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: RO - Romania Date that the assessment was completed: 12 December 2014 Information reported and assessed The schemas for electronically reporting/making information available to the Commission were filled in with a wealth of information. Romania made available links to its national flood risk and flood hazard maps for all 12 of its units of management. Detailed summaries were also provided on the methods used to prepare the maps and specific details of national maps for visualisation at the European level were also reported. 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 / current practices adopted: In general, the maps are of good quality and easily navigable, the legend is comprehensive and the maps are easy to use. b) Weaknesses: At the time of the qualitative check (October 2014), - The maps were only available in English. The RO Authorities subsequently stated that the maps are now available in Romanian and accessible to the Romania public.. - Only one probability scenario had been developed for each of the maps checked. The RO Authorities subsequently stated that low and high probability maps had been prepared and made available to the public at the end of Risks to human health were not visible. The RO Authorities subsequently stated that the number of affected inhabitants was now available to be added into the maps geo-portal.. 1 of 25

2 - On the map it is not possible to differentiate between different flooding sources. c) Lessons to be learnt: - It should be clarified on the map (and made visually differentiable) to which flooding sources the areas are subject to. - At the time of this assessment only certain probability scenarios had been developed for the maps disseminated through the national map geo-portal. To make the maps more useful low-, medium- and high probability scenarios should be developed for all flood risk areas. As indicated above the RO Authorities have subsequently stated that maps for all 3 probability scenarios have been developed. The RO Authorities also added that - the date of maps preparation / publication should be provided. - APSFR and UOM codes should be provided, also the legend on the map should indicate the full meaning of the icons related to number of potentially affected inhabitants. - Further studies should be developed for coastal areas. d) Questions seeking clarification from Member State. - While it is an asset that the maps of the Danube FloodRisk project have been jointly developed for the Danube basin, and are thus available in English, it is questionable whether the maps have a value to the Romanian public, if they are not translated in Romanian. Could you elaborate on plans you might have with respect to translation to make the maps more accessible? - There is no clear visual differentiation on the map between the different sources of flooding (pluvial, fluvial, sea water flooding, failures in the drainage system). In 2012 RO reported APSFRs to be associated with fluvial, pluvial, groundwater, seawater floods and flooding from artificial water bearing infrastructure. Is it foreseen to add an explanation to the map on which flooding source it represents? The RO authorities subsequently stated that the main source of flooding for APSFRs is fluvial (no APSFRs have been designated with pluvial or groundwater as the main source of flooding). Sea water floods have not yet been modelled. Two APSFRs have a flood mechanism of Defence or infrastructural failure ; these APSFRs could be symbolised in a specific way. - Only one probability scenario had been developed for each of the maps: this was the low probability scenario for RO1000 (Danube) and the medium probability scenario for the rest of the UoMs/areas. When is it foreseen to develop the remaining scenarios for both maps? The RO Authorities subsequently indicated that maps of the low and high probability flooding scenarios had been prepared for publishing and uploaded on the national geo-portal at the end of Is it foreseen to add a layer to the maps depicting risks to human health (including fatalities) arising from pollution or interruption of services related to water supply and treatment? 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? There was no change in the number of UoMs reported by Romania: both in 2012 and in 2014, there were 12 UoMs. As for the APSFRs, there were slight changes concerning their number.. (These differences were not explained in the summary reports.) These reports do not include any reference to different types of floods as they evaluate all of them together, therefore no differences can be identified in comparison to the information reported in Explanations for the differences between APSFRs reported in 2012 and subsequently associated with the maps reported to WISE were provided by the Romanian Authorities in an official letter to the Commission in June In a number of cases APSFRs may have been merged or integrated into one area because it was not possible to model the flood hazard separately. In the case of the Danube UoM (RO1000) modelling has been achieved under the Danube FloodRisk Project, in a unitary way from source to the Black Sea, and all 23 APSFRs in Romania that represent parts of the Danube floodplain were embedded into one area along the Danube. 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) FHRM information reported at Unit of Management scale (2) Number of other areas with available national FHRM (3) b) with links to national maps a) Identified according to Article 5 b) with links to national maps c) with details of maps provided to WISE b) with links to national maps c) with details of maps provided to WISE RO Yes 0 RO Yes 0 RO Yes 0 RO Yes 0 RO Yes 0 RO Yes 0 RO Yes 0 RO Yes 0 RO Yes 0 RO Yes 0 RO Yes 0 RO Yes 0 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 3 of 25

4 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

5 Content of flood hazard and flood risk maps Question 2 Which types of flood, scenarios, hazard elements and potential adverse consequences have been mapped and visualised? te: t 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. Unit of Management APSFR code 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 RO1 RO10 RO1000 RO6 RO8 Partly. The map which opens in the first place covers the APSFRs RO A to 24A. The other ones can be identified by searching for their name in Romanian Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Fluvial, pluvial, groundwater Fluvial, pluvial, artificial water bearing infrastructure Fluvial, pluvial, groundwater Fluvial, pluvial, sea water, artificial water bearing infrastructure ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (1) Yes Yes (1) Fluvial, pluvial, groundwater, artificial water bearing infrastructure Yes (1) 5 of 25

6 Unit of Management mapped Floods with a medium probability mapped Floods with a high probability mapped 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 RO1 RO10 RO1000 RO6 RO8 Yes Yes Yes Map Hazard Elements shown on map Flood extents Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Water depth Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Water levels Flow velocities 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 Human health The community Type and sectors of economic activity Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (2) Yes (2) Yes (2) Yes (2) Yes (2) Yes (3) Yes (3) Yes (3) Yes (3) Yes (3) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Land use Yes Point locations Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes for storage of chemicals, vital networks and services Property Yes Infrastructure Location of Industrial Emissions Yes (4) Yes (4) Yes Yes (4) Yes (4) 6 of 25

7 Unit of Management Directive installations RO1 RO10 RO1000 RO6 RO8 WFD Protected Yes Areas Status of water bodies Areas vulnerable to floods with high content of transported sediment and debris flow Other significant sources of pollution Cultural Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Heritage Other useful (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) information Impacts of Climate Change Coastal protection defences in place te: Yes (1) Changes/developments indicated by Romanian Authorities subsequent to initial check/assessment Yes (2) The Romanian Authorities subsequently indicated that hospitals, surface and groundwater intakes for water supply were indicated on maps Yes (3) The Romanian Authorities subsequently indicated that education facilities were included on maps. Yes (4) The Romanian Authorities subsequently indicated that IPPC and EPRTR installations were included on maps. (5): The Romanian Authorities subsequently indicated that Risk classes were also shown on the maps as they are of high interest because they summarise not only various land uses that are not mapped separately (rural land use, orchards, agricultural use, forests), but also flood hazards. Links to national maps: Map 1: showing the whole of Romania including the Danube corridor, mapped using the same methodology as for all other UoM, updated in January Map 2: focusing on the Danube corridor (using the original methodology proposed in the Danube FloodRisk Project). 7 of 25

8 Contextual information provided with maps Question 3 What contextual information was provided for each map? Unit of Management RO1 RO10 RO1000 RO06 RO08 APSFR code Title: brief description of the map Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Explanation to the public on how to understand and interpret the flood maps Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Responsible authority (organisation responsible for the development and publishing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes of the maps, with contact details) Date of preparation / publication Legend (textual description of symbols, colours, line features, etc.) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Purpose of development and intended use Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Method of development Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Limitations of map and / or assessment of uncertainty Yes Disclaimer (to enforce explanatory information and limitations, and provide legal Yes Yes Yes Yes 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 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 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. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8 of 25

9 Summary of findings from questions 2 and 3. Romania has provided two maps for analysis. For more convenience, they will further be referred to as Map 1 ( showing the whole of Romania including the Danube corridor (mapped using the same methodology as for all other UoM) and Map 2 ( focusing on the Danube corridor (using the original methodology proposed in the Danube FloodRisk Project). Both links provided show the map of Romania as a whole, without containing reference to specific UoMs and ASPFRs. However one can find them by searching for their name using the search options on the screen. Navigation is very easy and self-evident for both maps, with navigation panels which contain zoom-in and zoom-out options. Both maps have detailed legends which are easy to use. However neither of the maps differentiates between flooding sources, although sources were associated with the APSFR reported by RO in Although national authorities have reported that all scenarios have been developed, the maps reported to the European Commission only take into consideration one scenario each - Map 1 considers the medium probability scenario (with a return period of 100 years) and Map 2 the low probability scenario (with a return period of 1,000 years), respectively. After the assessment of maps was completed, the RO authorities explained that, for national dissemination purposes, at the end of 2014 the other 2 scenarios (high probability and low probability) for internal rivers were published on the Map1 - national portal. In addition, all 3 scenarios for Danube River were published on Map 1. They also explained that the reason for the delay is that, up to the reporting deadline, Romanian experts focused on developing the medium scenario for reporting and publishing, while the preparation of low and high scenarios was finalised in the second half of The data was updated on Map 1 in January On Map 1, flood extent, water depth, risk classes, potential damages (hot-spots) and degree of potential exposure of settlements are available for all 3 scenarios. The water depth is shown on Map 1 as a number of three classes (less than 0.5 m, 0.5m- 1.5m, greater than 1.5m) coloured in different shades of blue, while Map 2 shows it as a number of four classes: less than 0.5 m, 0.5m-2m, 2m-4m, greater than 4m. After the assessment of maps was completed, the RO authorities explained that the updated Map 1 (which now includes the area that is the subject of Map 2) applies the same methodology (for symbology, depth classes and risk classes) for all inland rivers. The flood extent is visible on Map 2, while for Map 1 it is accessible from the Layers menu (called "Straturi") on the left side of the screen. By clicking on this icon, a drop-down menu rolls down and the extent of the floods can be selected by clicking on "Limite zone inundabilitate". Map 1 contains the following potential adverse consequences: the indicative number of inhabitants potentially affected (at the settlement level), the economic sectors potentially affected (secondary economic activities 1, economic units included in Integrated Pollution Prevention And Control (IPPC) and economic units included in the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (EPRTR)), the point locations for vital networks and services (train stations, airports, harbours, sources of drinking water, churches, education facilities and hospitals) and cultural heritage locations (museums, monuments). They are all accessible from the Layers menu (called "Straturi") on the left side of the screen. By clicking on this icon, a drop-down menu rolls down. By selecting "Riscuri asociate" ("Associated risks"), the map shows icons depicting the different risks associated with flood scenarios mentioned above. 1 Secondary economic activities include industry, manufacturing, construction 9 of 25

10 The affected population is only visible if the map is zoomed in to at least the 1:200,000 scale, but is assessed for each settlement, and is represented by icons of one small-scale person, and one, two or three larger-scale persons, however there is no legend on the map indicating how many persons these icons represent in actual numbers. These indications can be found by clicking on "Detalii" (Details) on the upper right corner of the screen: one small-scale person represents an insignificant degree to which inhabitants are affected, one large-scale person depicts a small degree, two persons depict a medium degree of effect and three persons depict a high degree of effect on the inhabitants' lives. The RO authorities subsequently explained that the degree to which inhabitants are affected (degree of potential exposure to settlements) is assessed at settlement level, based on both number of affected inhabitants and their percentage from the total population. For example, an insignificant degree corresponds to a percentage less than 15% and an affected population less than 9 inhabitants, while a high degree corresponds to a percentage greater than 25% and an affected population greater than 400 inhabitants. The economic installations potentially affected are reflected on the map by a black dot surrounded by a shade of yellow, a purple factory and a black factory, respectively. When affected by floods, the latter may cause accidental pollution. The abbreviations used (IPPC and EPRTR) are not explained. The point locations for vital networks and services and the cultural heritage locations are reflected on the map by different icons explained in a new window which opens after clicking on "Detalii" (Details) on the upper right corner of the screen. Map 2 (Danube) shows the following potential adverse consequences. These are firstly the indicative number of inhabitants potentially affected, The affected population is shown on the Risk map, as a number of classes with different symbols for each: one person shown when the affected population is less than 10,000 persons, two persons when the population affected is between 10,000-50,000 persons, three persons showed when the affected population is between 50, ,000 persons and four persons when the affected population is greater than 100,000 persons. Secondly, the risk for economic activity in potentially affected areas is shown in the form of coloured raster cells (pixels). The classification of the raster cells is derived from the overlay of the land use map with the flood hazard map. The colour of the raster cell indicates the type of economic activity and their level of risk to floods. The cells show the aggregated risk for that cell. The risk for individual installations or constructions is not shown. The land for agriculture and forestry that is potentially affected is shown as low and high in shades of yellow. Industrial and residential areas that are potentially affected are shown as low, medium and high respectively in shades of brown and red. Other areas at risk are shown as low and high in shades of green. Even though it is not explicitly stated, the other seems to refer to nature areas. In a separate atlas, which can be downloaded from the map viewer (folder button in the upper right corner of the map) in PDF format (900 MB size), more detail is given. The locations of points of interest are shown on the map, including main train stations, airports, hospitals, industrial sites and waste water treatments plants, the location of potentially affected protected areas (Natura 2000 areas and national parks) and cultural heritage sites. 10 of 25

11 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 Map 1 (RO1, RO8, RO10), Map 2 (RO1000) Map 1(RO1, RO6, RO8, RO10), Map 2(RO1000) Map 1(RO6), Map 2(RO1000) Hazard assessed but not published Neither published nor assessed N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A t relevant Groundwater Map 1(RO1, RO8) N/A N/A N/A Artificial water bearing infrastructure Map 1(RO6, RO8, RO10), Map 2(RO1000) N/A N/A N/A Sewerage systems Other (described below if applicable) N/A N/A Map1(RO1, RO6, RO8, RO10), N/A Map2(RO1000) N/A N/A N/A N/A te: the above Table is based on the UoMs in which maps were checked. Comments In 2012 RO reported APSFRs associated with fluvial, pluvial, groundwater and seawater floods and also flooding from artificial water bearing infrastructure. RO1, RO6, RO8 and RO10 (and now also RO1000) all relate to Map 1. Map 2 only contains one UoM: RO1000 (the Danube corridor). Flood sources are not individually represented on either of the two maps, although they are provided in the data reported by Romania to WISE. The use of hydrological and hydraulic models suggests that fluvial, pluvial and groundwater flood sources are assessed jointly in both maps. Specific calculation methods for the other flood sources have not been found. Since the assessment of the maps was completed, the RO authorities explained that the main source of flooding for APSFRs is fluvial (RO have not designated any APSFRs having pluvial or groundwater as the main source of floods). In addition, at the APSFR designation stage, the accuracy of historical information related to flood sources could have generated uncertainties. Because the hazard from flooding in Map 1 and Map has been derived using different methods (models and classes), it is difficult to compare the flood hazard and risk between the maps. It is unclear to which extent the flood hazard from UoMs in Map 1 (tributaries of the Danube) are considered for calculating the flood hazard in Map 2 (the Danube main reach). 11 of 25

12 A) Fluvial floods Scenarios mapped or assessed Scenario Return period Percentage Decimal Other e.g. 100 years e.g. 1% e.g expression Low probability 1000 years 0.1 N/A N/A Medium 100 years 1% N/A N/A probability High probability 10 years 10% N/A N/A Summary of the information found and in particular any differences between the UoMs in the Member State. Map 2 only takes into consideration one scenario: Map 2 assesses the low probability scenario (return period of 1,000 years). With respect to flooding sources, a brief overview is provided in the Excel sheet of selected RO areas. The same approach is followed for map 1 and map 2. Given this, the assessment will be the same for all flood sources and will therefore only be assessed once, under Question 4a. In Map 1, all 3 scenarios required by the Floods Directive have been published by the end of 2014 beginning of According to the Directive, the scenarios are referring to low probability or extreme event scenarios (0.1% probability of exceedance), medium probability (1%) and high probability (30 years return period for Danube and 10% for the 11 other UoMs). Also, Danube flood-prone areas were included in Map 1, using the same classes for hazard (water depth) and risk (achieved based on exposure - hazard matrix) as for all 11 other UoMs. For Map 2, the WISE summary report states that three scenarios have been produced for the hazard map: a frequent event with a 30 years return period (HQ30), a medium recurring event with a 100 years return period (HQ100) and an extreme event with a 1,000 years return period (HQ1000). However, only the latter scenario is visible on the hazard map provided (Map 2), but these were included in Map1, in order to compile flood hazard and risk assessment for the whole country. The RO authorities note that the Map 2 portal was built up under the Danube FloodRisk Project umbrella, meaning decisions were made by the Danube FloodRisk group and not the RO Working Group involved in the Floods Directive implementation. Elements mapped or assessed Scenario Flood extent Water Water/flow Other depth/level velocities Low probability Yes Yes N/A Medium Yes Yes N/A probability High probability Yes (1) Yes (1) N/A (1) Changes/developments indicated by Romanian Authorities subsequent to initial check/assessment Summary of the information found and in particular any differences between the UoMs in the Member State. There are no differences between different UoMs in terms of the elements mapped or assessed: they all show the flood extent and the water depth, in both maps assessed. At the time of the assessment, Map 1 only showed the medium probability scenario and Map 2 only showed the low probability scenario. The other scenarios were planned to be published by the end of The RO authorities have subsequently confirmed that those scenarios were published late 2014/early For Map 2, the WISE summary report states that three scenarios have been produced for the hazard map: a frequent event with a 30 years return period (HQ30), a medium recurring event with a 100 years return period (HQ100) and an 12 of 25

13 extreme event with a 1,000 years return period (HQ1000). However, only the latter scenario is visible on the hazard map provided, and there is no explanation for this discrepancy. 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? 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 The maps only take into consideration one scenario each - Map 1 looks at the medium probability scenario (with a return period of 100 years) and Map 2 assesses the low probability scenario (with a return period of 1,000 years). The other scenarios were planned to be published by the end of For Map 2, the WISE summary report states that three scenarios have been produced for the hazard map: a frequent event with a 30 years return period (HQ30), a medium recurring event with a 100 years return period (HQ100) and an extreme event with a 1,000 years return period (HQ1000). However, only the latter scenario is visible on the hazard map provided, and there is no explanation for this discrepancy. reasons are given for the exclusion or inclusion of the scenarios for either of the maps. Map 1: The flood risk is quantified on the basis of "flood depth-exposure" functions and classes of likelihood of excess water from the flooded area and depth. The methodology is based on a qualitative approach and is described in the "Governance Emergency Ordinance 663/2013 "Romanian Methodological rms preparation of flood risk maps". Map 2: Flood risk maps in the Danube were developed under the International Project DANUBE FLOODRISK. Romania was the Lead Partner in this project. The data used and the ways of achieving flood risk maps for the DANUBE FLOODRISK project can be found in the technical document "Harmonized Requirements Manual of Procedures on the flood mapping for the Danube River - Data and methods" ( The BEAM methodology, as developed in the FP7 project SAFER has been used. The BEAM methodology is basically an atlas where different maps are overlaid to estimate the risk. Existing damage functions were used and adapted to fit to the Danube river. The basic data on flood hazard is estimated with hydraulic and hydrological modelling. The DTM is built based on LIDAR surveys. Map 1 - no information found. The RO authorities subsequently explained that the scale for viewing / printing of flood hazard and risk maps (web format) published on the dedicated data portal is 1: 25,000. Maps are prepared in Stereo 70 projection system. 2 After the assessment was completed, the RO authorities confirmed that the three scenarios were mapped and published in late 2014/early of 25

14 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? Map, 2 - the printed map is in a scale of 1:100,000. RO reports that this is suitable for the targeted overview representation but will not be detailed enough for projects on a local scale. Higher resolution is available for almost all national river sectors (LiDAR data) and land survey information is at hand for cross-sections, and zooming in is thus possible to a more detailed scale. The following information is reported on the resolution of the DTM: depending on the UoM, either the vertical accuracy, horizontal accuracy or both are reported. Map1 UoM RO1 - Banat: ±15 cm vertically for main area (level A), ±30 cm vertically for the rest of the hydrographic basin (level B); UoM RO6 - Dobrogea Litoral: ±10-20 cm vertically and ±10 cm horizontally for main area (area A), ±20-30 cm vertically and ±20 cm horizontally for zone B and ±40 cm vertically and 1 to 4m cm horizontally for zone C; UoM RO8 - Crisuri: ±20 cm vertically for main area (A level) and ±50 cm vertically for the rest of the hydrographic basin UoM RO10 - Siret: ±15 cm vertically (A level), ±1 m vertically (B level) and ±5 m vertically (C level). Map2 UoM RO Danube: 5 to 10 m Map 1 - The efficiency of already existing artificial flood defence infrastructures has been taken into account for evaluating the potential negative consequences of future floods. RO reports that about 70% of the total length of the embankments show a "technological risk" which requires consolidation / rehabilitation / relocation / mounting in certain areas. Map 2 - no information found Map 1 - The infrastructure taken into account to assess the damage are: roads and railways, bridges and buildings. The following steps were taken: Estimation of average potential damage for each type of infrastructure; Extracting the infrastructure in flooded areas for each flood scenario, and according to UoMs using GIS; Extracted parameters are the number, density, area, length of affected infrastructures; Estimation of the damage cost by combining the above information using GIS techniques and the calculation method developed in the project. Map 2 - Despite the influence on the flood characteristics, road embankments, canals or some historic flood dams are generally neglected. Map 1 - Information contained in topographic maps, scale 1: 25,000, Military Topographic Directorate edition. Also, results obtained through the PHARE project 2005/ "Contributions to developing a flood risk management strategy" were taken into 14 of 25

15 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? account and built upon. The RO authorities also explained that aerial photos, integrated high accuracy DEM (generally coupled LIDAR and bathymetry), hydrological and climatic data were used. Map 2 - The derivation of flood scenario is based on analysing flood discharges during the period of observations ( ) at all hydrometrical stations along the Danube. Other important parameters are the duration of the flood wave and the volume. Dischargesvolumes were regarded as conditioning parameters. The calculation of inundation areas has been combined with digital terrain models referring to LiDAR data, field measurements and topographic maps of 1:5,000 to 1:25,000. Map 1 * From the inventory of all major floods, those for which the probability of occurrence was higher than 10% were not considered, as the emphasis was on high-intensity lowfrequency events. * Floods for which there were no reports of associated consequences have not been regarded as "having significant negative consequences"; they have not been reported. * The selection of events was amended according to the "flood typology criterion": where the same stream had seen several historical floods, for example, 3-5 significant floods with similar types of producing, only the first 1-2 floods were reported, the main criterion being the one related to damages. Map 2 - Due to the varying hydrological and topographic situation, the assumptions for hazard computation for the different sections of the Danube had to be adjusted to the local situation. The present land use conditions were considered. The assessment of inundated areas and respective flood depths relies on hydraulic assumptions. Map 1 - See information at the question on 'resolution of the DTM' Map 2 - See information at the question on 'resolution of the DTM' Map 1 - The national authorities acknowledge the fact that the methods employed for some APSFRs (~3% of total) involved a greater degree of approximation leading to higher levels of uncertainty in the results than obtained from hydrological modelling based methods. Map 2 - information found. There is insufficient differentiation between the sources of flooding and how they are taken into account. Map 1 - Despite the shortcomings, the methods used constitute the most complete and detailed preliminary analysis of national-scale flood risk, which could have been identified at the moment of the creation of the map. Map 2 - information found. 15 of 25

16 B) Pluvial floods In 2012, RO reported APSFRs associated with pluvial floods. However, flood sources were not individually represented on the maps, meaning it was unclear whether pluvial floods had been mapped. Since the assessment was completed, the RO authorities have explained that they have not designated any APSFRs with the main source of flooding being pluvial. C) Coastal floods In 2012, RO reported APSFRs associated with seawater floods. However, flood sources were not individually represented on the maps, meaning it was unclear whether seawater floods had been mapped. Since the assessment was completed, the RO authorities have explained that the main source of floods is fluvial and that no floods have been recorded in Romania as being caused exclusively by marine sources. D) Groundwater floods te: information was found on whether the hazard and risk of flooding from groundwater floods has been assessed and mapped. E) Floods from Artificial Water Bearing Infrastructure te: information was found on whether the hazard and risk of flooding from AWBI has been mapped. F) Floods from sewerage systems te: information was found on whether the hazard and risk of flooding from sewerage systems has been mapped. G) Other types of floods te: information was found on whether the hazard and risk of flooding from other sources have been mapped. 16 of 25

17 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 Map 1: All UoMs in the country have used the same approach to determine the indicative number of inhabitants affected: a qualitative evaluation of flood risk which involved identifying risk receptors and assessing the vulnerability of the identified objectives which were exposed to a risk of floods, taking into account the water depth and the potential damages inflicted on flooded elements, as well as the impact on risk receptors. This method took into consideration the following risk receptors: - The limit of each locality (source: database from the Ministry of Environment and Climatic Changes) - The surface of each locality - Derived from the polygonal limits (source: CORINE Land Cover 2006, WIMS database) - The population of each locality - from the last census (source: Romanian Institute of Statistics) This information was correlated and overlapped with floodplains (for classes of depths previously established) in order to determine the affected population. This was calculated proportionally with the flooded area for each scenario considered. Thus, the area and population of the affected localities has been determined, proportionally. In general, the location of targets used to assess different types of consequences (population, economic consequences, environmental consequences, consequences on cultural heritage) was corrected having as support topographic maps, aero photos etc. For Map 1, the indicative number of inhabitants potentially affected in each settlement under the flood is not shown on the linked map, however it is accessible from the Layers menu (called "Straturi") on the left side of the screen. By clicking on this icon, a drop-down menu rolls down. By selecting "Riscuri asociate" ("Associated risks"), the map will show icons depicting the different receptors associated with floods, amongst which is the affected population. The affected population is only visible if the map is zoomed in to at least the 1:200,000 scale. The affected population is represented by icons of one small-scale person, and one, two or three larger-scale persons, however there is no legend on the map indicating how many persons these icons represent in actual numbers. These indications can be found by clicking on "Detalii" (Details) on the upper right corner of the screen: one small-scale person represents an insignificant degree to which inhabitants are affected, one large-scale person depicts a small degree, two persons depict a medium degree of effect and three persons depict a high degree of effect on the inhabitants' lives. Map 2: The following stages have been employed for calculating the damage assessment: - Determining the number of persons exposed to potentially flooded areas; - Determining the goods and values on flooded areas (by land use classes); - Applying damage functions for each category of goods. The methodology applied was called BEAM (Basic European Assets Map), through which the socioeconomic vulnerability areas have been estimated and functions of damages by socioeconomic activities have been defined. As a result, potential damages have been obtained, expressed as Euro / m 2 for different land use types and depths. Also, statistical calculations have been done again on direct and indirect damages. The data needed for this analysis is a set of harmonized data of population density and property located in the NAVTEQ database and the EU database (Eurostat). To generate data and information on the density of the population, mainly information from the European database (Eurostat) has been used. Additional values were integrated from various other sources (national statistics, industry, scientific publications). All values were converted into Euro using the official EU rates. For Map 2, the affected population is shown on the Risk map, as a number of classes with different symbols for each: one person shown when the affected population is less than 10,000 persons, two persons when the population affected is between 10,000-50,000 persons, three persons showed 17 of 25

18 when the affected population is between 50, ,000 persons and four persons when the affected population is greater than 100,000 persons. b) Risk to economic activity Map 1: The same methodology has been used for all UoMs to assess the risk to the types of economic activities in areas potentially at risk from flooding. This involved, firstly, identifying risk receptors and later assessing the vulnerability of the identified receptors which were exposed to a risk of floods, taking into account the water depth and the potential damages inflicted to flooded objectives, as well as the impact on risk receptors. This method took into consideration the following risk receptors: - Properties: built localities (intravilan) - Statistical approach of flooded areas within localities (source MMSC and WIMS database); - Infrastructure: airports, railway stations, ports (source NAVTEQ database); - Roads, railways, bridges, hydraulic structures (source NARW database); the minimum affected length criterion has only been used for roads: 200 m for main roads and 500 m for secondary roads. - Land use: agricultural land (arable land, vineyards, orchards, secondary pastures, complex crop areas), forests, etc. - source: information layers of the Corine Land Cover. - Industry: large industrial units (source: databases specific to the Industrial Emissions Directive, various thematic maps) and other, such as SMEs, services, commerce, telecommunications (source: NAVTEQ database; for so-called "small industry") For Map 1, land use, property and industry locations are not shown on the map. Infrastructure locations are not indicated on the linked map, however they are accessible in the Layers menu (called "Straturi") on the left side of the screen, at "Riscuri asociate" ("Associated risks"), as icons depicting the different risks associated with floods, amongst which train stations, airports, harbours ("Gări, aeroporturi, porturi"), sources of drinking water ("Surse apă potabilă"), churches ("Biserici"), education facilities ("Educație") and hospitals ("Spitale"). They are reflected on the map by different icons explained in a new window which opens after clicking on "Detalii" (Details) on the upper right corner of the screen. Map 2: The following stages have been employed for calculating the damage assessment: - Determining the number of persons exposed to potentially flooded areas; - Determining the goods and values on flooded areas (by land use classes); - Applying damage functions for each category of goods. The methodology applied was called BEAM (Basic European Assets Map), through which the socioeconomic vulnerability areas have been estimated and functions of damages by socioeconomic activities have been defined. As a result, potential damages have been obtained, expressed as Euro / m 2 for different land use types and depths. Also, statistical calculations have been done again on direct and indirect damages. The data needed for this analysis is a set of harmonized data of population density and property located in the NAVTEQ database and the EU database. To generate data and information on the density of the population, mainly information from the European database (Eurostat) has been used. Additional values were integrated from various other sources (national statistics, industry, scientific publications). All values were converted into Euro using the official EU rates. The assumptions considered for the assessment of risk are: - Only goods for which direct material damage exists were taken into consideration; - Results are based on the current market value of goods (not on the cost of reconstruction or the insured goods); - The costs for the construction land are not included because it is assumed that the value assigned will not change in case of any event; - Costs due to stopping production have not been included; - Measures to reduce damages have not been considered; - Expenditure for emergency prevention and interventions, as well as damages to flood protection works have not been included. 18 of 25

19 A function ( depth-damage ) represents the damage as a percentage of the total value of the specific land use, depending on depth. Exposure to floods varies by the type of land use. On the same field there may be located more than one class of goods (such as buildings and householders). For the assessment of damages and vulnerability, the following have been taken into account: - Enterprises, - Bridges, - Roads and railways, - Hydraulic works, - Network infrastructure (electricity, water, gas), - Cultural heritage, - Critical infrastructure (hazardous): probably hospitals, industrial sites and waste water treatment plants (although this is not explicitly stated), - Recreation areas. For Map 2, the sectors of economic activity, the agricultural land and the property areas are depicted with different shades of brown, yellow and pink, respectively. The point location for vital networks and services, of installations which might cause accidental pollution in case of flooding, of the protected areas and of the cultural heritage sites are accessible in a set of documents which can be downloaded from the folder button in the upper right corner of the map. c) Risk to Installations covered by the requirements of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) or previously under the IPPC Directive Map 1: All UoMs in the country have used the same approach to assess, which involved identifying risk receptors and assessing the vulnerability of the identified elements which were exposed to a risk of floods, taking into account the water depth and the potential damages inflicted to flooded elements, as well as the impact on risk receptors. This method was used to determine the location of IED installations which might cause accidental pollution if any type of flood occurred, which took into consideration, inter alia, sources of pollution such as IPPC installations covered by Directive 2010/75/EC (IED) and related codes from the Registry of Released and Transferred Pollutants (E- PRTR), reported by the National Environmental Protection Agency. The installations potentially affected are not shown on the linked map, however, they are accessible from the Layers menu (called "Straturi") on the left side of the screen. By clicking on this icon, a dropdown menu rolls down. By selecting "Riscuri asociate" ("Associated risks"), the map will show icons depicting the different risks associated with floods, amongst which Secondary economic activities ("Activități economice secundare"), economical units included in IPPC ("Unități economice incluse în IPPC") and economical units included in EPRTR ("Unități economice incluse în EPRTR"). They are reflected on the map by a black dot surrounded by a shade of yellow, a purple factory and a black factory, respectively. The abbreviations are not explained. Map 2: Pollution sources (including IPPC installations) were taken into consideration when building the map, however only their exposure has been shown (having no associated damage-depth functions). other information is available on this issue for Map 2. The industrial installations potentially affected are shown on the Risk Map, where the legend of the map depicts three types of risk for Industry: Low, Medium and High, shown in three different shades of brown on the map. d) Risk to WFD protected areas Map 1: All UoMs in the country have used the same approach to assess the risk to the types of protected area in areas potentially at risk from flooding which involved identifying risk receptors and assessing the vulnerability of the identified element which were exposed to a risk of floods, taking into account the water depth and the potential damages inflicted to flooded receptors, as well as the impact on risk receptors. This method took into consideration the following risk receptors: protection areas for potable water catchments (Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water); bathing areas; natural protected areas of national interest (national and natural parks, natural reserves, natural monuments). Natura 2000 sites designated under the provisions of the Birds and Habitats Directive, the special Bird Protection Areas and the sites of Community Importance (Habitats) WFD protected areas are not indicated on the map. 19 of 25