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: AT - Austria Information reported and assessed The schemas for electronically reporting/making information available to the Commission were filled in with a detailed level of information. Austria made available links to its national flood risk and flood hazard maps for 2 of its 3 units of management: one unit of management did not have any identified flood risk areas. Detailed summaries were also provided on the methods used to prepare the maps. Specific details of national maps for visualisation at the European level were also reported, and a link to other relevant information on the preparation of the maps was 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. 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: The Austrian Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps are all of a very high quality and drawn at a good scale (1:25000). They are easily available (a quick search produces a list of the maps for the respective APSFR, which can be downloaded or analysed online), and comprehensive, i.e. they contain a lot of information and good legends. b) Weaknesses: Minor issues that could be improved are: to add contact information to the maps or website (specific mail address or telephone number, not just a general one); furthermore, the expressions "hazard" and "risk" or "potentially significant risk" are not explained on the maps, and sound very technical - an easy-to-grasp explanation could be helpful for the public; and the differences between pluvial and fluvial floods are not visible on the maps. The AT authorities have clarified that contact information is available through a Kontakt link in the Web-GIS viewer and stated that the provision of a plain language explanation of the maps would be considered for the second cycle maps. c) Lessons to be learnt: Page 1 of 20
A national approach, even in federal States, is helpful for making sure that all produced maps are of the same quality, consistent and comparable. d) Questions seeking clarification from Member State: How are pluvial and fluvial floods defined and distinguished? (this is not visible from the maps). The AT authorities stated that pluvial and fluvial floods have not been distinguished as this might confuse the public. However, generally fluvial floods have been considered. Pluvial floods, by means of floods from lakes, had been considered but are seen as mixed processes as fluvial input and groundwater dynamics also contribute to these lake induced floods. Page 2 of 20
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 is no indication that some APSFRs, elements or aspects are not included in the flood hazard and flood risk maps delivered by Austria. The AT authorities subsequently clarified that reliable information was not available for 3 small APSFR at the time of reporting. A pragmatic method was used to add a buffer along the river to indicate flood risk. APSFRs and buffers are visible in the national Web GIS information but had not been reported by means of a links to WISE. 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 AT1000 372 369 369 No No 0 AT2000 19 19 19 No No 0 AT5000 No significant flood risk areas identified No significant flood risk areas identified Key: a) Article 5 requires the identification of areas of potential significant flood risk (APSFR) based on a new Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment or an existing one. b) Member States were asked to provide links to national web pages or viewers where maps of the flood hazard and flood risk associated with APSFRs could be viewed (column 1). Alternatively or additionally maps could be made available and reported at the level of the Unit of Management (column 2) or at other geographical scales (column 3), c) Member States were asked to provide numeric details (such as source of flooding, numbers of potentially affected inhabitants and types of potential adverse consequences) of the maps associated with the APSFR so that they could be depicted on a European map of flooding. The maps could be reported with the relevant APSFR code (column 1) and/or at the level of the Unit of Management (column 2). In some circumstances, (c) may be greater than (a), for example if additional APSFRs were identified after 2012. Page 3 of 20
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? Note: Not all of the maps prepared by Member States have been examined. Instead a subset was selected and reviewed by designated assessors. The maps for checking were selected on the basis of information provided by Member States with their Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments (PFRAs) in 2012 (where available) and the screening of the maps made available in the LinkToMS schema. The aim was to select a sufficient number of maps to reflect: Potential differences in methodologies, presentation and visualisation of maps between the Units of Management (UoM) within a Member State. Some Member States have a strong national approach, in others there are differences between administrative regions; Differences in sources of floods included in hazard and risk maps. Some APSFRs and UoM are associated with more than one source of flooding whereas others are not. The aim was to check maps associated with all possible types of flood associated with a Member State. For those Member States applying Article 4 and Article 13.1.a the selection of relevant flood types can be informed from the reporting of APSFR in March 2012; Differences in the Articles applied across a Member State and within UoMs. Whilst some Member States have applied only one Article across their whole territory and for all flood types, others have applied different Articles within a UoM and also according to flood types. The application of Article 13.1.b and Article 13.2 by some Member States in at least some of their UoMs. In these cases Member States may have provided UoM codes, other area codes or both: in these cases it was the flood maps associated with the areas that were checked. The objective was to check examples of maps within the linked areas in relation to all potential and relevant sources of flooding and that may have been mapped. Links to national web pages where examples of national maps can be viewed are given below. Unit of Management AT 1000 AT 1000 AT 1000 AT 1000 AT 1000 AT 1000 AT 1000 AT 1000 AT 1000 AT 2000 APSFR code 1006 1015 1023 1026 6004 6012 7027 7058 7084 8001 The provided link went straight to the APSFR No No No No No No No No No No Map located by searching for name of APSFR Source(s) of flooding mapped Fluvial Fluvial Pluvial Pluvial Fluvial Fluvial Fluvial Fluvial Fluvial Fluvial Mechanism(s) of flooding mapped None None None None None None None None None None Characteristic(s) of flooding mapped None None None None None None None None None None 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 Separate maps or layers for each probability scenario Page 4 of 20
Unit of Management AT 1000 AT 1000 AT 1000 AT 1000 AT 1000 AT 1000 AT 1000 AT 1000 AT 1000 AT 2000 APSFR code 1006 1015 1023 1026 6004 6012 7027 7058 7084 8001 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 No No No No No No No No No No Flood extents Water depth Water levels No No No No No No No No No No Flow velocities Relevant water flow No No No No No No No No No No Flood Hazard and Flood Risk on the same map No No No No No No No No No No 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 (1) Land use Point locations for storage of chemicals, vital networks and services Property Infrastructure Location of Industrial Emissions Directive installations WFD Protected Areas Status of water bodies No No No No No No No No No No Areas vulnerable to floods with high content of transported sediment and debris flow Other significant sources of pollution such as No No No No No No No No No No water deposits and landfills Cultural Heritage Other useful information No No No No No No No No No No Impacts of Climate Change No No No No No No No No No No Coastal protection defences in place No No No No No No No No No No Page 5 of 20
(1) The maps distinguish between "predominantly living quarters", "industry and services", "forestry and agriculture" and some others. Link to national maps http://wisa.bmlfuw.gv.at/wasserkarten/hochwasser/risikogebiete.html?g_mode=full Page 6 of 20
Contextual information provided with maps Question 3 What contextual information was generally provided with the maps? Unit of Management AT 1000 AT 1000 AT 1000 AT 1000 AT 1000 AT 1000 AT 1000 AT 1000 AT 1000 AT 2000 APSFR code 1006 1015 1023 1026 6004 6012 7027 7058 7084 8001 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 No No No No No No No No No No Method of developmen (1)t No No No No No No No No No No 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) (2) No No No No No No No No No No North and scale: preferably using scale bar as this allows for changes in page size Scope and detail of the explanatory information: should be appropriate to the intended audience Intended audience & complexity: Maps intended for public use should be simple and selfexplanatory and include a clear legend, such that as little supporting or explanatory information as possible is required for correct interpretation. (1) The AT authorities subsequently explained that this information is provided through links to relevant background documents (2) The AT authorities indicated that such a disclaimer is provided on the server (but it is not included on the maps themselves). Page 7 of 20
Summary of findings from questions 2 and 3. There are no significant differences between what has been reported to WISE with what has been visualised on the ten maps that have been assessed. Austria used a strictly national approach, and the methodologies are the same for all RBD (meaning AT 1000 Danube and AT 2000 Rhine); for the Elbe (AT 5000), no APSFR were identified, and, consequently, no hazard and risk maps have been produced. Because of the national approach, there are no differences between the UoMs in the RBD. The two flood types mapped in Austria are fluvial and pluvial floods. Pluvial floods are associated with lakes and are seen as mixed processes as fluvial input and groundwater dynamics also contribute to these lake induced floods. Generally, the flood risk and hazard maps in Austria are organized exactly the same in the different APSFRs: in all cases, there is one map depicting the flooded areas in cases of a low/medium/high probability event (with colour code); then, there are the hazard maps depicting the flow velocity and the water depth (two times three maps for low / medium / high probability events), and finally the risk maps for the low / medium / high probability events (all in all: ten maps per APSFR); in some areas, the APSFR is split into several "mapped areas" (because of the use of a fixed scale of 1:25,000), multiplying the number of maps available (but not changing the general organization). There are no significant negative issues regarding the flood risk and hazard maps in Austria. They are all of a very high quality and good scale, are easily available (a quick search produces a list of the maps for the respective APSFR), and comprehensive. A minor issue that could be improved is that the expressions "hazard" and "risk" or "potentially significant risk" are not explained on the maps, and sound very technical - an easy-to-grasp explanation could be helpful for the public.. Regarding overall presentation and accessibility, the Austrian maps could be regarded as best practice. Page 8 of 20
Methodologies used to prepare flood hazard maps Question 4 What methods and relevant information have been used to identify, assess or calculate flooding hazards for the relevant scenarios, and are these compliant with the requirements of the Floods Directive? The sources of flood for which flood hazard maps have been published, or which have been assessed but flood hazard maps have not been published, were: Source of flooding Fluvial Pluvial Coastal Groundwater Artificial water bearing infrastructure Sewerage systems Other (described below if applicable) Published Yes Yes Hazard assessed but not published Neither published nor assessed Not relevant x x x x x Other: Not relevant. Comments The Austrian hazard and risk maps are exactly the same for pluvial and fluvial floods: pluvial floods are associated with floods from lakes that are also influenced by fluvial input and groundwater rise. There are no differences between the UoMs in this regard. Page 9 of 20
A) Fluvial floods Scenarios mapped or assessed Scenario Low probability Medium probability High probability Return period e.g. 100 years 300 years 100 years 30 years Percentage e.g. 1% Decimal e.g. 0.01 Other expression Summary of the information found and in particular any differences between the UoMs in the Member State. The maps for fluvial floods assessed in the course of this assessment (8 UoMs) exclusively cover linear water courses, i.e. rivers. It seems that minor water courses like tributaries were also covered, as far as relevant. There are no differences regarding topics depicted or scenarios used in the UoMs in Austria. Elements mapped or assessed Scenario Flood extent Water depth/level Water/flow velocities Low probability Yes Yes Yes Medium Yes Yes Yes probability High probability Yes Yes Yes Other Summary of the information found and in particular any differences between the UoMs in the Member State. All maps - for fluvial and pluvial floods - show the extent of the flood, the water depth, and the flow velocity for three probability events (low / medium / high probability). 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. The three scenarios tested were the ones depicted finally in the hazard maps low / medium / high probability events (return periods 300 / 100 / 30 years). There is no indication that other scenarios were tested as well. The AT authorities subsequently stated that extreme events had been analysed to some extent (if available or relevant) such as from dyke breach and arising from log jams, etc There is no indication that certain scenarios were not included. No information found in the WISE data (FD 9.0 FHRM A). The AT authorities subsequently stated that the relevant methodological information was available in background documents. It is stated by Austria that the hazard maps should be as spatially inclusive and comprehensive as possible, using a large scale (1:25,000). No further information of how the most appropriate scale has been Page 10 of 20
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 determined was found though the AT authorities stated that this is explained in relevant background documents. The digital terrain models used to calculate flood hazards are in AT mainly based on information derived from terrestrial river profile surveys combined with Laser Scan data (there is no information on the resolution of this data). Where such data has not been available, terrain models with a resolution of 10 x 10 metres were used (which is available for the whole territory; hence, it can be concluded that the data used normally is of a higher resolution / better quality). The AT authorities subsequently clarified that a DTM with a 1 x 1 m resolution is usually available in AT. Existing flood defences were taken into account in the low probability scenario by assuming flood defence structures of the HQ100 protection level in the area (i.e. flood defences are in place protecting against a medium probability event, return period 100 years). Furthermore, the risk of flood defences of the HQ300 protection level (return period 300 years) failing/being disturbed was also taken into account (details on how this happened are missing in WISE/FD 9.0 FHRM A). The AT authorities subsequently clarified that the HQ300 protection level is only available for a very few cities such as Vienna. No information. The AT authorities subsequently stated that these had been taken into account by the Digital Terrain Models and the use of roughness coefficients for settlements. The data/datasets used in Austria originate from the following sources (beside the digital terrain models): - Flow analyses (mostly based on 2-D hydrodynamic models; models not specified). - The designation of "hazard zones" according to Austrian law (the directives of the federal agency regulating water infrastructures, the "Bundeswasserbauverwaltung"). - The plans depicting "hazard zones" according to the forestry regulations. - The "Natural Hazard Overview and Risk Assessment Austria", www.hora.gv.at). For most alpine "Wildbäche" (creeks with irregular course and heavy current), the so called "pragmatic method WLV" has been used (a combination of expert knowledge and existing topographical, geological and hydrological information and maps). No key assumptions are mentioned in WISE Page 11 of 20
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? (FD 9.0 FHRM A). No uncertainties identified in WISE (FD 9.0 FHRM A). However, in general, hydrological modelling exercises, including the employed 2- D hydrodynamic models, will have a certain level of uncertainty. The AT authorities clarified that all map information is assigned (by shading and colour) according to the reliability of data considered: reliable data available (fully coloured); and weak information available (information is shaded). There are no shortcomings mentioned in WISE (FD 9.0 FHRM A); from the assessor s perspective, the Austrian hazard maps are well made - it does not seem likely that "other methods" would result in better maps (this can probably be only achieved through a better database). There are no advantages mentioned in WISE (FD 9.0 FHRM A) - however, the Austrian hazard maps are well made, and the digital terrain models underlying the calculations seem of a very high quality. Page 12 of 20
B) Pluvial floods Scenarios mapped or assessed Scenario Low probability Medium probability High probability Return period e.g. 100 years 300 years 100 years 30 years Percentage e.g. 1% Decimal e.g. 0.01 Other expression Summary of the information found and in particular any differences between the UoMs in the Member State. The maps for pluvial floods assessed in the course of this assessment (2 UoMs) exclusively cover lakes. There are no differences regarding topics depicted or scenarios used in the UoMs in Austria. Elements mapped or assessed Scenario Flood extent Water depth/level Water/flow velocities Low probability Yes Yes Yes Medium Yes Yes Yes probability High probability Yes Yes Yes Other Summary of the information found and in particular any differences between the UoMs in the Member State. All maps - for fluvial and pluvial flooding - show the extent of the flood, the water depth, and the flow velocity for three probability events (low/medium/high probability). 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 relatively larger scale e.g. 1: 10,000 to 1: 25,000 The three scenarios tested were the ones depicted finally in the hazard maps - low/medium/high probability events (return periods 300/100/30 years). There is no indication that other scenarios were tested as well. The AT authorities subsequently stated that extreme events had been analysed to some extent (if available or relevant) such as from dyke breach and arising from log jams, etc There is no indication that certain scenarios were not included. No information found in the WISE data (FD 9.0 FHRM A). The AT authorities subsequently stated that the relevant methodological information was available in background documents. It is stated by Austria that the hazard maps should be as spatially inclusive and comprehensive as possible, using a large scale (1:25,000). No further information of how the most appropriate scale has been determined was found though the AT authorities stated that this is explained in Page 13 of 20
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? relevant background documents The digital terrain models used to calculate flood hazards are in AT mainly based on information derived from terrestrial river profile surveys combined with Laser Scan data (there is no information on the resolution of this data). Where such data has not been available, terrain models with a resolution of 10 x 10 metres were used (which is available for the whole territory; hence, it can be concluded that the data used normally is of a higher resolution / better quality). The AT authorities subsequently clarified that a DTM with a 1 x 1 m resolution is usually available in AT. Existing flood defences were taken into account in the low probability scenario by assuming flood defence structures of the HQ100 protection level in the area (i.e. flood defences are in place protecting against a medium probability event, return period 100 years). Furthermore, the risk of flood defences of the HQ300 protection level (return period 300 years) failing/being disturbed was also taken into account (details on how this happened are missing in WISE/FD 9.0 FHRM A). The AT authorities subsequently clarified that the HQ300 protection level is only available for a very few cities such as Vienna. No information except regarding flood defences available. The AT authorities subsequently stated that these had been taken into account by the Digital Terrain Models and the use of roughness coefficients for settlements. The data/datasets used in Austria originate from the following sources (beside the digital terrain models): - Flow analyses (mostly based on 2-D hydrodynamic models; models not specified). - The designation of "hazard zones" according to Austrian law (the directives of the federal agency regulating water infrastructures, the "Bundeswasserbauverwaltung"). - The plans depicting "hazard zones" according to the forestry regulations. - The "Natural Hazard Overview and Risk Assessment Austria", www.hora.gv.at). For most alpine "Wildbäche" (creeks with irregular course and heavy current), the so called "pragmatic method WLV" has been used (a combination of expert knowledge and existing topographical, geological and hydrological information and maps). No key assumptions are mentioned in WISE (FD 9.0 FHRM A). Page 14 of 20
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? No uncertainties identified in WISE (FD 9.0 FHRM A). However, it is obvious that in general, hydrological modelling exercises, including the employed 2-D hydrodynamic models, are flawed by a certain level of uncertainties. The AT authorities clarified that all map information is assigned (by shading and colour) according to the reliability of data considered: reliable data available (fully coloured); and weak information available (information is shaded). There are no shortcomings mentioned in WISE (FD 9.0 FHRM A); from the assessor s perspective, the Austrian hazard maps are well made - it does not seem likely that "other methods" would result in better maps (this can probably be only achieved through a better data base). There are no advantages mentioned in WISE (FD 9.0 FHRM A) - however, the Austrian hazard maps are well made, and the digital terrain models underlying the calculations seem of a very high quality. C) Coastal floods Note: Coastal floods are not relevant in Austria (land-locked country). D) Groundwater floods Note: Groundwater floods are not seen as relevant in Austria. E) Floods from Artificial Water Bearing Infrastructure Note: Floods from Artificial Water Bearing Infrastructure are not seen as relevant in Austria because such infrastructure is considered to have a very high safety level (designed to resist a 1000 to 5000 years flood). F) Floods from sewerage systems Note: Floods from Sewerage Systems are not seen as relevant in Austria. G) Other types of floods Note: Other types of floods are not seen as relevant in Austria. AT authorities clarified that debris flow and mud flow probability along tributaries are considered. Page 15 of 20
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 The risk to human health has been determined in Austria on the basis of impacted inhabitants, categorised into four categories: up to 50 inhabitants impacted, 51 500, 501 5,000 and above 5,000. The database for identifying the impacted people is the data of the official Austrian statistics (February 2013), which lists all registered inhabitants per building. On the basis of the flooded area (depicted in the hazard map "Flooded Area"), the number of people impacted has then been calculated per scenario (i.e. for the low/medium/high probability events). There are no differences regarding fluvial and pluvial floods. This methodology was employed in the Danube and Rhine RB; in the Elbe RBD, no hazard and risk maps have been produced (no APSFRs designated). b) Risk to economic activity The risk to economic activity was determined and depicted in two different ways for a) area-wise usages (like agriculture), and b) punctual and linear critical infrastructure. Area-wise economic activities at risk were determined by using CORINE Landcover information from 2006 and NAVTEQ data in urban areas (complemented in most cases by more detailed information from the federal states), simplified into five categories (which are depicted on the maps: living quarters; industry and craft; usages "related to the settlement"; agriculture, forestry and "other grassland"; and water bodies). In the risk maps, the flooded areas (according to the low / medium / high probability events) were then simply coloured differently, i.e. according to the usage determined. Punctual and linear critical infrastructure at risk was depicted on the risk maps independent of the location within or outside of a potentially flooded area. Punctual infrastructure was depicted using a symbol, linear infrastructure by marking the whole course of the road / railway tracks across the map. The depicted infrastructures are (source in brackets): - Railway lines of the categories A and B1 (Austrian railways and preliminary FR assessment). - Railway stations of the categories A and B1 (Austrian railways and preliminary FR assessment). - Highways ("Autobahnen" and "Schnellstraßen") (ASFINAG road network). - Hospitals (data from GÖG), and senior citizen s residences (reported data from the federal states). - Schools and kindergartens (reported data from the federal states). - Airports (data from Environment Agency). - Harbours (data from viadonau). This methodology was employed in the Danube and Rhine RB; in the Elbe RBD, no hazard and risk maps have been produced (no APSFRs designated). c) Risk to Installations covered by the requirements of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) or previously under the IPPC Directive The risk to installations covered by the requirements of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) was determined on the basis of the European Pollutant Release and Page 16 of 20
Transfer Register (E-PRTR) regarding IPPS/IED installations and UWWT installations greater than 100.000 PE, which are covered on the risk maps under the common category "Industry, waste/waste water disposal installation". Under the same category, additional sites (e.g. Seveso-sites, waste dumps, other point sources) can be added if necessary. Regarding abandoned hazardous sites, a priority system was developed, evaluating a) the priority assigned to the site (rating 1-3, 1 being of the highest risk), and b) whether a complete restoration has been carried out, or not (in the second case, only safeguard measures are established, i.e. the site could be a potential source of pollutants in case of flooding). Depending on the combination of the two factors, it is decided whether an abandoned hazardous site is classified as "significant" of not: - Priority 1 = high risk - Priority 2 = medium risk - Priority 3 = low risk - Restored site (Priority 1-3) = no risk - Safeguarded site (Priority 1) = medium risk - Safeguarded site (Priority 2 und 3) = low risk Sites posing high or medium risk are classified as significant, and are depicted on the maps. As with punctual critical infrastructures, the sites classified as being at risk (or posing a risk in the case of flooding) are depicted on the risk maps independently of the location within or outside of a potentially flooded area. This methodology was employed in the Danube and Rhine RB; in the Elbe RBD, no hazard and risk maps have been produced (no APSFRs designated). d) Risk to WFD protected areas The protected areas at risk are depicted in the risk maps in three different ways / using three different signatures: Natura 2000 areas and Austrian National Parks are depicted as a single category "Natura 2000 / National Parks". Considered are only those of the areas situated within a potentially flooded areas (considering the low / medium / high probability scenarios). Protected areas according to the WFD are depicted as a single category (for a better coordination with the implementation of that Directive), not distinguishing between the objective of the protection (i.e. not distinguishing between drinking water protected areas and other protected areas). Considered are only those of the areas situated within a potentially flooded areas (considering the low / medium / high probability scenarios). The only exception to this are bathing waters, which are depicted with a punctual symbol on the risk maps independently of the location within or outside of a potentially flooded area. This methodology was employed in the Danube and Rhine RB; in the Elbe RBD, no hazard and risk maps have been produced (no APSFRs designated). e) Other consequences considered Other consequences considered are cultural heritage sites (UNESCO Cultural Heritage sites), which are depicted as shaded areas in case they are situated within a potentially flooded area (considering the low / medium / high probability scenarios). Other cultural assets, like churches, theatres, museums and historical buildings, are not depicted, as there is no comprehensive information available on the federal level. Additionally, areas in which floods may carry a high amount of material/debris (mostly "Wildbäche", i.e. alpine creeks with irregular course and heavy current) are marked on the maps by linear markings lining the course of the water body. This methodology was employed in the Danube and Rhine RB; in the Elbe RBD, no hazard and risk maps have been produced (no APSFRs designated). Page 17 of 20
Justification for applying Article 6.6 Question 6 What are the justifications for applying Article 6.6 (coastal areas), if applied, and how has it been determined that an adequate level of protection is in place against coastal floods? Note: Article 6.6 has not been applied in Austria. Justification for applying Article 6.7 Question 7 applied? What are the justifications for applying Article 6.7 (groundwater floods), if Note: Article 6.7 has not been applied in Austria. Application of Article 13.1.b in accordance with requirements of the Floods Directive Question 8 Have the flood hazard maps and flood risk maps been prepared in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Floods Directive where Article 13.1.b has been applied? Note: Article 13.1.b has not been applied in Austria. Compliance of the use of Article 13.2 with the requirements of Article 6 Question 9 Has the use of Article 13.2 provided a level of information in flood hazard and flood risk maps equivalent to the requirements of Article 6? Note: Article 13.2 has not been applied in Austria. Page 18 of 20
Information exchanged between Member States and the preparation of coherent maps in international RBDs or UoMs Question 10 How has it been ensured that there was prior information exchange on the production of maps between Member States sharing international RBDs or UoMs, and how was it ensured that coherent maps were produced between the relevant Member States? The number of cross border Units of Management with shared flood risk areas in this Member State There are three UoMs with shared flood risk areas in Austria: Danube (AT 1000), Rhine (AT 2000), Elbe (AT 5000). Summary of the information reported and in particular any differences between UoMs in the Member State. Austria has a share in three international RBDs: The Danube, Rhine, and Elbe. In the Danube RBD, the information exchange was ensured through the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube (there is a working group on floods), and through several bilateral commissions regarding shared waters (see below). The International Commission for the Protection of the Danube itself produces a "Level A" (whole international RBD) report on flood hazard and risk maps, and on information exchange, to which Austria contributed. The above mentioned bilateral commissions exist with Germany, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia and Slovakia. In these commissions, Austria collaborated with the respective public authorities via expert talks and workshops. Additionally, in the transboundary EU projects Danube Flood Risk, CEframe and LABEL, important aspects of the Floods Directive were treated and discussed together with other Danube riparian states. In the Rhine RBD, the information exchange was ensured through the International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (there is a working group on floods), and via a bilateral cross-border water commission with Switzerland (through workshops and expert discussions).the International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine itself produces a "Level A" (whole international RBD) report on flood hazard and risk maps, and on information exchange, to which Austria contributed. In the Elbe RBD, there are no APSFR designated, Nevertheless, prior to the (non-) designation of APSFR, the information exchange was ensured through the International Commission for the Protection of the Elbe (there is a working group on floods), and via a bilateral cross-border water commission with the Czech Republic (through workshops and expert talks). Additionally, in the transboundary EU projects CEframe and LABEL, important aspects of the Floods Directive were treated and discussed together with other Elbe riparian states. Page 19 of 20
Consideration of climate change impacts in the preparation of the maps Question 11 How has climate change been taken into account when the flood hazard scenarios were identified? Climate change has been taken into account For which sources of flooding For low probability scenario For medium probability scenario For high probability scenario Climate change trend scenarios have been obtained from the IPCC or other international sources Climate change trend scenarios have been obtained from the national research programmes Flood hazard scenarios are based on modelling of changes in flood hazard in relation to climate change Flood hazard scenarios included trend analysis of historical data of hydrological and meteorological observations Flood hazard scenarios included a statistical assessment of historical climate data Yes Climate change has been taken into account for fluvial and pluvial floods (i.e. all types of floods significant in Austria). No differences between UoMs. Yes. No differences between UoMs. Yes. No differences between UoMs. Yes. No differences between UoMs. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Summary of how climate change has been taken into account in the production of flood hazard maps, and highlight any differences between UoMs in the Member State The only information to be found in WISE regarding taking climate change into account in the production of flood hazard maps in Austria states that "the impacts of climate change on future floods were analysed in a comprehensive, Austria-wide study called "Climate change adaptation strategies for the Austrian water management sector", and the results were taken into account in the production of flood hazard and risk maps". Hence, it is unknown to which degree the points mentioned in the table above were considered. Page 20 of 20