26 November 2014

Background to the PFRA European Overview – UC10508

The individual Member State Reports reflect the situation as reported

by the Member States to the European Commission in 2014
The situation in the MSs may have altered since then

Assessment of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps

Member State Report: SI - Slovenia

26 November 2014

Information reported and assessed

The schemas for electronically reporting/making information available to the Commission were filled in
with a detailed level of information. Slovenia made available links to its national flood risk and flood
hazard maps for its 2 units of management. Detailed summaries were provided on the methods used
to prepare the maps and specific details of national maps for visualisation at the European level were
also reported. No links to other relevant information on the preparation of the maps were provided.

This report is structured according to a questionnaire that was completed for all Member States that
reported on their flood hazard and risk maps. Questions 2 and 3 of the questionnaire were answered
on the basis of a qualitative check of a subset of the Member State’s flood hazard and flood risk maps
located on national servers and/or web pages. All other questions (question 1 and questions 4 to 11)
were answered on the basis of an assessment of numeric and summary information reported by the
Member State on the methods used in the preparation of their maps. The report does not include in-
depth 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.

Maps of flooding in Slovenia are available at two web portals: “Atlas okolja” and “Atlas voda”. This
assessment is based on the maps provided via the web portal “Atlas okolja”. The maps on “Atlas
voda” were also checked but, at the time, they were the same as those in the “Atlas okolja”.

Main outcomes of the assessment

a) Good practices adopted:

The maps that are provided via the web portal, “Atlas okolja”, the governmental official
database and an interactive map viewer, which is accessible to general public, is a great
tool. The database is downloadable in different formats. One can view data and prepare
maps of different kind and scale and print them directly from the application. It is intended
for professional (e.g. by local authorities, environmental assessment studies, flood risk
management planning) as well as general public use, as well as for public awareness.

The topic of floods is generally covered by five types of maps (information) on a state
level:
 Map of APSFRs (developed 2012, published 2013) with some numeric information on
potential adverse consequences associated to the APSFR areas (Flood Risk
elements).

1 of 25
 26 November 2014


1
Flood hazard maps (last update 2013 or 2014) ; Flood hazard maps are very detailed
and presented in two forms: (1) probability of flood events (for Q10, Q100, Q500) and
(2) presenting classes of flood hazard (4 classes). Specific common methodology on
a state level is decreed in 2007 and since that time, these maps are produced
through different studies and placed on a common platform.
 Warning map of floods (“Opozorilna karta poplav”) - last update 2007; old general
flood hazard map developed from information that was gathered from maps and
various other sources.
 Flood event maps for floods from 1980 to 2010
 Other maps: Infra-red aerial photo of floods in 2010 for Ljubljana

b) Weaknesses:

Flood hazard maps are prepared according to specific common methodology on a state
level that is decreed in 2007 and, since that time, these maps are produced through
different studies and placed on a common platform. Not all APSFRs are covered by these
studies. This is because they are produced when there is a need for planning something
in the flood area or close to it. So the level of accuracy differs from case to case, from
study to study, but in general it is very good (minimum required scale is 1:5,000 and up to
scale 1:1,000 or more). Besides that, each study has to be approved by the state office
and then it is integrated into the state database. However, one APSFR can be covered by
several such separate studies, or some parts of the APSFRs are not covered at all.
Through time, this weakness will be dealt with.

Numeric information on potential adverse consequences is associated with the APSFRs

as part of the APSFR map (the layer showing only the extent of APSFR). Some of the
required topics are missing.

The SI Authorities subsequently indicated that the statistics on the number of inhabitants
potentially affected were produced for the PFRA but not the mapping of flood risk.

However the number of potentially affected inhabitants by medium probability floods was
provided for some of maps reported to WISE for some but not all APSFR: for others the
number was reported as “yet to be measured”.

There is no distinction among different flood sources (fluvial, pluvial, sea-water,

groundwater, etc.). They are all presented as one integral flood layer (with different return
periods) in the maps. The SI authorities subsequently reported that the flood hazard
maps sometimes include information about flood extent of other flood sources.

c) Lessons to be learnt:

Implementing a specific common methodology on a state level for preparing flood hazard
maps (decreed in 2007), and making it mandatory for each development plan or project
that can have an impact on floods, is a good way of optimising the available resources.

1
Subsequent to the assessment, the SI authorities commented that the maps were updated in early
2015 and that the integrated maps would be updated in summer 2015. The maps that were subject to
the assessment were last updated in 2013 or 2014.

2 of 25
 26 November 2014

Subsequent to the assessment, the SI authorities stated that more detailed and more
accurate flood hazard maps and flood risk maps for certain APSFRs are under
construction.

d) Questions seeking clarification from Member State. Subsequent to the assessment, the SI
authorities responded to the questions, as shown below:

1. "Source: 3030, 3021, 3067 and 3129" or some other numbers are written on hazard
maps right after the title of a map. This seems to refer to the source of information. What
are these codes? Do they refer to the separate studies? Please explain.

SI response: These numbers refer to internal codes of individual hydrologic-hydraulic

studies, which were allocated at the Institute for Water of the Republic of Slovenian
Environment Agency (SEA/ARSO) in the process of reviewing the compliance of studies
with methodological rules (in the process of obtaining the water consent). Studies
represent a data source for preparing data layers with flood extent lines, depths classes,
hazard classes and the area covered by the validated results. If any individual APSFR is
overlapped by the areas covered by more than one study, the results for each study are
combined according to uniform rules to derive the combined flood extent lines, depths
and hazard classes. The hazard map also lists codes of individual studies, as through
them it is possible to trace the emergence of individual lines of hazard classes.

2. One APSFR is covered by several separate areas where the calculated data is correct.
(map provided in the LinkToMS schema). These areas refer to the results of different
studies. Why isn’t one APSFR entirely covered by one such study?

SI response: Individual hydrologic-hydraulic (flood) studies are prepared in accordance

with the provisions of the methodological rules (2007) and, since 2008, have been used in
the procedures for obtaining the water consent as a basis for the conditions and limits for
the implementation of activities and interventions in flood areas. The whole area of
APSFR is therefore covered by the results of several studies that have been merged and
coordinated in a joint map for each APSFR.

3. What are the differences among the layers (event scenarios with return period 10, 100,
500 years) that are used in the Flood Hazard maps presented through the LinkToMS
schemas and the Flood Hazard maps presented through "Atlas okolja" via web portal
http://gis.arso.gov.si/atlasokolja/profile.aspx?id=Atlas_Okolja_AXL@Arso, which is
available to general public?

SI response: In principle, the difference is only in the digital format (charts (PDF format)
and data layers (SHP format)). Data on Flood Hazard maps in PDF format are consistent
with the data layers on Integrated Flood Hazard maps in SHP format, published on the
Environmental Atlas and Water Management Atlas, of course taking into account the
timing of producing the maps and updating the layers.

4. Are there any differences in numeric information between the Flood Risk maps in the
LinkToMS schema and the numeric information on potential adverse consequences
associated to the APSFR areas in the "Atlas okolja"?

SI response: Statistics of people at risk of flooding in APSFRs obtained in the Preliminary

flood risk assessment is made on the basis of methodological guidelines and data layers
other than the ones used for preparing Flood Hazard maps for the years 2011-2013, so
there are some differences in numerical information. Statistics in APSFRs were prepared

3 of 25
 26 November 2014

within a non-generalised polygon of network cell size of 75 m, where certain types of at-
risk people were selected on the basis of data layers used in the preparation of
classification of flood-risk areas maps. For flood risk maps a set of potential at-risk people
was slightly modified, as shown in the legend on the map. In particular, the statistics of at-
risk people refer to the whole area covered by the validated results of all studies that are
at least partially located in the area of potentially significant flood risk, i.e. the area of
flood risk is significantly expanded.

5. For Piran (APSFR SI5_42) and Dravograd (APSFR SI3_08) there is no other
information available except for the Areas of Potentially Significant Flood Risk and
associated numeric information on potential adverse consequences. Is that true and why?

SI response: For APSFR SI5_42 Piran Flood Hazard maps and Flood Risk maps are
prepared and available on the Water Management Atlas and on the Environmental Atlas
(with a click to APSFR/OPVP, links to individual maps in a PDF file are opened). They are
also available through an Excel spreadsheet on MESP’s web site:

http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/OPOPO.xls

A detailed Flood Hazard map Q100 for APSFR Piran is available on:

http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/OPVP_Si_
KPO/ogrozenost_Q500_Piran.pdf

In addition, links to maps for APSFR Piran are included in the updated reporting forms.
For APSFR SI3_08 Dravograd, the estimated potential consequences of flooding
(number of inhabitants, number of employees, number of cultural monuments, number of
IPPC and SEVESO facilities, etc.) are within the layer APSFR/OPVP. Within the Flood
Indication Map Flood Hazard is mapped with less precision.

In the area of Dravograd construction and implementation work of EU cohesion project

Drava is ongoing (for period 2007-2023), which significantly alters the hydrologic and
hydraulic situation in the area.

6. It seems that there is no distinction amongst the sources of floods (fluvial, pluvial,
groundwater, sea water, etc.). Are there or will there be separate layers prepared for each
relevant source of floods?

SI response: Preparing separate data layers depending on the source of flooding is not
foreseen; there are currently only divisions between the flooding of watercourses and
flooding of the sea and lakes. In the case of overlapping of the flood extents from the two
sources, a common area with validated results and combined flood extent lines, depths
and hazard classes is prepared by the uniform rules (e.g. APSFR Izola and APSFR
Koper).

7. How and when are the separate layers of information updated (in "Atlas okolja")?

SI response: Integral maps on the Water Management Atlas and the Environmental Atlas
(Integral flood hazard map, Integral flood hazard classes map and Integral map of water
depth at Q100) are updated approximately every 6 months. Flood risk maps and Flood
events maps are updated every 6 years; the same goes for Areas of potentially significant
flood risk and Flood Risk maps.

4 of 25
 26 November 2014

8. The classes of Flood hazard are not explained in the "Atlas okolja". There is just a
reference to the methodology that was decreed. Should there be an explanation of
classes in terms of depth of water, etc.?

SI response: Flood hazard classes are explained in more detail in the metadata of each
layer (flood hazard class) under iKRPN Si (integrated flood hazard classes maps), so is,
for example class of high flood hazard explained in metadata at the web address:

http://gis.arso.gov.si/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid={9C5CAEE4-
42FA-48E9-A79A-E98A186CAA29}

where it is written in the abstract:

On the basis of criteria which classify the strength of the flood flow at the same probability
of occurrence of the event, flood hazard areas are graded into flood hazard classes, with
the decisive criterion of one, which shows the greatest hazard class. The planar spatial
objects represent volume of significant flood hazard areas class (Pv), where the water
depth is same or greater than 1.5 m at the flow of Q100 or surface G100 or the product of
2
depth and speed of water is same or greater than 1.5m /s.

In addition, flood hazard classes and the methodology of their determination are clearly
defined in Rules on the methodology for determination of flood risk areas and, with them,
associated erosion of inland and marine waters, and the method of classifying land into
the risk classes (Official Journal of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 60/07):

https://www.uradni-list.si/1/content?id=81148.

5 of 25
 26 November 2014

Mapping of areas of potential significant flood risk

Question 1: What are the reasons reported in the FHRM schema for the non-inclusion of some
APSFRs, elements or aspects in the flood hazard and flood risk maps?

SI reported links to maps of each of the APSFRs identified according to Article 5, and also
details of the maps in the FHRM schema. The links were to maps that were at the time of the
assessment (November 2014) not publicly available. However, there were flood hazard maps
that were available to the public on a government web portal, and the content is basically the
same (very small differences). They are presented as interactive maps where one can zoom
in from the state level to the property.

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 Number of Areas of Potential FHRM information Number of other

Management Significant Flood Risk (1) reported at Unit of areas with
Management scale (2) available
national FHRM
(3)
a) Identified b) with c) with b) with c) with b) with links to
according links to details of links to details of national maps
to Article 5 national maps national maps
maps provided to maps provided to
WISE WISE

SI_RBD_1 51 51 51 No No 0
SI_RBD_2 10 10 10 No No 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
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.

6 of 25
 26 November 2014

Content of flood hazard and flood risk maps

Note: Not all of the maps prepared by Member States have been examined. Instead a subset was selected and reviewed by designated assessors.

The maps for checking were selected on the basis of information provided by Member States with their Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments (PFRAs) in 2012
(where available) and the screening of the maps made available in the “LinkToMS” schema.

The aim was to select a sufficient number of maps to reflect:

 Potential differences in methodologies, presentation and visualisation of maps between the Units of Management (UoM) within a Member State.
Some Member States have a strong national approach, in others there are differences between administrative regions;
 Differences in sources of floods included in hazard and risk maps. Some APSFRs and UoM are associated with more than one source of flooding
whereas others are not. The aim was to check maps associated with all possible types of flood associated with a Member State. For those Member
States applying Article 4 and Article 13.1.a the selection of relevant flood types can be informed from the reporting of APSFR in March 2012;
 Differences in the Articles applied across a Member State and within UoMs. Whilst some Member States have applied only one Article across their
whole territory and for all flood types, others have applied different Articles within a UoM and also according to flood types.
 The application of Article 13.1.b and Article 13.2 by some Member States in at least some of their UoMs. In these cases Member States may have
provided UoM codes, other area codes or both: in these cases it was the flood maps associated with the areas that were checked. The objective was
to check examples of maps within the linked areas in relation to all potential and relevant sources of flooding and that may have been mapped.”

Links to national web pages where examples of national maps can be viewed are given below.

Question 2 Which types of flood, scenarios, hazard elements and potential adverse consequences have been mapped and visualised?

Unit of Management SI_RBD_1 SI_RBD_1 SI_RBD_1 SI_RBD_1 SI_RBD_1 SI_RBD_2 SI_RBD_2 SI_RBD_2
APSFR code SI1_01 SI1_01 SI1_12 SI1_12 SI3_08 SI15_03 SI15_03 SI5_42
The provided link went straight to the APSFR Yes No Yes No No Yes No No
Map located by searching for name of APSFR N/A Yes N/A Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes
Source(s) of flooding mapped Not clear Not clear Not clear Not clear None Not clear Not clear None
Mechanism(s) of flooding mapped None Not clear None Not clear None None Not clear None
Characteristic(s) of flooding mapped None None None None None None None None
Linked map available to public (1) No / Yes Yes No / Yes Yes Yes No / Yes Yes Yes
Mapped scenarios
Floods with a low probability mapped Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Floods with a medium probability mapped Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Floods with a high probability mapped Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

7 of 25
 26 November 2014

Unit of Management SI_RBD_1 SI_RBD_1 SI_RBD_1 SI_RBD_1 SI_RBD_1 SI_RBD_2 SI_RBD_2 SI_RBD_2
APSFR code SI1_01 SI1_01 SI1_12 SI1_12 SI3_08 SI15_03 SI15_03 SI5_42
Separate maps or layers for each probability Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
scenario
Separate maps or layers for each flood type No No No No No No No No
More than one scenario shown on the same Map No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No

More than one source of flooding shown on the Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
same Map
Hazard Elements shown on map
Flood extents Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Water depth (2) No No No No No No No No
Water levels No No No No No No No No
Flow velocities (3) No No No No No No No No
Relevant water flow 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
Separate maps of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No
Potential adverse consequences shown on:
Number of Inhabitants potentially affected Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Human health Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
The community Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Type and sectors of economic activity No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Land use Yes No Yes No No Yes No No
Point locations for storage of chemicals, vital Yes No Yes No No Yes No No
networks and services
Property Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Infrastructure Yes No Yes No No Yes No No
Location of Industrial Emissions Directive Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
installations
WFD Protected Areas Yes No Yes No No Yes No No
Status of water bodies No No No No No No No No
Areas vulnerable to floods with high content of No No No No No No No No
transported sediment and debris flow
Other significant sources of pollution Yes No Yes No No Yes No No
Cultural Heritage Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Other useful information No Yes No Yes Yes No No No
Impacts of Climate Change No No No No No No No No
Coastal protection defences in place No No No

8 of 25
 26 November 2014

(1) Areas marked “No/Yes” had links to maps reported in the schemas but those links were not publicly available at the time of the assessment. However,
there were flood hazard maps that were available to the public on a government web portal, and the content is basically the same (very small differences).
Subsequent to the assessment, the SI authorities clarified that the maps are available in an Excel spreadsheet on the MESP’s web site or through the Water
Management Atlas or the Environmental Atlas.
(2) water depths were not found on the maps during the assessment. However, subsequent to the assessment, the SI authorities stated that Classes of water
depths (0-0.5 m; 0.5-1.5m; above 1.5 m) are publicly available in an Excel spreadsheet on MESP’s web site or through the Water Management Atlas or the
Environmental Atlas.
(3) Subsequent to the assessment, the SI authorities stated that, for some areas (where applicable), the speed of water (less than 1m/s and greater than
1m/s) are shown, for example, for APSFR Litija depths and speed for Q500 are shown on the map on the link:
http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/OPVP_Si_KPN/35_Litija_IHR/Globine_pri_Q500.pdf.

Links to national maps:

Links provided via the LinkToMS schema (available to the public via an Excel spreadsheet on the website of the Ministry:
http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/OPOPO.xls):

 SI1_01
http://www.mko.gov.si/fileadmin/mko.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/OPVP_Si_KPN/01_Ljubljana_jug_3030_3129_3021_3067/Poplavna_li
nija_Q500.pdf

 SI1_12
http://www.mko.gov.si/fileadmin/mko.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/OPVP_Si_KPN/12_Zalog_Podgrad_Videm_3065_3067_3081_3029/P
oplavna_linija_Q10.pdf

 SI5_42 http://www.mko.gov.si/si/delovna_podrocja/voda/poplavna_direktiva/

Atlas Okolja: http://gis.arso.gov.si/atlasokolja/profile.aspx?id=Atlas_Okolja_AXL@Arso

9 of 25
 26 November 2014

Contextual information provided with maps

Question 3 What contextual information was generally provided with the maps?

Unit of Management SI_RBD_1 SI_RBD_1 SI_RBD_1 SI_RBD_1 SI_RBD_1 SI_RBD_2 SI_RBD_2 SI_RBD_2
APSFR code SI1_01 SI1_01 SI1_12 SI1_12 SI3_08 SI15_03 SI15_03 SI5_42
Title: brief description of the map Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Explanation to the public on how to understand and interpret the flood maps No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Responsible authority (organisation responsible for the development and publishing of the Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
maps, with contact details)
Date of preparation / publication Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Legend (textual description of symbols, colours, line features, etc.) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Purpose of development and intended use No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Method of development No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Limitations of map and / or assessment of uncertainty No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No
Disclaimer (to enforce explanatory information and limitations, and provide legal protection No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
to the responsible authority against adverse consequences of misuse)

North and scale: preferably using scale bar as this allows for changes in page size Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Scope and detail of the explanatory information: should be appropriate to the intended Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
audience
Intended audience & complexity: Maps intended for public use should be simple and self- Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
explanatory and include a clear legend, such that as little supporting or explanatory
information as possible is required for correct interpretation.

10 of 25
 26 November 2014

Summary of findings from questions 2 and 3.

The same approach was used in both sub-units. There is a national approach with uniform
methodology described in the Rules on methodology to define flood endangered areas and
associated erosion of continental and sea waters, and classification of lands in classes of
endangerment (Pravilnik o metodologiji za določanje območij, ogroženih zaradi poplav in z
njimi povezane erozije celinskih voda in morja, ter o načinu razvrščanja zemljišč v razrede
ogroženosti, Uradni list RS, št. 60/07).

The maps provided with direct links in the LinkToMS schema are all in PDF form and were
not publicly accessible at the time of the assessment, although the SI authorities have
subsequently stated that the maps are available through an Excel spreadsheet on the
MESP’s website, on the Water management Atlas and on the Environmental Atlas (layer
APSFR/OPVP). At the time of the assessment, maps were publicly available via a web viewer
only for certain APSFRs; of those assessed, the following APSFRs were available in the web
viewer: SI1_01; SI1_12; SI15_03. They are all prepared for each APSFR separately. For the
other APSFRs that were assessed (SI3_08 and SI5_42), the LinkToMS schema provides a
link to the official governmental Flood Directive web site. There is a link provided to “Atlas
okolja” (Atlas of Environment)
http://gis.arso.gov.si/atlasokolja/profile.aspx?id=Atlas_Okolja_AXL@Arso. “Atlas okolja” is a
governmental official database and an interactive map viewer which is accessible to the
general public without any restrictions or limitations. The database is downloadable in
different formats. One can prepare maps of different kind and scale and print them directly
from the application. It is intended for professional as well as general public use, as well as for
public awareness.

The content of Flood Hazard maps (probability of flood events for return periods 10, 100 and
500 years) seems to be more or less the same in both the LinkToMS and the national portal
(LinkToMS schema seems to provide a bit newer information). At the national portal “Atlas
okolja”, there is another set of flood hazard maps available, which presents the content in four
categories (please see below) of flood hazard that take into account not only the extent of
flood at different return periods, but also water speed, water depth and water flow. With higher
speed of water flow, the flood hazard category can be higher. Flood hazard maps are very
detailed (minimum required scale 1:5,000 and up to scale 1:1,000 or more).

At the time of the assessment, the Flood Risks maps were not available via the national portal
“Atlas okolja”. However, numeric information on potential adverse consequences was
associated with the Areas of Potentially Significant Flood Risk (APSFR) as part of the APSFR
map (the layer showing only the extent of APSFR).

The Flood risk information presented in the maps provided through the LinkToMS schema
does not cover the following required topics:
(1) Type and sectors of economic activity in potentially affected area such as manufacturing,
construction, retail, services and other sources of employment;
(2) Consequences on the status of water bodies;
(3) Areas vulnerable to floods with a high content of transported sediment and debris flows.

The Flood risk information presented at the national portal “Atlas okolja” associated to the
APSFR does not present the following required topics:
(4) Human health such as might arise from pollution or interruption of services related to
water supply and treatment, and would include fatalities;
(5) Land use (e.g. agricultural land);
(6) Point locations for storage of chemicals, vital networks and services (highways, railways,
airport, lifeline services like electricity, sewerage and drinking water, hospitals, etc);

11 of 25
 26 November 2014

(7) Infrastructure such as utilities, power generation, transport, storage and communication;
(8) Location of potentially affected WFD protected areas;
(9) Consequences on the status of water bodies;
(10) Areas vulnerable to floods with a high content of transported sediment and debris flows;

There is no distinction among different flood sources (fluvial, sea-water, groundwater etc) –
they are all presented as one integral layer in the maps. All the contextual information is
provided in the web application.

12 of 25
 26 November 2014

Methodologies used to prepare flood hazard maps

Question 4 What methods and relevant information have been used to identify, assess or
calculate flooding hazards for the relevant scenarios, and are these compliant with the
requirements of the Floods Directive?

The sources of flood for which flood hazard maps have been published, or which have been
assessed but flood hazard maps have not been published, were:

Source of Published Assessed but Neither Not

flooding not published published nor relevant
assessed
Fluvial SI_RBD_1, SI_RBD_2
Pluvial SI_RBD_1,
SI_RBD_2
Coastal SI_RBD_2 SI_RBD_1
Groundwater SI_RBD_1,
SI_RBD_2
Artificial water SI_RBD_1,
bearing SI_RBD_2
infrastructure
Sewerage SI_RBD_1,
systems SI_RBD_2
Other
(described
below if
applicable)

Other: Not relevant

Comments

There are no differences between both UoMs in the Member State. There is no
differentiation among different flood sources at presentation of flood hazard maps. All
considered flood sources (namely fluvial and sea-water) are integrated into one flood map
(presented in three scenarios for 10, 100 and 500 year return period). However, WISE
Floods summery report (FD.9.0 FHRM A) provides the information on different methodology
used to analyze floods from different sources (rivers, lakes and seawater). The sources of
flooding that were included as fluvial are also lakes, artificial water bearing infrastructure,
groundwater and pluvial.

A) Fluvial floods

Scenarios mapped or assessed

Scenario Return period Percentage Decimal Other

e.g. 100 years e.g. 1% e.g. 0.01 expression
Low probability 500 four classes of
flood hazard
Medium 100 four classes of
probability flood hazard
High probability 10 four classes of

13 of 25
 26 November 2014

flood hazard
Summary of the information found and in particular any differences between the UoMs
in the Member State.

The probability scenarios have been expressed in two different ways (two different sets of
maps):
(1) In terms of return period (10, 100 and 500 years), and
(2) In terms of four classes of flood hazard at water flows at rivers and water levels at lakes
corresponding to 100 year return period taking into account water depth and water speed.

There are no differences between the UoMs in the MS because one common methodology is
mandatory for the whole country. The sources of flooding that were included as fluvial are
also lakes, artificial water bearings and pluvial.

Elements mapped or assessed

Scenario Flood extent Water Water/flow Other

depth/level* velocities*
Low probability Yes No No combination of
water depth and
speed at specific
water flow
Medium Yes No No combination of
probability water depth and
speed at specific
water flow
High probability Yes No No combination of
water depth and
speed at specific
water flow
* Subsequent to the assessment, the SI authorities stated that water depth classes for
scenarios Q10, Q100 and Q500 are displayed on the maps and the same goes for velocity,
where appropriate.

Summary of the information found and in particular any differences between the UoMs
in the Member State.

The flood hazard maps are prepared according to decreed methodology, therefore, there are
no differences between the UoMs in the MS.

Flooding hazard maps are prepared in two different ways (two sets of maps). The first set of
maps presents flood hazard as flood extent for return periods 10, 100 and 500 years. The
second set of maps presents flood hazard in an integral way as four classes of flood hazard.

Flood hazard classes where defined as combination of water depth and water speed (greater
than 1 m/s) at water flows at rivers and water levels at lakes corresponding to 100 year return
period is taking into account:
(1) The class of high hazard: water depth ≥1,5 m or product of water depth and speed is ≥1,5
2
m /s;
(2) The class of medium hazard: water depth less than 1,5 m and ≥ 0,5 m or product of water
2 2
depth and speed is less than 1,5 m /s and ≥ 0,5m /s;
(3) The class of low hazard: water depth less than 0,5 m or product of water depth and speed
2
is less than 0,5 m /s;
(4) The class of very low hazard: when flood is caused by exceptional natural or man-made
causes (heavy rain, malfunction or destruction of flood defence and other water structures
etc.);

14 of 25

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 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?
15 of 25
26 November 2014
Scenarios for high (10), medium (100) and low
probability (500 year return period) were
considered and tested in the development of
the published maps.
All included. No further explanation provided.
(Not prepared for all the APSFRs.)
The decreed methodology defines probabilities
of certain flood risk with standard probabilities
of the appearance of flows with return periods
10, 100 and 500 years. For defining the
quantity of water flow with probability of 500
year return period the methodology allows also
simplified calculation:
2
- for river catchments larger than 1000 km
the equation Q500 = 1,2 * Q100 is used;
2
- for catchments greater than 100 km and
2
smaller than 1000 km the equation Q500 =
1,3 * Q100 is used;
2
- for catchments smaller than 100 km the
equation Q500 = 1,4 * Q100 is used.
In the case of lakes, the maximal measured
water level is used. The methodology does not
define the length of measurement series used
in the calculations. This depends on best
available information for each separate case.
The minimal accuracy of the flood hazard maps
is decreed and it is 1:5,000. The flood hazard
maps presented in the PDF form via direct links
in the LinkToMS are prepared in scale 1:5,000.
The maps provided through governmental
official database in the interactive map viewer
“Atlas okolja” (Atlas of Environment) can be
enlarged up to the scale 1:1,000.
http://gis.arso.gov.si/atlasokolja/profile.aspx?id
=Atlas_Okolja_AXL@Arso
The resolution of digital terrain models used to
calculate flood hazards was minimum 1:5,000
or larger (basic topographic maps). Besides
that, data gathered with the use of LiDAR
technique of capturing geodetic data have 7,5
cm accuracy for height and density of 10 points
2
per m . For the river beds of the main rivers,
bridges and other hydraulically important
structures field geodetic measurements were
prepared.
Data gathered with the use of LiDAR technique
captured existing flood defences. No further
information is provided.
In modelling, buildings are taken into account
as high walls. Data gathered with the use of
LiDAR technique captured existing
infrastructure or buildings. No further
information is provided. Subsequent to the
 26 November 2014

assessment, the SI authorities stated that the

What other data sets were used?
What are the key assumptions of the
method?
What were the identified uncertainties in
the methods and resultant maps and
assessments?
What were the shortcomings of the
method?
What were the advantages of the method?
buildings cadastre is taken into account in the
modelling.
For the modelling of pluvial runoff, all available
pluvial data series were used.
Key assumptions of the method are:
(1) Climatic variability was considered with the
analysis of all recorded pluvial and water flow
values.
(2)The low probability scenario (500 year return
period) equals the extent of flooding in the case
of malfunction of flood defence structures (as
that they were not build).
(3) The potential effects on flood risk of spatial
planning policies such as those on land use
and infrastructure development have not been
considered in Slovenia, because protective
measures are being carried out with the help of
the Decree on conditions and limitations for
constructions and activities on flood risk areas,
which ensures that the mass of damaging
potential from human activity is not increasing
due to re-directing new developments outside
of flooding areas. In the case of foreseen
enlargements of existing infrastructure in the
areas already endangered by floods, mitigation
measures have to be implemented to reduce
existent endangerment.
There is no information on identified
uncertainties in the methods and resultant
maps and assessments except the
observation,that calculated extents of floods
does not necessarily match the observed
extents of floods because of possible changes
of water bed, obstructions of water flow, etc.
There is no information on the shortcomings of
the method.
There is no information on the advantages of
the method.

B) Pluvial floods

Note: Pluvial flooding was combined/mapped with fluvial flooding.

C) Coastal floods

Scenarios mapped or assessed

Scenario Return period Percentage Decimal Other

e.g. 100 years e.g. 1% e.g. 0.01 expression
Low probability 500 four classes of
flood hazard
Medium 100 four classes of
probability flood hazard
High probability 10 four classes of
flood hazard

16 of 25
 26 November 2014

Summary of the information found and in particular any differences between the UoMs
in the Member State.

The probability scenarios have been expressed in two different ways:

(1) In terms of return period (10, 100 and 500 years), and
(2) In terms of four classes of flood hazard at water levels of sea corresponding to 100 year
return period taking into account water wave with return period 50 years.

The methodology is relevant only in one UoM. Pluvial sources of flooding were also included
as well as sea water flooding. There is no separate layer for sea water sources of flooding.
Sea water flooding is integrated within fluvial flooding.

Elements mapped or assessed

Scenario Flood extent Water Water/flow Other

depth/level* velocities*
Low probability Yes No No combination of
water level and
water wave
Medium Yes No No combination of
probability water level and
water wave
High probability Yes No No combination of
water level and
water wave
* Subsequent to the assessment, the SI authorities stated that water depth classes for
scenarios Q10, Q100 and Q500 are displayed on the maps and the same goes for velocity,
where appropriate.

Summary of the information found and in particular any differences between the UoMs
in the Member State.

The flood hazard maps are prepared according to decreed methodology, therefore, there are
no differences between the UoMs in the MS. Flooding hazard is presented in first set of maps
as flood extent for each scenario (for return periods 10, 100 and 500 years). In the second set
of maps, it is presented as four classes of flood hazard where combination of water levels at
sea corresponding to 100 year return period and water wave with 50 year return period is
considered:
(1) The class of high risk: water depth ≥1,5 m;
(2) The class of medium risk: water depth less than 1,5 m and ≥ 0,5 m;
(3) The class of low risk: water depth less than 0,5 m;
(4) The class of very low risk: when flood is caused by exceptional natural or man-made
causes (heavy rain, malfunction or destruction of flood defence and other water structures
etc.);

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
Scenarios for high (10), medium (100) and
low probability (500 year return period) were
considered and tested in the development of
the published maps.
All included. No further explanation provided.
(Not prepared for all the APSFRs.)

17 of 25

published maps?
How were return periods and/or probabilities
of flooding calculated, for example what was
the length of measurement series used in
the calculations?
How was the most appropriate scale of the
map determined?
For example, flood maps intended to raise
public awareness should enable anyone to
find out where there are risks of flooding.
Maps for this purpose may have a relatively
larger scale e.g. 1: 10,000 to 1: 25,000
compared to those used for national or
regional planning purposes (1:100,000 to 1:
500,000). Also the mapping of some hazard
features such as flow velocity may require a
more detailed scale such as 1:1,000 or
1:5,000.
What was the resolution of digital terrain
models used to calculate flood hazards?
How were existing flood defences taken into
account?
How were existing infrastructure or buildings
taken into account?
What other data sets were used?
What are the key assumptions of the
method?
What were the identified uncertainties in the
methods and resultant maps and
assessments?
What were the shortcomings of the method?
What were the advantages of the method?
18 of 25
26 November 2014
The decreed methodology defines
probabilities of certain flood risk with standard
probabilities of the appearance of water level
with return ages 10, 100 and 500 years. The
methodology does not define the length of
measurement series used in the calculations.
This depends on best available information for
each separate case.
The minimal accuracy of the flood hazard
maps is decreed and it is 1:5,000. The flood
hazard maps presented in the PDF form via
direct links in the LinkToMS (not publically
accessible) are prepared in scale 1:5,000.
Public accessible maps provided through
governmental official database in the
interactive map viewer “Atlas okolja” (Atlas of
Environment) can be enlarged up to the scale
1:1000.
http://gis.arso.gov.si/atlasokolja/profile.aspx?i
d=Atlas_Okolja_AXL@Arso
The resolution of digital terrain models used
to calculate flood hazards was minimum
1:5,000 or larger (basic topographic maps).
Besides that, data gathered with the use of
LiDAR technique of capturing geodetic data
have 7,5 cm accuracy for height and density
2
of 10 points per m . For hydraulically
important structures field geodetic
measurements were prepared.
Data gathered with the use of LiDAR
technique captured existing flood defences.
No further information is provided.
In modelling buildings are taken into account
as high walls. Data gathered with the use of
LiDAR technique captured existing
infrastructure or buildings. No further
information is provided. Subsequent to the
assessment, the SI authorities stated that the
buildings cadastre is taken into account in the
modelling.
For the modelling of pluvial runoff, all
available pluvial data series were used.
Key assumptions of the method are: (1)
Climatic variability was considered with the
analysis of all recorded pluvial and water flow
values.
There is no information on identified
uncertainties in the methods and resultant
maps.
There is no information on the shortcomings
of the method.
There is no information on the advantages of
the method.
 26 November 2014

D) Groundwater floods

Note: Groundwater flooding is not specifically mapped and there is no explicit mention that
groundwater flooding was considered to be a part of fluvial flooding. However, the recorded
historic data that was taken into consideration did not make any distinction between
groundwater and fluvial flooding. Slovenia also has large areas of karst where it is especially
hard to distinguish between groundwater floods and fluvial floods.

E) Floods from Artificial Water Bearing Infrastructure

Note: Flooding from artificial water bearing infrastructure was combined/mapped with fluvial
flooding.

F) Floods from sewerage systems

Note: No information was found on whether the hazard and risk of flooding from this source
has been mapped.

G) Other types of floods

Note: No information was found on whether the hazard and risk of flooding from other sources
have been mapped.

19 of 25
 26 November 2014

Methodologies used to prepare flood risk maps

Question 5 What methods and relevant information have been used to prepare flood risk
maps? Which potential adverse consequences are reported and how have they been identified
and presented in flood risk maps?

a) Risk to human health

The indicative number of inhabitants potentially affected by each flooding scenario is

determined by spatial data analyses of the central register of population (Ministry of
the Interior of Republic of Slovenia, 2014) and data of register of spatial units –
records of house numbers (Geodesy Administration of the Republic of Slovenia,
2014). Permanent and temporary inhabitants are considered. The number of people
at potential risk in each APSFR have then been rounded into a number of categories
2
(e.g. 1-50, 51-100, 101-500, 501-1000 and more than 1000 inhabitants per km ) and
symbolically presented on Flood risk maps. There are no differences in the methods
and criteria used within the Member State.

b) Risk to economic activity

Risk assessment to determine economic activity affected, for each flood scenario the
location of economic activity was analyzed. Spatial data of actual land use using
nomenclature of Corine Land Cover (European Environment Agency, 2006) was used
since the national data layer of actual land use does not give a separate category for
industrial, retail and transportation areas. The Corine Land Cover categories were
reclassified into five categories (industrial, retail and transportation area, residential
area, agricultural area, park area, water area) that are presented on flood risk maps.
To increase the accuracy, for each of the categories, the number of businesses
affected by floods was defined by spatial analysis of data from national business
registry and national registry of house numbers.

To present the influence of floods on transportation, spatial data on roads and

railroads from national registry of economic infrastructure was used. There are no
differences in the methods and criteria used within the Member State.

The risk to economic activity is visualized on the maps (maps included into the
LinkToMS shema) with five categories of land use (industrial, retail and transportation
area, residential area, agricultural area, park area, water area) or as location of roads
and railroads that area at risk.

In the public viewer "Atlas okolja" the flood risk is provided as the number of working
places and businesses in a particular APSFR that are at risk because of flooding, as
well as a number of kilometers of roads and railroads that area at risk in a particular
APSFR. A table with numeric information is associated with each APSFR.

c) Risk to Installations covered by the requirements of the Industrial Emissions

Directive (IED) or previously under the IPPC Directive

Risk assessment to determine industrial installations affected, for each flood

scenario, the location of installations covered by the requirements of the Industrial

20 of 25
 26 November 2014

Emissions Directive (IED) or previously under the IPPC Directive have been
assessed on the base of spatial distribution and size. To increase the level of
accuracy, communal wastewater purification plants, communal dumping sites and
companies liable under the Seveso Directive were also assessed on the base of
spatial distribution and size. Because these data layers are mostly given only by one
geodetic point, the actual risk was determined by visual assessment of digital
ortographic photographs in a scale 1:5,000 and data layers of flood risk categories.

There was no special focus on activities or installations with a high pollution potential
through the release of pollutants into water or land rather than those that potentially
only release pollutants into the air. All chosen industrial installations were treated
equally.

The risk to installations covered by the requirements of the Industrial Emissions

Directive (IED), communal wastewater purification plants, communal dumping sites
and companies liable under the Seveso Directive are visualised on the maps with
specific signs at the location (maps included into the LinkToMS schema).

In the public viewer "Atlas okolja" the flood risk is provided in as number of
installations (IED installations, communal wastewater purification plants, communal
dumping sites and companies liable under the Seveso directive) in a particular
APSFR that are at risk at flooding.

There are no differences in the methods and criteria used within the Member State.

d) Risk to WFD protected areas

Risk assessments used to determine, for each flood scenario, the risk to the types of
protected area in areas potentially at risk from flooding, were prepared using spatial
analyses of data layers of water-protection areas, of bathing waters, of Natura 2000
sites, of ecologically important areas, and of natural heritage protected areas. The
method that was used is simply the identification of such areas within the flooding
areas. There are no differences in the methods and criteria used within the Member
State.

e) Other consequences considered

The methodology defined in the Rules on methodology to define flood endangered

areas and associated erosion of continental and sea waters, and classification of land
in classes of endangerment (Pravilnik o metodologiji za določanje območij, ogroženih
zaradi poplav in z njimi povezane erozije celinskih voda in morja, ter o načinu
razvrščanja zemljišč v razrede ogroženosti, Uradni list RS, št. 60/07) considers also
potential risk to sensitive buildings:
(1) Where evacuation can be difficult (schools, kindergartens, hospitals, health
centres, homes of elderly people and health resorts);
(2) Where exceptional material, cultural or social damage can occur (libraries,
museums, archives);
(3) Where damages can cause large indirect economic loss (transport, supply);
(4) Location of emergency services (fire fighting, rescue and police stations);

21 of 25
 26 November 2014

(5) A public utility water treatment plant and public utility dumps as potential sources
of water pollution in case of floods.

A very simple spatial analysis of mentioned data layers is used in defining risk. There
are no differences in the methods and criteria used within the Member State.

22 of 25
 26 November 2014

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?

Article 6(6) has not been applied in any UoM in Slovenia (source: WISE Flood report: FD.9.0
FHRM B - Application of Article 6.6).

Justification for applying Article 6.7

Question 7 What are the justifications for applying Article 6.7 (groundwater floods), if
applied?

Article 6(7) has not been applied in any UoM in Slovenia (source: WISE Flood report: FD.9.0
FHRM C - Application of Article 6.7).

N.A. "The Article 6.7 has not been applied" is said in the Floods WISE report.

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 any UoM in Slovenia (source: WISE Flood report
FD.1.1 Specific Areas to which each Article has been applied.)

Compliance of the use of Article 13.2 with the requirements of

Article 6

Article 13.2 has not been applied in any UoM in Slovenia (Source: WISE Floods summary
reports: FD.9.0 FHRM G - Use of Article 13.2)

23 of 25
 26 November 2014

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

Both Units of Management in Slovenia are cross border UoMs with shared flood risk areas.

Summary of the information reported and in particular any differences between UoMs
in the Member State.

There was no further information provided in the Floods WISE summary report. Subsequent
to the assessment, the SI authorities reported information formally to the Commission on their
international coordination on the production of maps. This includes details of bilateral water
management commissions through which information has been exchanged with Austria, Italy,
Croatia and Hungary. In addition, SI is active within the Sava Commission (ISRBC) and the
Danube Commission (ICPDR).

24 of 25
 26 November 2014

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 No

For which sources of flooding -
For low probability scenario -
For medium probability scenario -
For high probability scenario -
Climate change trend scenarios have been No
obtained from the IPCC or other international
sources
Climate change trend scenarios have been No
obtained from the national research
programmes
Flood hazard scenarios are based on No
modelling of changes in flood hazard in
relation to climate change
Flood hazard scenarios included trend No
analysis of historical data of hydrological and
meteorological observations
Flood hazard scenarios included a statistical No
assessment of historical climate data

Summary of how climate change has been taken into account in the production of
flood hazard maps, and highlight any differences between UoMs in the Member State

Climate change has not been taken into account in the production of flood hazard maps. The
Flood WISE report provides the following information: “The influence of climate changes
and/or influence of prediction of changes of return periods of existing typical values of flows
was not considered within the hydrologic analyses. However, climatic variability was
considered with the analysis of all recorded pluvial and water flow values.”

25 of 25