basin District ES050 ES014 ES017 ES018 ES091 APSFR code 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 Disclaimer (to enforce explanatory information and limitations, and provide legal protection to the responsible authority against adverse consequences of misuse) rth 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 Intended audience & complexity: Maps intended for public use should be simple and self-explanatory and include a clear legend, such that as little supporting or explanatory information as possible is required for correct interpretation. The assessment in plain text is from the original checking of the national maps on-line (1) Indicates the subsequent statement from the ES Authorities on which elements are included on the checked maps. 11 of 27

12 26 vember 2014 Summary of findings from questions 2 and 3. There is one overall National portal (SNCZI) to maps that will provide a homogeneous viewer for the whole country. In parallel, some RBDs and some regions have opted for presenting the results in their own portals (as required under the Floods Directive, including information on scenarios, hazard elements and quantitative information on the potential adverse consequences). This leads to a result where for some RBDs/regions all information is available, and for others not, but the National portal will cover, in a near future, the whole territory. In this moment, April 2015, the ES authorities have already incorporated the complete information on coastal flooding and also that information regarding fluvial flooding in most of the RBDs (18 out of 25) and in some months all the information for the whole territory will be included. Additionally, the RBAs show the FHRM in their websites, in pdf files or in viewers. For some areas (e.g.es091 (Ebro - País Vasco), there are 2 regional detailed portals available, with coherent information. Regarding the types of floods, all those reported in the selection of WISE have been identified within the SNCZI (the National portal that covers all Spain). Pluvial floods are considered together fluvial floods. There is only a groundwater flood APSR in ES014. general contextual information (e.g. brief description of the map, including its content and/or purpose) is provided in the portals. Some information is available within the administration s websites that link to the Portals 1. Increasingly explanation is given to the public on how to understand and interpret the flood maps. The ES Authorities subsequently stated that the National portal offers explanations to the public on how to understand and interpret the flood maps. ( ), In general the responsible authority is only identified by a logo (with different detail of resolution; note in ES014 there are three logos on the portal). Some portals offer contact details for direct questions, others (e.g. ES014) refer to the overall Regional administrative information portal. The date of preparation/publication of the information is absent in almost all portals (except ES017-Basque Country), and is also not contained in the fiches of the National SNCZI. information is provided on updates - within the screening, no information post-2012 has been found, and in some RBDs (e.g. ES080) the latest floods were reported from 2009, despite more recent flood events. Consequently it can be inferred that the information is not being updated on a regular basis. The ES Authorities subsequently stated that the National Portal shows, for each flood-prone area, as an attribute of the flood-prone area, information about the authorities, the data of the map, the flow, the hydrological and hydraulics models, the DTM resolution, etc. All portals include some sort of legend that appears on the screen when clicking or pointing certain elements. Only one portal (ES014: provides a disclaimer to enforce explanatory information and limitations, and provide legal protection to the responsible authority against adverse consequences of misuse). In general, there is no information on the targeted audience; only the Ministry s website refers to the SNCZI as "an instrument to support the management of the riverine areas, risk prevention, land-use management and administrative transparency, to allow all interested parties to visualize the studies of the definition of the public riverine domain and the mapping exercise of floodable areas". For a non-expert in technical portals and this knowledge area, 1 e.g of 27

13 26 vember 2014 much of the available information is not easy to understand. This is either due to the functionalities/ navigation or the information displayed. Concerning the functionalities and usability of the portals, most of them provide different layers that can be selected. Though this system is a good approach, the technical jargon used, the difficulty to access and the practical absence of support to users place numerous obstacles to the potential users. It is highly recommended to provide either more support functions, or to better link the portals with the administrative websites; eventually "FAQs" could be developed so to guide users through the process of selection layers and clicking icons. All other portals looked at do provide this information. Other information on the flood sources, mechanisms and characteristics is not always displayed (e.g. Regional-ES014). The information on risks is complete in most of the portals complementary information can be clicked by pop-up boxes, usually full of acronyms and abbreviations). additional information on, for example, flood evacuation ways or similar, is provided. On the positive side, it should be noted that most of the portals allow combining information with other topics, from either cadastre or the WFD RBMPs or monitoring networks Finally, it has not been possible to check in detail if the information contained in "overlapping" portals (e.g. ES014 (Galicia - National), ES017 (National - Pais Vasco); ES091 (Ebro - País Vasco)) is fully coherent, for example, if the studies undertaken and results are the same. However, the ES Authorities have subsequently stated that the information in overlapping portals is coherent. 13 of 27

14 26 vember 2014 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 Published ES010, ES014,ES017, ES018, ES020, ES040, ES060, ES063, ES064, ES070, ES080, ES091, ES100, ES120, ES122, ES123, ES124, ES125, ES126, ES127, ES150, ES160 ES010, ES091(both combined with fluvial), ES050,ES064 ES010, ES014, ES017, ES018, ES040, ES050, ES060, ES063, ES064, ES070, ES080, ES091, ES100, ES110, ES , ES150, ES160 Hazard assessed but not published Neither published nor assessed - ES030, ES050, ES110 t relevant - - All other UoMs - ES030, ES020. (these RBDs do not have coastal areas) Groundwater ES All other UoMs Artificial water bearing infrastructure ES091 Unclear which UoMs Unclear which UoMs - Sewerage systems Other (described below if applicable) Other: t relevant Comments - - Included in fluvial and pluvial floods te that there are several maps that were under consultation or were still under development (coastal, fluvial). te that no information has officially been provided on the flood sources not being relevant for different UoMs and that the assessor has made a (subjective) evaluation based on the available data. The ES authorities subsequently stated that by vember 2014, all information about coastal flooding was published, and for 20 out of 25 of RBDs for fluvial Flooding. In December of 27

15 26 vember 2014 fluvial flood maps were published for RBDs ES150 and ES160. Fluvial FHRM for ES030 and ES050 are due to be published in May 2015, and fluvial FHRM for ES110 will be published before the summer. A) Fluvial floods Scenarios mapped or assessed Scenario Return period e.g. 100 years Low probability 500 Medium 100 probability High probability 10 Percentage e.g. 1% Decimal e.g Other expression Summary of the information found and in particular any differences between the UoMs in the Member State. Two different approaches have been applied in the Spanish UoMs. The majority of UoMs have applied three scenarios, with high (10 years return period), medium (100 year) and low (500 year) probability. In two UoMs (ES017 and ES018) the high probability scenario refers to a different time period (less than 100 years, without further explanation). In some UoMs (ES014, ES ) only two scenarios (100 years, 500 years) have been assessed. (Source FD.9.0 FHRM F - Explanation of maps). The ES Authorities subsequently added that in ES014, the RBA has now published FHRM with a 10 year return period scenario. Elements mapped or assessed Scenario Flood extent Water depth/level Water/flow velocities Low probability Medium probability High probability Other Summary of the information found and in particular any differences between the UoMs in the Member State. Regarding the flood extent and water depth, there is a different approach for the portals. By the time of the assessment, the National SNCZI did not provide yet either one nor other for most of the UoMs but instead a simple line (more or less) following the water body considered as flood source. Within the Regional (Basque Country covering partially UoMs ES017 and ES091) or RBD (ES014, ES091) portals, information on both elements is provided. The ES authorities subsequently clarified that regarding the flood extent and water depth in the National SNCZI, there are different formats: Shapefiles as polygons for flood prone areas. Raster files for water depth. The same situation applies for the Regional (Basque Country covering partially UoMs ES017 and ES091) or RBD (ES014, ES091) portals, information on both elements is provided. 15 of 27

16 26 vember 2014 Methods used 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 4? What was the resolution of digital terrain models (DTM) used to calculate flood hazards? All UoMs refer to the methodology (fluvial) described in Guía Metodológica para el desarrollo del Sistema Nacional de Cartografía de Zonas Inundables (the index is downloadable for free 2 and the guidance document can be acquired at the Ministry s bookshop) (Source: FD.9.0 FHRM A - Methodologies used to prepare flood hazard maps and website). further information on the testing has been provided. Two different approaches have been applied in the Spanish UoMs. The majority of UoMs have applied three scenarios, with high (10 years; if relevant), medium (100 year) and low (500 year) probability. In some UoMs (ES ) only two scenarios (100 years, 500 years) have been assessed. (Source FD.9.0 FHRM F - Explanation of maps) information found in the reported information. The ES authorities subsequently stated that because of the special characteristics in the Canary Islands, the RBAs in ES have decided not to produce the 10 year scenario. First, geomorphological and historical information was compiled to identify evidence of floods. In parallel, hydrological.-hydraulic studies associated to different scenarios were developed, based on previous studies, the Maximum Flow Map ( Mapa de Caudales Máximos 3 ) for subbasins larger than 50 km 2 and extrapolation to basins between 1 and 50 km 2 ), plus new hydrological studies, and dam releases. (Source FD.9.0 FHRM F - Explanation of maps). Historical runoff series arising from the national flow gauging network were included, in some case from 1911, and were included in a regional study by CEDEX In addition specific studies were carried out in several sub-basins (e.g. ES017) (Source: FD.9.0 FHRM A - Methodologies used to prepare flood hazard maps). further information has been provided.. The maps provided within the SNCZI and other portals are digital, thus not linked to any specific scale. (Source FD.9.0 FHRM F - Explanation of maps). Some other information (e.g. for public consultation) includes different scales, but no information on the reasoning has been found. The largest scale starts usually at the National or RBD/regional level, and allows the user to zoom in to about 1:1,000 or 1:1,500. The DTM s resolution was either 1x1 or 2x2 metres. Some UoMs report on both (ES040), some UoMs on from 1x1 upwards (ES014, ES017, ES018, ES050, ES100) and others on 2x2 (ES010, ES070, ES080, ES091). Information has not yet been provided by ES060, ES063, ES064 and ES110. Provisional information (planned 1.2 points/m 2 ) has been 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, of 27

17 26 vember 2014 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? reported for ES120-ES127. (Source FD.9.0 FHRM F - Explanation of maps) The ES authorities subsequently added that in general the DTM has been developed from LiDAR technology for the whole territory of Spain. This LiDAR information has been developed by the National Geographic Institute (PNOA project) with 0.5 point/m 2, The LiDAR data has been completed with cross sections in rivers, bridges, etc. In some RBDs, complementary LiDAR data has been developed to obtain higher resolutions. There was no information reported to WISE on this. The ES authorities subsequently added that the DTMs have taken into account all existing flood defences, in the current regime. The maps have also taken into account the regulated regime downstream of the big dams of Spain. There was no information reported to WISE on this. The ES authorities subsequently added that the DTMs have taken into account existing infrastructure and buildings. The roughness of the territory has been defined based on converted land use maps SIOSE (Sistema de Información de Ocupación de Usos del Suelo en España), and the results were checked against the geomorphological and historical information. (Source: FD.9.0 FHRM A - Methodologies used to prepare flood hazard maps) There was no information reported to WISE on this. The ES authorities subsequently added that the hydraulics studies have been developed, mainly, through 2D models. A 1D model has only been used in several small rivers. Three uncertainties have been identified for all UoM: 1) Effects of erosion and other geomorphological processes are only taken into consideration in specific locations and by specific criteria; 2) the mathematical models might not adequately reflect the effect of certain mobile elements (fallen trees, cars) that can hinder the flood flow and deviate it; 3) In large urban areas with multiple elements there might be computational limitations. (Source FD.9.0 FHRM F - Explanation of maps) There was no information reported to WISE on this. The ES authorities subsequently added that the methodology is considered to be robust: only the lack of historical or flows data in some APSFRs can be considered as the main shortcomings. information found B) Pluvial floods te: Pluvial flooding was combined/mapped with fluvial flooding. 17 of 27

18 26 vember 2014 C) Coastal floods Scenarios mapped or assessed Scenario Return period e.g. 100 years Low probability 500 Medium 100 probability High probability Percentage e.g. 1% Decimal e.g Other expression Summary of the information found and in particular any differences between the UoMs in the Member State. All Spanish UoMs where this source is relevant have applied two scenarios, with medium (100 year) and low (500 year) probability.. (Source FD.9.0 FHRM F - Explanation of maps) Elements mapped or assessed Scenario Flood extent Water depth/level Water/flow velocities Low probability Medium probability High probability Other Summary of the information found and in particular any differences between the UoMs in the Member State. All Spanish UoMs have applied two scenarios, with medium (100 year) and low (500 year) probability. (Source FD.9.0 FHRM F - Explanation of maps) Methods used 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? All Spanish UoMs have applied two scenarios, with medium (100 year) and low (500 year) probability. (Source FD.9.0 FHRM F - Explanation of maps) information on this was reported to WISE. The ES authorities subsequently stated that the high probability scenario (10 years) was excluded because they thought its inclusion could create confusion with stakeholders, as its definition could conflict with the maritime public domain (public land in the coastal area). information on this was reported to WISE. The ES authorities subsequently indicated that extreme value distributions were fitted with the Peaks Over Threshold (POT) technique, assuming that the occurrence rate of events is distributed according to a Poisson process and that exceedance episodes follow a Generalized Pareto Distribution (GPD). Flooding factors have been calculated based on high resolution wave and sea level hindcast databases. These databases cover the Spanish coast with a spatial resolution of at least 200 m and are 18 of 27

19 26 vember 2014 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? How were existing infrastructure or buildings taken into account? What other data sets were used? What are the key assumptions of the method? composed of uniform time series from 1948 to The maps provided within the SNCZI and other portals are digital, thus not linked to any specific scale. (Source FD.9.0 FHRM F - Explanation of maps). The largest scale starts usually at the National or RBD/regional level, and allows the user to zoom in to about 1:1000 or 1:1500. The resolution was 5x5 metres for all the UoMs that reported on coastal floods. information on this was reported to WISE. The ES authorities subsequently stated that the DTMs have taken in account all existing flood defences. information on this was reported to WISE. The ES authorities subsequently stated that the DTMs have taken in account existing infrastructure and buildings. information on this was reported to WISE. The ES authorities subsequently added that bathymetry data was extracted from Spanish coastal charts and provided a detailed representation of the shallow water areas. An exhaustive validation and calibration process with instrumental data was performed using all the instrumental Spanish databases available: 14 off-shore buoys, 34 coastal buoys, 20 tide gauges and 6 satellite missions. Regarding population the main sources of information are: the population density from the European Environment Agency, the census from the Spanish Instituto Nacional de Estadística and the Spanish land registry. Land uses have been obtained from Information System on Land Occupation in Spain. Other data has been used such as: water treatment plants, heritage sites, natural conservation areas from a large selection of public administrations at the national and local scale. information on this was reported to WISE. The ES authorities subsequently added that the flood extent has been calculated at cross-shore profiles every 200 m along the coast. 3D processes have not been taken into account. The wave-induced flooding has been modeled as the two percent wave run-up (R2%) which is the run-up exceeded by only two percent of the wave run-up. 19 of 27

20 26 vember 2014 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? Three uncertainties have been identified for all UoM: 1) Effects of erosion and other geomorphological processes are only taken into consideration in specific locations and by specific criteria; 2) the mathematical models might not adequately reflect the effect of certain mobile elements (fallen trees, cars) that can divert or deflect the flood; 3) in large urban areas with multiple elements there might be computational limitations. (Source FD.9.0 FHRM F - Explanation of maps). The ES authorities subsequently clarified that the uncertainties in the methods and results are derived from the fact that the coastal erosion or changes in the bathymetry have not been taken into account. In the same way, demographic, economic and other changes in land use have not been taken into account. information on this was reported to WISE. The ES authorities subsequently added that 3D processes were not taken into account as the flooding has been calculated at cross-shore profiles. The results obtained between those cross-shore profiles were calculated by means of an interpolation procedure. information on this was reported to WISE. The ES authorities subsequently added that flooding has been modelled accurately at the 200 m spaced cross-shore profiles by means of the numerical model which solves the twodimensional wave flow for hybrid domains in a coupled NS-type equation system and reproduces all the process involved in flooding in the 2D scale. D) Groundwater floods Summary of the information found and in particular any differences between the UoMs in the Member State. Only one APSFR was identified by the PFRA as being at potential risk from groundwater flooding. For the flood hazard and flood risk maps this source was combined/mapped with fluvial flooding. E) Floods from Artificial Water Bearing Infrastructure Summary of the information found and in particular any differences between the UoMs in the Member State. Only the ES091 portal offers the option to see the flood maps (extent of flood in case of dam breach) for areas potentially affected by dam breaks, as by the Spanish Water Law. It is unclear if these maps have been assessed and published for other UoMs, though no information has been found in the other referred portals. In any case the information provided by the ES091 portal does not refer to the Floods Directive. The ES authorities subsequently stated that big dams, according with the Civil Protection Law are obliged to have Emergency Action Plans (Planes de emergencia de presas PEP). These Plans include the flood-prone areas for different scenarios of dam failure. As the likelihood of 20 of 27

21 26 vember 2014 dam breakage is very low, there are no APSFRs designated in Spain for this mechanism. The national viewer (SNCZI) and Civil Protection Authorities have maps related to flood-prone areas for different scenarios of dam failure, but only in intranet viewers. Local authorities have a copy of the Emergency Action Plans too, including the flood-prone areas due to dam failure. Spanish safety authorities do not consider appropriate to show these areas on the Internet, due to the risk of a targeted terrorist attack. F) Floods from sewerage systems information was found on whether the hazard and risk of flooding from this source has been mapped. However, the ES authorities stated subsequently that flooding from this source was taken into account together will fluvial and pluvial flooding. G). Other types of floods information was found on whether the hazard and risk of flooding from other sources have been mapped. 21 of 27

22 26 vember 2014 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 Population density from the EEA database was used, updated with National information from INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadística de España) and IGN (Instituto Geográfico Nacional) where available. The overlap between the flooded areas and the population density maps determines the number of inhabitants potentially affected. The maps show this number split by municipality to prioritise actions in the FRMPs (FD.9.0 FHRM D.1 - Human health). The information is displayed in pop-up boxes in the portals (regional and RBD, ES014, ES017-Basque Country, ES091), except for the National SNCZI that only reported with yes/no in a specific PDF-fiche per APSFR by the time the assessment was carried out. The ES authorities subsequently stated that pop-up boxes were also available in the National SNCZI portal. b) Risk to economic activity Instead of using the EU CORINE LAND COVER, the land use information has been retrieved from the National Land Occupation System (Sistema de Información sobre la Ocupación del Suelo de España (SIOSE), or regional sources in ES100, ES110, ES120-ES127), due to its better resolution, precision, and updates; but subsequently regrouped according to CORINE standards. Some infrastructure or building information has been updated first with the 1:25,000 maps of the Instituto Geográfico Nacional de España (BTN25-BCN25; note this step has not been applied in ES030 ES060, ES100, ES110) and then the aerial photos of the Plan Nacional de Ortofotografía Aérea (PNOA), when available (and not in ES100). For the overlap areas with APSFRs, land-use has been determined and mapped. ES017-Basque Country provides also CNAE codes of economic activities. The information is displayed in pop-up boxes in the portals (regional and RBD, ES014, ES017-Basque Country, ES091)), except for the National SNCZI that only reported with yes/no in a specific PDF-fiche per APSFR by the time the assessment was carried out. The ES authorities subsequently stated that pop-up boxes were also available in the National SNCZI portal. c) Risk to Installations covered by the requirements of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) or previously under the IPPC Directive Installations covered by the requirements of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) or previously under the IPPC Directive have been retrieved from the corresponding National register. The information is displayed in pop-up boxes in the portals (regional and RBD, ES014, ES017, ES018, ES091) including some additional information e.g. on the name of the installation, its status, etc., except for the National SNCZI where 22 of 27

23 26 vember 2014 no information is included in the specific PDF-fiche per APSFR. (FD.9.0 FHRM D.3 - Installations covered by the Industrial Emissions Directive). WWTPs have been retrieved from data at the RBAs (River Basin Authorities), considering those serving 50+ inhabitants or 10+ m 3 /d water flow (except ES060 that reports that this activity is still to be undertaken). The information is displayed in pop-up boxes in the portals (regional and RBD ES014, ES017-Basque Country, ES091)) including some additional information e.g. on the name of the installation, its status, etc., except for the National SNCZI where no information was included in the specific PDF-fiche per APSFR. (FD.9.0 FHRM D.3 - Installations covered by the Industrial Emissions Directive) by the time the assessment was carried out. The ES authorities subsequently stated that pop-up boxes were also available in the National SNCZI portal. d) Risk to WFD protected areas Protected areas (Bathing Waters, Birds, Habitats, and WFD Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water protected areas) have been retrieved from the GIS layers of the RBMPs, and physical overlaps with flood areas identified. Nitrates and UWWT Directive protected areas have not been considered. (FD.9.0 FHRM D.4 - Areas Protected under the Water Framework Directive) In ES010, flood risks for water-dependent species have been considered as positive, as they are supposed to benefit these species. (FD.9.0 FHRM D.4 - Areas Protected under the Water Framework Directive) te that this simple analysis might require further work/validation, as extreme flood conditions or modified coastal floods due to sea-level rise - might also have negative effects, e.g. wash-out. The information is displayed in pop-up boxes in the portals (regional and RBD ES014, ES017-Basque Country, ES091), except for the National SNCZI that only reported with yes/no in a specific PDF-fiche per APSFR by the time the assessment was carried out. The ES authorities subsequently stated that pop-up boxes were also available in the National SNCZI portal. e) Other consequences considered Only ES010 and ES014 report under WISE (te: FD.9.0 FHRM D.3 - Installations covered by the Industrial Emissions Directive) the mapping of cultural heritage based on regional information sources. The information is displayed in pop-up boxes in the portal (RBD ES014). 23 of 27