Assessment of Second Cycle Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments and Identification of Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk under the Floods Directive : Member State : Italy.
Date: 2022-01-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment
Subjects: Italy, directive (EU), disaster resilience, environmental risk prevention, flood, national implementing measure, water management, watercourse

Assessment of Second Cycle 
Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments and 
Identification of Areas of Potential Significant 
Flood Risk under the Floods Directive 

Member State: Italy 

December 2021 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Environment 

Directorate C — Zero Pollution 

Unit C.1 — Sustainable Freshwater Management 

Contact: Ioannis Kavvadas 

E-mail:ioannis.kavvadas@ec.europa.eu

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

Assessment of Second Cycle 
Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments and 
Identification of Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk 
under the Floods Directive 

Member State: Italy 

December 2021 

Drafted by 

The European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication.  

Luxembourg: Publications Oﬃce of the European Union, 2021 

© European Union, 2021  

The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented based on Commission Decision 2011/833/
EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). 
Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 
International (CC-BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed 
provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. 

For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to be 
sought directly from the respective rightholders. 

PDF 

KH-05-21-363-EN-N

ISBN 978-92-76-46272-9

doi:10.2779/264606

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 
In person 
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can ﬁnd the address of 
the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 
On the phone or by email 
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service: 
– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),
– at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or
– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 
Online 
Information about the European Union in all the oﬃcial languages of the EU is available on the Europa website 
at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 
EU publications 
You can download or order free and priced EU publications at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies 
of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see https://
europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 
EU law and related documents 
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the oﬃcial language versions, 
go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu 
Open data from the EU 
The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from the EU. Data can be 
downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. 

The information and views set out in this study are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reﬂect the oﬃcial opinion of 
the European Commission. 

LEGAL NOTICE 

The  information  and  views  set  out  in  this  report  are  those  of  the  author(s)  and  do  not  necessarily  reflect  the 
official  opinion  of  the  Commission.  The  Commission  does  not  guarantee  the  accuracy  of  the  data  included  in  this 
study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission ’s behalf may be held responsible for the 
use which may be made of the information contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

© European Union, 2021 
Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.  The reuse policy of European Commission documents is 
regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). 

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the copyright of the European Union, 
permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. 

In person 

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the address of 
the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service: 

- by Freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),

- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or

- by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

Online 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website 
at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 

You can download or order free and priced EU publications from: 

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting 
Europe Direct or your local information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en ). 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the official language versions, 
go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu  

Open data from the EU 

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from the EU. Data can be 
downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. 

Table of contents 
Acronyms .................................................................................................................................... 3 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4 

Summary of Information reported by the MS............................................................................. 5 

Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 8 

Overview of the assessment .................................................................................................... 8 

Good Practices....................................................................................................................... 15 

Areas for further development .............................................................................................. 16 

Administrative Arrangements ................................................................................................... 17 

Changes to Units of management since the first cycle.......................................................... 17 

Changes to Competent Authorities since the first cycle ....................................................... 18 

Maps of the River Basin Districts ............................................................................................. 20 

Types of Floods considered in the second cycle PFRA ............................................................ 22 

Types of flood included in the assessment of flood risk ....................................................... 22 

Flooding from sewerage systems .......................................................................................... 25 

Application of Articles 4.2(b), (c), (d) ...................................................................................... 27 

Adverse impacts (past floods) and adverse consequences (potential future floods) ............. 27 

Details of important past floods (source, mechanisms, characteristics) ............................... 27 

Criteria for identifying past floods with significant adverse impacts (Article 4.2(b)) .......... 31 

Significant adverse impacts of past floods ............................................................................ 37 

Criteria for identifying past floods without known significant adverse impacts but with 

potential for adverse consequences in the future (Article 4.2(c)) ........................... 43 

Criteria for identifying future floods with potential adverse consequences regardless of 

significance (Article 4.2 (d)) .................................................................................. 46 

Potential adverse consequences of future floods................................................................... 51 

Details about potential future floods ..................................................................................... 56 

Issues considered in the application of Article 4.2(d), the assessment of potential adverse 

consequences ................................................................................................................... 58 

Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk ................................................................................ 63 

Criteria to determine significance of present or future flood risk ......................................... 63 

Criteria for the inclusion of an area as an APSFR ................................................................ 67 

Designated APSFRs .............................................................................................................. 71 

Consequences considered in the identification of APSFRs .................................................. 74 

Changes to APSFRs since the first cycle assessment ........................................................... 81 

1 

 
 
Consideration of climate change ............................................................................................... 82 

International information exchange .......................................................................................... 83 

PFRAs in a transboundary context ........................................................................................ 83 

Transboundary APSFRs ........................................................................................................ 86 

Changes in international information exchange since the first cycle .................................... 88 

Annex A – Flood type definitions ............................................................................................. 89 

Annex B – Floods identified as posing significant flood risk at the APSFR level. .................. 90 

Annex C – Sources, mechanisms and characteristics of flooding identified for past floods .. 103 

Annex D – Sources, mechanisms and characteristics of potential future floods .................... 125 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
Acronyms 

APSFR 
EEA 
EIONET 
FD 
E-PRTR 
FD 
FHRM 
FRM 
FRMP 
MS 
NWRM 
PFRA 
RBD 
SEA 
UoM 
WFD 
WISE 

Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk 
European Environment Agency 
European Environment Information and Observation Network 
Floods Directive 
European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register 
Floods Directive 
Flood Hazard and Risk Map 
Flood risk management 
Flood Risk Management Plan 
Member State 
Natural Water Retention Measures 
Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments 
River Basin District (as defined in the WFD) 
Strategic Environmental Assessment 
Unit of Management (as defined in the FD, this overlaps with the RBD) 
Water Framework Directive 
Water Information System for Europe 

3 

 
 
 
Introduction 

The Floods Directive 2007/60/EC (FD)1 came into force in 2007. It established a framework for 
flood risk management (FRM) and foresees 6-yearly cycles aiming to reduce the risk of flood 
damage in the European Union (EU). The first cycle covered the period 2010-15. The second 
cycle covers the period 2016-21. The latter is also the period of implementation of the first Flood 
Risk Management Plans (FRMPs), which were established by the Member States (MS) at the 
end  of  the  first  cycle.  The  first  FRMPs,  but  also  the  first  cycle  Preliminary  Flood  Risk 
Assessments (PFRAs), the Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk (APSFRs) identified and 
the  Flood  Hazard  and  Risk  Maps  (FHRMs)  were  sequentially  assessed  by  the  European 
Commission (the Commission). During the second cycle, MS are required to have reviewed and, 
if  necessary,  updated,  by  22  December  2018,  their  first  cycle  Preliminary  Flood  Risk 
Assessments. Reporting to the Commission was required to have taken place by 22 March 2019. 
Italy started reporting in May 2019 and made the last entry in EIONET2 in November 20203. 
This assessment report reflects the situation as reported by the MS to the Commission before the 
assessment  and  with  reference  to  PFRAs  conducted  earlier.  The  situation  in  Italy  may  have 
altered since then. 

MS  report  information  to  the  Commission  electronically  using  dedicated  tools  and  databases 
developed  under  the  European  Environment  Agency’s  (EEA)  Water  Information  System  for 
Europe (WISE). Reporting guidance and relevant tools for reporting under the FD have been 
updated for the second cycle and are available on EIONET4.  

The tables in this report have been generated from the data and information provided by Italy5. 
The  electronic  reporting  format  includes  the  requirement  for  MS  to  select  from  pre-defined 

1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32007L0060  
2  The  European  Environment  Information  and  Observation  Network  (EIONET)  is  a  partnership  network  of  the 
European  Environment  Agency  (EEA)  and  its  38  member  and  cooperating  countries.  Reportnet  is  EIONET’s 
infrastructure  for  supporting  and  improving  data  and  information  flows.  The  Central  Data  Repository  (CDR), 
where MS report, is part of the Reportnet. 

3 None of the MS completed their reporting by March 2019 and only one third of MS commenced reporting in 
March 2019. However, over half completed a substantial part of their reporting within a few months from March 
2019. It should be noted that due to an update in the folder structure of the reporting infrastructure and later to due 
to an issue with the amount of processes that the servers could handle, MS were  given until 30 August 2019 to 
complete  their  submissions.  More  generally,  reasons  for  late  reporting  include  one  or  more  of  the  following: 
delayed preparation of PFRAs, data quality control issues or latent bugs in the reporting infrastructure, corrections 
and updates to previous submissions or provision of supplementary information. 

4 http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/help/Floods/Floods_2018/index.html  

5  The  information  reported  to  WISE  was  the  starting  point  for  this  assessment.  The  majority  of  the  statistics 
presented  are  based  on  information  reported  to  WISE.  Assuming  that  the  MS  accurately  transferred  the 
information  contained  in  their  PFRAs  to  the  reporting  sheets  (the  sheets  are  the  same  for  all  MS  and  are  not 
customisable) and barring any undetected errors in the transfer of this information to WISE arising from the use 
of interfacing electronic tools, these statistics should accurately reflect the content of the PFRAs. Please note that 
some tables provide information from the first cycle and this information has been taken from the individual MS 
reports and the EU Summary report for the first cycle – links to these documents are provided in this report. 

4 

 
                                                           
options contained in lists (e.g. a list of criteria for identifying past floods with significant adverse 
impacts).  The  MS  selected  the  options  that  correspond  to  their  respective  situations  when 

reporting to the Commission. In addition to the selection of options, the MS also reported PFRA 
studies and internet links to further information and this information has also been evaluated as 

part of the assessment. 

This  assessment  provides  background  to  an  EU  Overview  (a  European  Commission  Staff 
Working Document) that is published separately. It assesses the PFRAs and APSFRs prepared 

by Italy. Its structure follows a common assessment template used for all MS. The report draws 
on  the  data  and  reference  reports  and  documents  reported  to  EIONET  with  additional 

supplementary information being drawn upon only when considered necessary. 

Whereas  a  key  role  of  the  Commission  is  to  check  compliance  with  EU  legislation,  the 
Commission also seeks information to determine whether existing policies are adequate. The 

individual MS assessments, such as this one, aim at strengthening flood risk management in the 
EU on the basis of good practice, as it emerges from the implementation of the FD by the MS 
themselves. The Commission also collects information to create an EU-wide picture to inform 

the public on certain  aspects  of policy. The present  assessment therefore  may take a broader 
perspective than the FD; the text of the latter being the only benchmark against which a MS’ 

compliance should be judged. 

Summary of Information reported by the MS 

Table 1 summarises the information that has been reported. Information for PFRAs and APSFRs 

has been provided for all UoMs reporting. 

No information has been reported for APSFR Tracking because Italy applied Art. 13 in the first 

cycle.    

For two of Italy’s UoMs – ITI029 and ITN004 – no spatial information is reported for PFRA 
past events. For three UoMs – ITR151, ITR152 and ITR154 – no spatial information is reported 
for PFRA past events6. 

6 Italy subsequently informed that this is because no significant past floods are contained in Italy’s national flood 

event database, FloodCat, for these UoMs. 

5 

 
                                                           
Table 1 Completeness check of the information reported to EIONET Central Data Repository7 

2
1
0
I
T
I

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

CAs UoMs 

PFRA 

APSFRs 

                                               

                       

                       

APSFR Tracking  

PFRA past events (spatial) 

                       
                       
PFRA future events (spatial)                         
                       
APSFR (spatial) 

0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

0
2
0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

1
7
1
R
T
I

6
1
0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

                                             

                                            

                                            

CAs UoMs 

PFRA 

APSFRs 

APSFR Tracking  

PFRA past events (spatial) 

     

                

 

           

PFRA future events (spatial)                                              

APSFR (spatial) 

                                            

7 MS were expected to report spatial data only where such data has changed since previous reporting or is new.  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The PFRA/APSFR documents referenced by Italy can be found online8.  

Italy has designated 47 units of management (UoMs) for its implementation of the FD and has 
reported information to the EIONET CDR for all these units. Due to the high number of UoMs, 

the assessment intended to check supplementary information only for the five UoMs covered in 
the FRMP report9. An initial review showed, however, that the main PFRA reports were prepared 
at the level of Italy’s seven River Basin Districts (RBDs): in particular, key information is found 
in the methodological report (relazione metadologica) prepared for each RBD. The review used 
the versions of the reports that were uploaded to EIONET10; the reports are available also on the 
RBD websites8. 

Italy’s seven PFRA methodological reports follow the same outline and, where relevant, share 

large amounts of identical text – in particular, text on the methodologies employed – while the 
descriptions, tables and maps showing the RBD context differ, as well as other RBD-specific 

information (for example, the specific approach to transboundary coordination in the reports for 
ITA Eastern Alps, ITB Po and ITC Northern Apennines, the three RBDs with national borders). 
Moreover, the reports differ in the extent of their descriptions of local conditions: the report for 

ITA Eastern Alps provides few such details (and is 54 pages long); the report for ITB provides 
greater information on local conditions (and some further information on methodologies) and is 

8 The PFRA methodological reports are available also at the following RBD websites: 

  Eastern Alps (ITA): http://www.alpiorientali.it/VGP_PGRA_2021_2027_alluvioni.pdf  
  Po (ITB): https://pianoalluvioni.adbpo.it/valutazione-preliminare/  
  Northern Apennines (ITC): http://www.appenninosettentrionale.it/itc/?page_id=5467  
  Central 

Apennines 

(ITE): 

https://www.autoritadistrettoac.it/pianificazione/pianificazione-

distrettuale/pgraac/pgraac.2/valutazione-preliminare-del-rischio  

  Southern  Apennines 

(ITF):  https://www.distrettoappenninomeridionale.it/index.php/ii-ciclo-2016-2021-

menu/progetto-di-piano-menu/valutazione-preliminare-del-rischio-di-alluvione-menu 

  Sardinia 

https://www.regione.sardegna.it/index.php?xsl=2425&s=390309&v=2&c=94073&t=1&tb=14006  

  Sicily 

(ITG): 

(ITH): 

http://pti.regione.sicilia.it/portal/page/portal/PIR_PORTALE/PIR_LaStrutturaRegionale/PIR_Presidenzadell
aRegione/PIR_AutoritaBacino/PIR_Areetematiche/PIR_Pianificazione/PIR_PianoGestioneDirettiva200760
CE/PIR_PianoGestioneRischioAlluvioni2021/PIR_ValutazionePreliminareRischio  

9 The five UoMs that were a focus in the FRMP assessment were: 

  The Isonzo UoM (ITN004), covered in the FRMP prepared at the level of the ITA (Eastern Alps) River Basin 

District. 

  The joint FRMP for two UoMs, the Sangro Interregional Basin (ITI023) and Abruzzo Region (ITR131) UoMs 

plus the FRMP for the ITE Central Apennines RBD, which includes these as well as other UoMs  
  The single UoM covering the Puglia Region and the Ofanto River interregional basin (ITR161I020).  
  The Sardinia Region (ITR201) 

10  Italy’s  EIONET  CDR  folder  is  organised  by  UOMs.  For  each  UoM  in  an  RBD,  the  basin  district-level 
methodological report is uploaded. Consequently, the RBD-level reports are uploaded multiple times except for 
Sardinia (ITG) and Sicily (ITH), RBDs that each only contain a single UoM. (The RBD reports are, however, 
uploaded again under the national folder.)  

7 

 
                                                           
64 pages long; the report for ITF Southern Apennines is over 300 pages long, with extensive 

details on local conditions and in particular on past floods.  

The information on common methodological approaches is, however, largely identical across 

the  methodological  reports.  For  this  reason,  although  all  the  methodological  reports  were 
checked, many references in the pages below cite only a single report as identical text is found 

in the others. The methodological reports indicate that national methodologies were prepared by 
ISPRA11 for the selection of flood events, the identification of APSFRs and the assessments of 
the impacts of climate change12 .  

As noted, the current methodological reports contain where appropriate identical text but also 
differences in their descriptions of methods, making it difficult to identify the extent to which 

there were different approaches taken at RBD and UoM levels or different levels of detail in the 
presentation of a common approach. Moreover, as the analysis in the following pages shows, 

while  the  second-cycle  methodological  reports  were  prepared  at  RBD  level,  Italy’s  reporting 
shows that whereas  there are differences across  UoMs for  good reason, these are not  always 
explained  in  the  RBD  reports13.  In  future  cycles,  it  might  be  useful  to  provide  a  detailed 
presentation of the common, national approach, perhaps in a single national volume, as well as 

a clearer indication of differences within and across UoMs and the reasons for these.  

Overview 

Overview of the assessment  

The table below gives an overview of the evidence found during the assessment of PFRAs and 
APSFRs and is based on the information that Italy reported to the EIONET CDR. The following 
categorisation was used for the column concerning evidence: 

  Strong evidence: Clear information provided, describing the approach followed in the 

PFRA/APSFR phase of the flood risk management cycle to address the criterion. 

  Some evidence: Reference to the criterion is brief and vague, without a clear indication 
of the approach followed for the criterion. Depending on the comment in the adjacent 
column, “some evidence” could also denote “weak evidence”. 

11 Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale. 
12  Cited  in  Distretto  Alpi  Orientali  (ITA),  Relazione  metodologica,  p.  6  (section  1.1).  Available  at: 
https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/it/eu/floods2019/pfra_2019/documents/itn004/envxouc9q/Relazione_metodologica_
Distr_Alpi_Orientali.pdf 

This point is also stated in section 1.1 of the other RBDs’ methodological reports. The methodological reports do 

not, however, cite specific national documents providing these methodologies.  

13 Italy subsequently informed that the general approach is the same at RBD level, but each UoM can have particular 

conditions that may require different additional local approaches.  

8 

 
                                                           
  No evidence: No information was found to indicate whether the criterion was met or not. 
  Evidence to the contrary: An explicit statement was found in the reporting stating that 

this criterion was not pursued. 

Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments14 

CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION 

A PFRA has been undertaken 
for each RBD or UoM or 
portion of international UoM 
lying within the MS territory. 

Strong evidence 

Maps of the RBD/UoM have 
been provided at the 
appropriate scale, including… 

…the borders of river basins 

Strong evidence 

…sub-basins 

Strong evidence 

and, where existing, coastal 
areas 

Strong evidence 

The provided maps of the 
RBD/UoM show 
topography… 

Strong evidence 

Italy has prepared PFRA 
methodological reports (uploaded as 
background documents for all seven 
RBDs), which should thus cover all 
47 UoMs. Italy has reported 
information for all the UoMs.   

in 

the  methodological 
The  maps 
reports  clearly  show  the  borders  of 
RBDs and UoMs. 

Five of the seven methodological 
reports at RBD level address several 
UoMs, which are sub-basins of the 
District, and in cases to sub-basins 
within each UoM. The 
methodological reports for ITG 
Sardinia and ITF Sicily – each of 
which contains a single UoM – also 
show sub-basins on these islands.    

The RBD-level maps provided in the 
methodological reports clearly show 
coastlines, but do not explicitly 
identify coastal areas. Coastlines as 
well as coastal APSFRs are presented 
on the Ministry of Environment’s 
national map portal15. 

The maps included in the 
methodological reports provide some 
indications of topography at high 
scale. More detailed information is 

14 Brief substantiation to support the choice of evidence category. Should reflect the discussion in the main part of 

the document. 

15 The national map portal reported is available at: http://www.pcn.minambiente.it/viewer/.  

9 

 
 
 
                                                           
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments14 

…and land use 

Strong evidence 

available on the Ministry of 
Environment’s national map portal16. 

This information is available via the 
Ministry of Environment’s national 
map portal. 

PAST FLOODS WHICH HAD SIGNIFICANT17 ADVERSE IMPACTS18 

A methodology for defining 
past floods with significant 
adverse impacts 

Strong evidence 

A description of floods that 
occured in the past which had 
significant adverse impacts 
on… 

…human health 

…the environment 

…cultural heritage 

and economic activity 

Strong evidence 

...and for which the likelihood 
of similar future events is still 
relevant including… 

Some evidence 

…their flood extent and 

Strong evidence 

…conveyance routes and 

Some evidence 

Italy has a common national 
approach, based on the severity 
declared for a flood. Moreover, a 
range of detailed criteria and 
information sources have been used 
to identify past floods. Italy’s 
methodological reports do not clarify, 
however, how the national approach 
fits together with the criteria and 
information. 

These four elements are all listed in 
the criteria to identify significant past 
floods and are categories in the 
national database for floods, 
FloodCat. 

While past floods are clearly used to 
assess possible future floods, Italy’s 
reports do not clearly state if or how 
the likelihood that similar future 
events are still relevant has been 
analysed. 

Mapping of flood extent is used in 
classifying past flood events. 

None of Italy’s reporting, nor the 
methodological reports, refer 
explicitly to conveyance routes. 

16  The  extent  of  information  available  on  the  portal  may  not  be  easily  accessible  to  a  non-technical  user.  Italy 
subsequently informed that APSFRs and detailed topographical and land use information are accessible as web 
services that can be downloaded for desktop use or uploaded into the webGIS viewer. 

17 Significance here refers to the damage of the flood. 
18 Note that the term “impact” is used for past floods and the term “consequences” for future floods. Both refer 

to damages from floods. 

10 

 
 
 
                                                           
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments14 

Nonetheless, the methodological 
report for ITB Po mentions, for 
example, hydraulic studies that cover 
the full length of major rivers in the 
RBD, estimate the impacts of 
overtopping and breaks in 
embankments flooding plains, and 
also that floods arising from intense, 
localised precipitation in areas of 
secondary rivers are likely to arise as 
waters cannot be quickly removed: 
these elements imply that conveyance 
routes were considered19. 

For most UoMs, a broad range of 
adverse impacts were considered, 
including residents, infrastructure, 
buildings and commercial areas 
affected as well as level of damage 
and compensation.  

an assessment of the adverse 
impacts they have entailed. 

Strong evidence 

PAST SIGNIFICANT20 FLOODS21 WHICH IF REPEATED 
COULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES 

Strong evidence 

A methodology for defining 
significant floods which have 
occured in the past, where 
significant adverse impacts 
are unknown but significant 
adverse consequences of 
similiar future events might 
be envisaged 

Italy has reported the criteria used for 
defining past floods without known 
significant adverse impacts but with 
the potential for adverse 
consequences in the future (the same 
criteria are used as those for past 
floods which had significant 
impacts). Italy has identified hardly 
any locations where the impacts of 
past floods were unknown22. 
Moreover, the methodological reports 
for the RBDs mention long-standing 
archives on past floods and their 
impacts.  

19 Italy  subsequently  informed  that conveyance routes are  always  taken into account,  as every time a simple or 
complex model is adopted to describe a flood event, a decision is assumed about the way conveyance routes are 
schematized. 

20 Significance here refers to the magnitude of the flood: although the extent of the flood may have been large, the 

impact was not significant e.g. because the area was not built-up at the time. 
21 Without known significant adverse impacts at the time of their occurrence. 
22 Likely because such floods do not exist, but this is not clear from the reporting. 

11 

 
                                                           
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments14 

FUTURE FLOODS WITH POTENTIALLY ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES 

A methodology for defining 
potential adverse 
consequences of future floods 

Some evidence 

The methodological reports refer to a 
national methodology for future 
floods.  

The methodological report for ITB 
Po provides a detailed approach for 
identifying future floods and their 
adverse consequences; for other 
RBDs, such as ITG Sardinia, less 
information is provided on the 
method used.  

An assessment of the potential adverse consequences of future floods on... 

…human health 

…the environment 

…cultural heritage 

…economic activity 

Strong evidence 

Italy has provided detailed reporting 
on the potential adverse 
consequences of future floods in all 
these four spheres. 

A consideration of possible issues in connection to future floods including... 

…topography 

Strong evidence 

…the position of water courses 

Strong evidence 

…hydrological and 
geomorphological 
characteristics (e.g. floodplains 
as natural retention areas) 

Some evidence 

The methodological reports indicate 
that topography was considered in the 
assessment of potential future floods, 
drawing on national spatial data and 
in cases on more detailed local 
studies and data. 

. The detailed method presented in 
the methodological report for ITB 
describes how different types of 
water courses were addressed in the 
analysis.  

Most UoMs (38 out of 47) reported 
considering floodplains. The 
methodological report for ITB Po 
describes how floodplains were 
considered in that RBD; however, 
similar details were not found in the 
background documents for other 
RBDs, such as ITA Eastern Alps. 
Moreover, Italy’s reporting indicates 
that nine UoMs did not take into 

12 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

…effectiveness of existing 
manmade flood defence 
infrastructures 

Some evidence 

…the position of populated 
areas 

Strong evidence 

…areas of economic activity 

Strong evidence 

…long term developments 
(including e.g. the impact of 
urbanisation and climate 
change) 

Some evidence 

Focus on the consideration of 
the likely impact of climate 
change on the occurence of 
floods (second cycle onwards) 

Strong evidence 

Comments14 
consideration floodplains (including 
several in ITA)23. 

Nearly all of Italy’s UoMs were 
reported as considering the 
effectiveness of existing manmade 
flood defence infrastructures24. The 
methodological reports also state that 
that this considered but do not 
provide details how it was done.  

Nearly all of Italy’s UoMs were 
reported as considering the position 
of populated areas. The 
methodological reports explain that 
national spatial data were used. 

Nearly all of Italy’s UoMs were 
reported as considering areas of 
economic activity. The 
methodological reports explain that 
national spatial data were used. 

Nearly all of Italy’s UoMs were 
reported as considering impacts of 
climate change on flood occurrence. 
The methodological reports for 
Italy’s RBDs describe a method for 
considering the impact of climate 
change on flash floods.  

On the other hand, none of Italy’s 
RBDs report the consideration of 
long-term developments. The 
methodological reports mention the 
importance of this issue but do not 
indicate that this was taken into 
account. 

As noted, the methodological reports 
for Italy’s RBDs explain that the 
consideration of climate change has 

23 Italy subsequently clarified that  there is a single national methodology and that different approaches reported 

reflect the UoM context. 

24 Italy subsequently informed that consideration of manmade flood defence infrastructures occurs when carrying 

out hydraulic modelling. 

13 

 
                                                           
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments14 

Some evidence 

International information 
exchange has taken place 
between Member States in the 
case of international River 
Basin Districts or UoMs with 
a clear description of the 
methodology used provided 

focused on the analysis of potential 
flash floods.  

Italy has reported the mechanisms for 
international information exchange, 
and this is explained in the RBDs 
with international UoMs. Clear 
descriptions of the methodology used 
are not provided, however.  

(FUTURE FLOODS WITH POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES) 

APSFRs 

Strong evidence 

APSFRs are reported for all UoMs. 

For each River Basin District 
or UoM, the Member State 
has identified areas for which 
they conclude that potential 
significant flood risks exist or 
might be considered likely to 
occur (APSFR) 

A clear methodology for the 
designation of APSFRs has 
been provided by the Member 
State which includes 

(a) Criteria to distinguish 

Strong evidence 

between present day/future 
floods and significant 
present day/future floods 

(b) Criteria to distinguish 

Some evidence 

between… 

…significant flood risk existing 
presently in an APSFR, or 

…significant flood risk likely to 
arise in the future in an APSFR 
(consideration of long term 
developments) 

Criteria relating to how human 
health, the environment, 
cultural heritage and economic 
activity have been considered in 
the inclusion of APSFRs 

Some evidence 

14 

Italy has reported criteria for the 
determination of significant future 
flood risk. 

Italy has clearly reported on existing 
significant flood risks and has 
determined future significant flood 
risks starting from past events, and 
also going beyond to consider climate 
change was considered; however, as 
noted above, other long-term 
developments were not considered 
for significant future flood risks.  

Italy has reported that human health, 
the environment, cultural heritage 
and economic activity were all 
considered in the inclusion of 
APSFRs. The methodological reports 
refer to a national methodology, 

 
 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments14 

which is described in depth in the 
report for ITB Po, which provides a 
the stepwise process for the inclusion 
of APSFRs in that RBD . 

Although Italy has reported 
international APSFRs, it is not clear 
from the RBD methodological reports 
if any have actually been designated. 
These background documents do not 
provide a description of the 
methodology used (for the Eastern 
Alps RBD, including ITN004 Isonzo 
and ITR061, for example, the 
document suggests that this work was 
ongoing). 

Italy used Art. 13.1(b) and thus did 
not identify APSFRs in the first cycle 
PFRA reporting, though it is clear 
from sources such as Italy’s FRMP 
reporting that these were designated. 
Italy did not report any changes vis-à-
vis the first cycle. 

Some evidence 

In the case of international 
UoMs, the designation of 
APSFRs has been coordinated 
with the MS concerned with a 
clear description of the 
methodology used provided 

No evidence 

For each APSFR MS have 
made clear any change in 
APSFRs since the first cycle 
including details of such 
change, deletion or creation 
since the previous cycle 
assessment to allow the 
complete legacy of APSFRs to 
be understood 

Good Practices 

The assessment identified the following good practices in the PFRAs assessed. 

Topic area 

Types of floods 
considered 

Good practices identified 

15 

 
 
 
Topic area 

Application of Article 
4.2(b) and Article 4.2(c) 

Application of Article 
4.2(c) 

Application of Article 
4.2(d) 

Good practices identified 

Italy has developed a detailed national database of flood events and 
their impacts, providing extensive information for analysis of past 
floods – and thus reporting a high number of flood events.  

Italy has used a large number of criteria to determine significant past 
floods (though all have not been used in all UoMs, or for all 
locations within UoMs). 

Italy used mapping to identify potential impacts of these floods in 
terms of human health, economic activity, environment and cultural 
heritage. 

Italy have criteria in place for this assessment of floods according to 
Article 4.2(c), despite the fact that no such floods have occurred. 

See above. 

Italy used a broad range of criteria to identify potentially significant 
future floods.  

Methodology for the 
designation of APSFRs 

The background document for ITB presents a clear, stepwise process 
for designating APSFRs based on past and future flood analysis. 

Consideration of climate 
change 

International 
information exchange 

Italy used a common methodology to investigate areas more prone 
to flash floods, where the occurrence of future flash floods may be 
increased as a consequence of climate change 

Italy is undertaking ongoing cooperation with Slovenia via a project 
to develop joint methodologies for flood risk assessment and 
management.  

Areas for further development 

The assessment identified the following areas for further development in the PFRAs assessed. 

Topic area 

Application of Article 
4.2(b) 

Application of Article 
4.2(c) 

Application of Article 
4.2(d) 

Areas for further development 

While Italy has identified the criteria to identify significant floods in 
its reporting, and its methodological reports outline a national 
administrative process they do not provide the specific thresholds 
used25.  

As above, clear thresholds for past significant floods but without 
significant impacts at the time were not found.  

Italy did not include long-term developments, other than climate 
change, in its determination of potential adverse future flood 
consequences.  

25 Italy subsequently informed that the National Civil Protection Code defines the conditions (based on intensity 

and extent of impacts) by which a specific event can be classified as significant.  

16 

 
                                                           
Topic area 

Areas for further development 

Methodology for the 
designation of APSFRs 

Consideration of climate 
change 

International 
information exchange 

While Italy’s methodological reports highlight the issue of flash 
floods, it would be useful to provide an assessment of other possible 
impacts of climate change, such as on seawater floods and snowmelt, 
or to explain why these may not be priority issues26. 

Administrative Arrangements  

MS  may  make  changes  to  their  administrative  arrangements  which  include  their  Units  of 

Management (UoMs) and their relevant Competent Authorities (CAs). If such changes occur, 
MS are required to notify the Commission within three months. The following section presents 

an assessment of how these have changed since the first cycle reporting.  

Changes to Units of management since the first cycle 

MS are required to report details of any changes to UoMs since the first cycle of reporting under 
the FD. The information reported, compared to the information available for the assessment of 
Italy’s Food Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) in the first cycle, shows that there have been no 
changes to the UoMs since the FRMPs. The UoMs are shown in Figure 1. 

26 Italy subsequently informed that flash floods were chosen because these phenomena are the most significant in 

terms of impacts, forecasting and warning. 

17 

 
  
 
                                                           
Figure 1    Map of UoMs in MS 

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

Changes to Competent Authorities since the first cycle 

MS are also given the option to provide a reference or references to document(s) if the CAs or 
their roles have changed since the first cycle of reporting under the FD. Italy has reported its 
CAs for the second cycle. This list of authorities was compared to the list of authorities Italy 
reported in 2010.  

This comparison shows that the following competent authorities have been added: 

 

 

ITAABD Autorità di bacino distrettuale delle Alpi Orientali 

ITBABD Autorità di bacino distrettuale del fiume Po  

18 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

ITCABD Autorità di bacino distrettuale dell'Appennino Settentrionale 

ITEABD Autorità di bacino distrettuale dell'Appennino Centrale 

ITFABD Autorità di bacino distrettuale dell'Appennino Meridionale 

ITGABD Agenzia regionale del distretto idrografico della Sardegna 

ITHABD Autorità di bacino del distretto idrografico della Sicilia 

These  River  Basin  District  (RBD)  Authorities  were  created  under  national  Law  221/2015, 
replacing  public  bodies  in  place  prior  to  Italy’s  transposition  of  the  Water  Framework 
Directive27.  

On  the  other  hand,  the  2010  list  includes  regional,  interregional  and  national  river  basin 
authorities that are not provided in Italy’s most recent reporting: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITADBI021 Autorità di bacino Interregionale del fiume Reno 

ITADBI025R152153 Autorità di Bacino regionale Campania Sud ed interregionale per 
il bacino idrografico del fiume Sele 

ITADBI026 Autorità di Bacino Interregionale del Fiume Fissero-Tartaro-Canalbianco 

ITADBI028 Autorità di Bacino Interregionale del fiume Tronto 

ITADBI901 Autorità di Bacino Interregionale Marecchia - Conca 

ITADBI902 Autorità di Bacino Interregionale dei Fiumi Trigno, Biferno e minori, 
Saccione e Fortore 

ITADBN001 Autorità di bacino Nazionale del fiume Adige 

ITADBN002 Autorità di bacino Nazionale del fiume Arno 

ITADBN008 Autorità di bacino Nazionale del fiume Po 

ITADBN010 Autorità di Bacino Nazionale del fiume Tevere 

ITADBN901 Autorità di bacino dei fiumi dell'Alto Adriatico - Isonzo, Tagliamento, 
Livenza, Piave e Brenta-Bacchiglione 

ITADBN902 Autorità di Bacino Nazionale dei fiumi Liri-Garigliano e Volturno 

ITADBR051 Autorità di Bacino Regionale del Sile e della Pianura tra Piave e Livenza 

ITADBR061 Autorità di Bacino Regionale del Friuli Venezia Giulia 

ITADBR071 Autorità di Bacino Regionale della Liguria 

ITADBR081 Autorità dei Bacini Regionali Romagnoli 

ITADBR091 Autorità di Bacino Toscana Costa 

ITADBR092 Autorità di Bacino Toscana Nord 

ITADBR093 Autorità di Bacino Ombrone 

ITADBR111 Autorità di Bacino Regionale delle Marche 

27 For more information, please see: European Commission, First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: 
Italy  (Comission  Staff  Working  Document,  SWD(2019)81final),  26  February  2019.  Available  at:  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=SWD:2019:81:FIN&qid=1551205988853&from=EN  

19 

 
                                                           
 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

ITADBR121 Autorità dei Bacini Regionali del Lazio 

ITADBR131 Autorità dei Bacini di Rilievo Regionale dell'Abruzzo e del Bacino 
Interregionale del Fiume Sangro 

ITADBR151154 Autorità di Bacino Regionale della Campania Centrale 

ITADBR161 Autorità di Bacino della Puglia 

ITADBR171 Autorità di Bacino della Basilicata (e bacini Interregionali dei fiumi 
Bradano, Sinni e Noce) 

ITADBR181 Autorità di Bacino della Regione Calabria (e bacino Interregionale del 
LAO) 

ITADBR201 Autorità di bacino regionale della Sardegna 

ITADBSNP01 Autorità di Bacino del fiume Serchio 

Finally,  Italy’s  recent  reporting  includes  the  following  government  body  that  was  not  on  the 
2010 list: 

 

ITISPRA Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA) 

The  methodological  reports  prepared  at  RBD  level  highlight  the  administrative  changes 
underway since national Law 221/2015, explaining for example that the former national basin 
authorities were incorporated into the new authorities for Italy’s seven RBDs; the activities of 
former interregional and regional have not been undertaken by these RBD authorities. With these 
changes, Italy has moved from 54 competent authorities to 31 competent authorities: the seven 
RBD authorities listed above, regions and autonomous provinces (a total of 21), the Ministry of 
Environment, Land and Sea28, ISPRA and the national Department of Civil Protection. 

Maps of the River Basin Districts 

For  each  PFRA  as  stated  under  Article  4.2(a),  MS  should  provide  maps  of  the  River  Basin 

District at the appropriate scale, including the borders of the river basins, sub-basins and, where 

existing, coastal areas, showing topography and land use.  

The methodological reports reported by Italy include maps of the UoMs at RBD scale: the four 
maps in the appendices to the report for ITB Po show, respectively – the UoM as a whole, past 

flood events, future flood events and APSFRs. These maps show mountainous areas and (for the 

28 Hereinafter the Ministry of Environment. In February 2021, the Ministry of Environment was subsumed in Italy’s 

new Ministry of Ecological Transition.  

20 

 
                                                           
first map), river courses29. These maps show the APSFRs within their UoM but do not provide 
detail: for example, neither borders nor numbers of individual APSFRs are provided30, 31. 

The methodological reports also refer to national online resources: APSFR maps can be accessed 
via  the  Ministry  of  Environment’s  national  map  portal32,  though  the  procedure  is  not  clearly 
explained33. The webgis viewer provides a range of map layers for flooding and other topics, 
including the outlines of UoMs and of APSFRs34. The base map shows rivers and other water 
bodies, coastlines and some topographical features, but it appears that none of these are named. 

Layers showing lakes and reservoirs, rivers and land use are available on the portal.  

In summary, the information available via the weblinks reported by Italy shows the features of 
individual APSFRs as well as key geographical or land use information35, though the detailed 
information available via the Ministry of Environment’s portal may not be easily accessible to 

non-technical users.  

Types of Floods considered in the second cycle PFRA  

Types of flood included in the assessment of flood risk 

Article 2.1 of the FD provides a list of types of floods that are covered by, or fall within the 
scope  of,  the  Directive  (this  includes  floods  from  rivers,  mountain  torrents,  Mediterranean 

29  Bacino  del  Fiume  Po 

to  4.  Available  at: 
https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/it/eu/floods2019/pfra_2019/documents/itn008/envxrdirg/PFRA_APSFR_Relazione_
Distr_Po2019.pdf 

(ITB),  Relazione  metodologica,  annex 

tables  1 

for 

example, 

30 For some RBDs, flood hazard and risk maps (FHRM) are  currently available for download. For ITA Eastern 
Alps, 
webpage:  
https://sigma.distrettoalpiorientali.it/sigma/download/pgra (last accessed on 10 March 2021). For ITB Po, FHRM 
maps  are  available  at:  https://pianoalluvioni.adbpo.it/mappe-della-pericolosita-e-del-rischio-di-alluvione/ 
(accessed on 10 March 2021). Detailed PFRA maps were not, however, found on either the ITA website or the 
ITB website.  

following 

obtained 

these 

can 

the 

be 

at 

31 Italy subsequently explained that details of the APSFRs cannot be visualized in a static image, and all APSFR 

data and flood locations are available via the national portal (described in the following paragraph). 

32 http://www.pcn.minambiente.it/viewer/  
33  The  methodological  reports  provide 

the  following  web  address  for 

layer  – 
http://www.pcn.minambiente.it/mattm/servizio-wms/ Italy subsequently explained that this refers to a web service 
that can be uploaded to the portal. An attempt by a non-technical user yielded an error message (“Error in the 
connection to the service”), but it was subsequently found that the layer could be uploaded via a manual search in 
the  sidebar  comment  “Servizi”.  The  methodological  reports  also  indicate  that  the  APSFR  maps  can  also  be 
downloaded  as  shapefiles  for  use  in  ArcGIS  and  compatible  programmes  via  the  following  link: 
http://www.pcn.minambiente.it/mattm/servizio-di-scaricamento-wfs/  

the  APSFR  map 

34 Italy subsequently explained that the names of APSFRs can also be visualised as an attribute of the layer (as well 

as other attributes such as APSFRcode) using the information tool of the webGIS application. 

35 It can be noted that a check on the websites of two RBD authorities – ITA Eastern Alps and ITB Po – also did 
not identify maps of APSFRs for the second cycle. Detailed maps  were found from 2012, for Italy’s previous 
plans: see, for example, for ITN004 Isonzo: http://pai.adbve.it/PAI_4B_2012/idro_isonzo.html.  

21 

 
                                                           
ephemeral water courses, and floods from the sea in coastal areas) (these are listed in Annex A). 
However, it is not stated that the scope of the definition of a flood is limited to these types of 

flood. As such, the scope of the definition of a flood should be considered to be open and all-
inclusive (subject to possible exemption of floods from sewerage systems), and that any covering 

of land by water (other than that ‘normally’ covered by water) represents a flood, regardless of 

the source of the water.  

Table 2 summarises the types of floods considered in each UoM.  

Fluvial floods are considered in all UoMs.  

Pluvial floods are considered in 38 of the 47 UoMs. While the 11 UoMs not reporting pluvial 
floods  may  have  specific  geographical  and  meteorological  factors  that  they  do  not  face  such 

flood types, information was not found in the reporting or in the methodological reports why 
pluvial floods are not reported, for example, for ITR061, Friuli Venezia Giulia Region, while 
they are reported for the adjacent ITI017, Lemene Interregional Basin36 37.  

No UoMs consider groundwater floods38.  

Seawater  floods  are  considered  in  36  of  the  47  UoMs.  All  of  Italy’s  UoMs  have  a  seacoast, 

though local conditions can mean that seawater floods are not an issue everywhere. Using the 
Eastern  Alps  RBD  again  as  an  example,  seawater  floods  were  considered  for  ITR061  Friuli 

Venezia  Giuli  Region  and  ITN009  Tagliamento,  but  not  for  the  adjacent  ITN004  Isonzo  or 
ITI017 Lemene as well as other UoMs in the RBD; a review of the methodological report for 

the  Eastern  Alps  RBD  did  not  find  an  explanation  why  some  UoMs  in  its  territory  did  not 
consider seawater floods and others did39, 40.   

Artificial water bearing infrastructure floods are considered in seven UoMs.  

36 

Distretto 

at: 
https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/it/eu/floods2019/pfra_2019/documents/itn004/envxouc9q/Relazione_metodologica_
Distr_Alpi_Orientali.pdf 

metodologica. 

Relazione 

Available 

Orientali 

(ITA), 

Alpi 

37 Italy subsequently noted that the relevance is linked to the impacts of a certain flood type event and therefore it 
depends on a set of factors (topography, land use, flood defences, etc.). Not necessarily the same meteorological 
event results in the same impacts in adjacent areas. 

38 Italy subsequently noted that ground water floods are not significant, relevant or frequent. 
39 

at: 
https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/it/eu/floods2019/pfra_2019/documents/itn004/envxouc9q/Relazione_metodologica_
Distr_Alpi_Orientali.pdf 

metodologica. 

Relazione 

Available 

Orientali 

Distretto 

(ITA), 

Alpi 

40 Italy subsequently informed that, as for pluvial floods and other flood sources that are not considered in all UoMs, 
the relevance is linked to the impacts of a certain flood type event and therefore it depends on a set of factors 
(topography, land use, flood defences, and so on). Not necessarily the same meteorological event results in the 
same impacts in adjacent areas. 

22 

 
                                                           
Other types of floods are considered in five UoMs. These UoMs, all in the Apennines, refer to 

floods arising from a combination of snow melt with precipitation.   

As noted above, Italy used Article 13 of the Floods Directive and did not provide detailed PFRA 

reporting in the first  cycle, as it was not  required. Consequently, it is not possible to make a 

comparison between the floods types indicated here with those addressed in the first cycle.  

23 

 
Table 2 Types of floods considered in the PFRAs  

2
1
0
I
T
I

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

Fluvial 

Pluvial 

Groundwater 

Sea Water 

Artificial Water 
Bearing Infrastructure 

Other 

No data 

                       

                       
                       
                       

          



           

                       
                       

0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

0
2
0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

1
7
1
R
T
I

6
1
0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

                                            

     

             

                 

Fluvial 

Pluvial 

Groundwater 

Sea Water 

Artificial Water 
Bearing Infrastructure 

 

Other 

No data 

                 

                 

     

  

24 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Flooding from sewerage systems 

Article 2 of the FD also states that the definition of a flood ‘may exclude floods from sewerage 

systems’.  

During the first cycle, it was not always immediately clear whether, or not floods from sewerage 
systems  were  excluded  from  consideration,  consequently,  the  second  cycle  requires  greater 

clarity on this issue.  

Table  3  indicates  whether,  or  not  floods  from  sewerage  systems  have  been  excluded  from 

consideration under the Directive.  

Table 3 Consideration of sewerage systems under the Floods Directive 

UoM 

Floods from sewerage systems considered 

ITI012 

ITI01319 

ITI014 

ITI015 

ITI017 

ITI018 

ITI021 

ITI022 

ITI023 

ITI024 

ITI025 

ITI026 

ITI026 

ITI027 

ITI028 

ITI029 

ITN001 

ITN002 

ITN003 

ITN004 

ITN005 

ITN006 

ITN007 

Excluded 

Excluded 

Included 

Included 

Included 

Included 

Excluded 

Included 

Included 

Included 

Included 

Excluded 

Excluded 

Included 

Included 

Excluded 

Included 

Included 

Included 

Included 

Included 

Included 

Included 

25 

 
UoM 

Floods from sewerage systems considered 

ITN008 

ITN009 

ITN010 

ITN011 

ITR051 

ITR061 

ITR071 

ITR081 

ITR091 

ITR092 

ITR093 

ITR111 

ITR121 

ITR131 

ITR141 

ITR151 

ITR152 

ITR153 

ITR154 

ITR161I020 

ITR171 

ITR181I016 

ITR191 

ITR201 

ITSNP01 

Excluded 

Included 

Included 

Included 

Included 

Included 

Included 

Excluded 

Excluded 

Included 

Excluded 

Included 

Included 

Included 

Included 

Included 

Included 

Included 

Included 

Excluded 

Included 

Included 

Included 

Excluded 

Included 

Table 3 shows that floods from sewage systems were included in 34 UoMs and excluded in 13. 

It is not clear why floods from sewage systems were included in some UoMs but not in others. 
They  are  excluded,  for  example,  in  ITN008,  the  Po  Basin,  which  is  Italy’s  largest  UoM  and 

includes  the  heavily  populated  regions  of  Lombardy  and  Piedmont.  Looking  at  four  UoMs 
located  in  the  Tuscany  region,  floods  from  sewage  systems  are  included  in  ITR092  Tuscany 
Region  Northern  and  the  adjacent  ITSNP01  Serchio;  however,  they  are  excluded  in  ITR091 
Tuscany Region Coastal and ITR093 Tuscany Region Ombrone. Floods from sewage systems 

are included in a fifth UoM, ITN002 Arno, a large share of which is also located in Tuscany. 

26 

 
 
Information was not found to explain these differences within a single region. Where floods from 
sewerage systems  have been excluded, it should be noted, that floods connected to  sewerage 

systems may merit consideration in conjuction to flashflooding/pluvial flooding in urban areas. 

No further information was found in the documents reviewed on the definition of floods from 
sewage systems for two UoMs where these are reported as included. For example, a review of 

the methodological reports for the Northern Alps RBD, which includes ITN004 Isonzo, and for 
the Northern Apennines RBD, which includes the Tuscany UoMs mentioned above as well as 

ITN002 Arno, found that the two documents, which have many elements of similar text, do not 
mention floods from sewage systems. The document for the Northern Apennines thus does not 

provide any information why five UoMs in the same administrative region would have different 

approaches concerning floods from sewage systems.  

Application of Articles 4.2(b), (c), (d) 

Adverse  impacts  (past  floods)  and  adverse  consequences  (potential  future 
floods) 

Four broad categories of impact/consequence are given in the FD. Article 4.2 (b) and Article 

4.2(d) require an assessment of the impacts of past floods and potential adverse consequences of 
future  floods  with  regard  to  human  health,  the  environment,  cultural  heritage  and  economic 

activity respectively.  

A list of types and sub-types of consequence was developed by the Common Implementation 
Strategy’s Working Group on Floods41 for the reporting of impact/consequence.  It  should be 
noted  that  references  describing  approaches  to  assessing  impact/consequence  on  to  human 
health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity may have been reported at the 

UoM or national level and not individually for flood events.  

Details of important past floods (source, mechanisms, characteristics) 

The  table  in  Annex  C  presents  the  sources,  mechanisms  and  characteristics  of  historical 
significant flood events reported during the second cycle. In total, Italy has reported 702 flood 

events. Of these: 

  469 (67% of the total) are fluvial floods, and these were identified in 34 of the 47 UoMs.  

41 

https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/9ab5926d-bed4-4322-9aa7-9964bbe8312d/library/9560db96-04c6-4377-

bf82-84766955e54a?fromLink=true  

27 

 
                                                           
  151 (22%) are pluvial floods, and these were identified in 32 of the 47 UoMs.  

  24 (3%) are seawater floods, and these were identified in 13 UoMs. 

  31 (4%) arise from artificial water-bearing infrastructure, and these were identified in 7 

UoMs. 

  27 (4%) are categorised as other floods, and these were identified in 13 UoMs.  

For the 469 fluvial flood instances reported: 

  For 172 (37%), natural exceedance was identified as the mechanism 

  For 85 (18%), defence exceedance was identified as the mechanism 

  For 93 (20%), defence failure 

  For 70 (15%), blockage 

  For 15 (3%), ‘other’ was reported for the mechanism  

  For 34 (7%), ‘no data’ was reported for the mechanism  

For the 151 pluvial flood instances: 

  For 38 (25%), natural exceedance was reported for the mechanisms 

  For 22 (15%), defence exceedance 

  For 17 (11%), defence failure 

  For 27 (18%), blockage 

  For 41 (27%), ‘other’ was reported 

  For 6 (4%), ‘no data’ was reported 

For  the  24  seawater  flood  instances,  natural  exceedance  was  reported  for  five  floods  (21%); 

defence  exceedance  and  defence  failure  were  each  reported  for  five  floods  (42%  in  total  for 
overwhelmed defences); ‘other’ was reported as the mechanism for eight floods (33%); and ‘no 

data’ for one flood.  

For  the  31  flood  instances  where  artificial  water  bearing  infrastructure  was  reported  as  the 
source,  natural  exceedance  was  the  mechanism  for  seven  (23%);  defence  exceedance  for  six 

(19%); defence failure for three (10%); blockage for eight (26%); ‘other’ was reported for three 

instances; and ‘no data’ for four (13%).  

For the 27  flood instances  where ‘other’ was reported as  the source, natural  exceedance  was 
reported as the mechanism for five (19%); defence failure for one (4%); blockage for five (19%); 

‘other’ mechanisms for eight (30%); and ‘no data’ for the mechanism for eight instances (30%).  

28 

 
 
In terms of flood mechanisms across all the flood types, 227 of the 702 instances reported are 
due  to  natural  exceedance  (32%),  118  to  defence  exceedance  (17%),  119  to  defence  failure 

(17%), 110 to blockage (16%), 75 to ‘other’ mechanisms (11%), and 53 were reported as ‘no 

data’ (8%).  

In terms of flood characteristics, Italy reported that 138 of the 702 flood instances (20%) were 

flash floods; 140 (20%) were other rapid onset floods; 161 (23%) were medium onset floods; 32 
(5%)  were  slow  onset  floods;  48  (7%)  were  debris  flow  floods;  14  (2%)  were  high  velocity 

floods; six (1%) were deep floods; 86 (12%) had ‘other characteristics’; and for 77 (11%), ‘no 

data’ was reported. 

Significant  past  flood  instances  were  not  reported  in  seven  UoMs:  ITI022,  ITI029,  ITN004, 

ITR061, ITR151, ITR152 and ITR154. Nonetheless, other sources show that seawater flooding 
events occurred in the period 2012 to 2018 in Venice42, 43. It is possible that these flood events 
were assessed as not significant44. 

In addition, Italy reported the details of 303 historical floods to the EIONET CDR. Of these, 
30245  took  place  between  the  years  2012  and  2018:  the  methodological  report  for  ITB  Po 
explains that this was the time period for data gathering in the national flood database, FloodCat 

(described further in the section on Article 4.2(b) below). As Italy used Art. 13.1(b) in the first 
cycle, historical floods were not reported then and a comparison cannot be made46.  

Historical floods are reported per UoM, and thus the numbers in Annex C appear to correspond 

to a smaller number of large flood events that would have transcended individual UoMs. The 
methodological reports explain that in Italy’s FloodCat database, a flood “event” refers to an 
occurrence  in  an  individual  UoM  with  a  specific  source  of  flooding47.  For  example,  a  flood 
commencing  30  January  2014  was  reported  for  nine  UoMs:  ITI017  Lemene,  ITN001  Adige, 

ITN002  Arno,  ITN006  Livenza,  ITN007  Piave,  ITN008  Po,  ITN009  Tagliamento,  ITR091 
Tuscany Region Coast, and ITR093 Tuscany Region Ombrone. These floods thus took place in 

42 A list of “exceptional high water” events is available at: https://www.comune.venezia.it/it/content/le-acque-alte-

eccezionali  

43 The flooding events in Venice are presented as examples: a search was not carried out for other sources in all the 

UoMs were past flood instances were not reported. 

44 Italy subsequently informed that the occurrence of a flood event is not an automatic reason for assigning it the 

attribute of “significant” event. 

45  One  flood  was  reported  for  2009  in  UoM  ITSNP01  Serchio,  which  may  be  the  only  case  where  a  different 

timeframe was used. 

46  The  period  from  2012  to 2018  may  have  been  chosen  as  Italy’s  flood  risk  plans  before  the  Floods  Directive 
(according to which the first FRMPs were due end-2015), the Piani stralcio di bacino per l'assetto idrogeologico, 
were published in 2012.  

47 See, for example, the Relazione metodologica for ITB, section 4.1.1.  

29 

 
                                                           
three RBDs, Eastern Alps (five of the UoMs reporting these floods, some of them contiguous); 

Central Apennines (three contiguous UoMs); and the Po, one UoM.  

The methodological report for ITB Po in fact presents a table of recent flood events: eight are 

listed for the period 2012 to 2018 (four of which occurred in 2014), and also provides links for 
maps of the areas flooded48.  

Further  information  is  reported  to  the  EIONET  CDR  for  some  of  the  303  historical  floods, 

including their dates of commencement, though not all parameters are reported for all floods: 

 

Italy reported the flood duration for 270 of the 303 floods 

  The frequency is provided for 109 of the 303 floods 

 

Italy reported the surface area for 59 of the 303 floods. 

Further information has been reported to the EIONET CDR on the location of past flood events. 

Location  information  is  provided  for  13 138  past  flood  events  for  41  of  the  47  UoMs.  The 
APSFR within which the location is situated was provided for 30 UoMs (3 022 of the historic 

events). .  

Italy has reported types of damage by APSFR. The damages reported include: human health, 
community, waterbody, pollution sources, protected areas, cultural assets, landscape, property, 

infrastructure, economic activity, and rural land use. Other damages are also indicated, including 
damages  to  irrigation  systems  and  damages  to  flood  defence  infrastructure.  Damages  are 

reported separately for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. 

In  its  reporting  to  the  EIONET  CDR,  Italy  has  moreover  specified  the  value  of  damages  for 

about 28% of the past flood events in APSFRs. The total of the damages reported is EUR 5.67 
billion. It appears that total damages would be higher if this data were provided for all the past 

flood events. A review of Italy’s methodological reports did not, however, find an explanation 

of how these damages were calculated. 

48 See the Relazione metodologica for ITB, section 7, Table 7.1. Curiously, this section indicates that a total of 97 
flood events were validated for the region’s five UoMs: only 56 events are listed for ITN008, while Italy reported 
115 events in Table 4. The reasons for this difference were not found.  

30 

 
                                                           
While past floods are clearly used to assess possible future floods (as described below), Italy’s 
reports do not clearly state if or how the likelihood that similar future events are still relevant 

has been analysed.  

Criteria for identifying past floods with significant adverse impacts (Article 
4.2(b)) 

Under Article 4.2(b) of the Directive, MS should provide a description of past floods with known 
significant  adverse  impacts  that  may  reoccur  along  with  a  methodology  for  defining  what 

constituted a ‘significant adverse impact’ at the time of flooding.  

Article 

Summary Description 

Implications 

4.2(b) – Past 
Adverse 
Consequences 

Description of past 
flood with significant 
adverse impacts, with 
likelihood of repetition. 

To filter past flood events a methodology is 
required for defining what constituted a 
"significant adverse impact" at the time of the 
flooding. 

Requires defining the likelihood of repetition for 
each past flood that had a significant adverse 
impact (zero likelihood = irrelevant flood). 

To further filter events, requires a methodology 
for defining what adverse impacts are to be 
considered as significant now, should the past 
flood repeat itself at the same location/s today, or 
in the future (long term developments relevant 
here). 

Table  4  summarises  the  criteria  reported  by  Italy  for  defining  significant  adverse  impacts  of 

flood events. 

31 

 
 
Table 4 Criteria for defining significant adverse impacts of past floods as required under Article 4.2(b) 

2
1
0
I
T
I

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       

                       

Flooded area 

Residents affected 

Buildings affected 

Commercial area 

Level of damage 

Amount compensation 

Return period 

Infrastructure affected 

Community assets 

Duration 

Speed of onset 

Triggered warning level 

                       

Weighting systems 

Expert Judgement 

Other 

 




                       

                       

                       

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

0
2
0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

1
7
1
R
T
I

6
1
0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

                        

                        

                        

                                             

   

   

                                     

                                     

                                             

                                             

                                             

                        

   

 

 

                                 

               

   

     

 

Flooded area 

Residents affected 

Buildings affected 

Commercial area 

Level of damage 

Amount compensation 

Return period 

Infrastructure affected 

Community assets 

Duration 

Speed of onset 

Triggered warning level 

Weighting systems 

Expert Judgement 

Other 




33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On the basis of the information reported by Italy and shown in Table 4, a broad range of criteria 
are  considered.  Italy’s  reporting  to  the  EIONET  CDR  indicates  that  the  criteria  used  varied 

across UoMs. 

  All 47 UoMs considered the flooded area, the residents affected, the commercial area, 

the return period, the infrastructure affected and community assets 

  42 UoMs (89% of those reporting) considered the buildings affected 

  38 UoMs (81%) considered the level of damage, the amount of compensation and the 

duration 

  33 UoMs (70%) considered the speed of onset 

  26 UoMs (55%) considered the triggered warning level 

  one UoM (2%) considered a weighting system 

No UoMs used expert judgement or “other” methods.  

The  methodological  documents  uploaded  by  Italy  to  the  EIONET  CDR  describe  a  common, 
national approach to the definition of “significant” past events49 that, however, does not fully 
match  what  Italy  reported  as  shown  in  Table  4.  For  one,  while  the  methodological  reports 
identify the criteria set out in Table 5, they do not provide details on how each was considered50. 
The reports refer to the use of a national database used to catalogue flood events, FloodCat. The 
methodological report for ITA states that this database has been structured according to the EU 
reporting guidance for floods51 (as do other methodological reports). The methodological report 
for ITG specifically mentions schema for human health, economic activities, environment and 
cultural heritage52. 

The  methodological  reports  refer  to  the  different  types  of  significant  past  events  set  out  in 

Articles 4(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) of the Floods Directive. Significant past flood events are those falling 
into one of three categories under Article 7 of Italy’s Civil Protection Code, as per Legislative 

Decree n. 1 of 2 January 2018.  

49  While  the  text  that  follows  is  taken  from  the  methodological  report  for  Sardegna,  ITR201  (and  RBD  ITG), 
essentially the same text was found in the methodological reports for the Eastern Alps, RBD ITA, and the Central 
Apennines, RBD ITE.  

50 Italy subsequently informed that criteria and methodology are reported. Details on how criteria are considered 

are not required, although they are all considered in FloodCat. 
Orientali 

Distretto 

Alpi 

51 

at: 
https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/it/eu/floods2019/pfra_2019/documents/itn004/envxouc9q/Relazione_metodologica_
Distr_Alpi_Orientali.pdf 

Relazione  Metodologica, 

Available 

(ITA), 

16. 

p. 

52 

Distretto 

Sardegna 

(ITG), 

Relazione 

metodologica, 

p. 

39, 

Available 

at: 

https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/it/eu/floods2019/pfra_2019/documents/itr201/envxswyfg/Rel_metodologica_Distret
to_Sardegna_Giu2019.pdf 

34 

 
                                                           
Significant floods as per Floods Directive Art. 4(2)(b) are those identified as “type c” events 

under the Civil Protection Code – events of national importance. These are:  

  “emergencies of national importance connected to calamitous events of natural origin 
or deriving from human activities that, due to their intensity and breadth,  must be 
addressed  by  immediate  intervention  with  extraordinary  means  and  powers  to  be 
employed in a limited and predefined period of time…”53 

According to the methodological reports, in Italy significant floods as per Floods Directive Art. 
4(2)(c) are those identified as “type a” and “type b” events under the Civil Protection Code – 

events of local or regional importance. More specifically, these are: 

  “emergencies  connected  to  calamitous  events  of  natural  origin  or  deriving  from 
human  activities  that  can  be  addressed  by  interventions  that  are  operable  by 

individual entities and competent administrations via usual means” (type a)  

  “emergencies  connected  to  calamitous  events  of  natural  origin  or  deriving  from 
human  activities  that  due  to  their  nature  and  breadth  require  the  coordination 

intervention  of  several  entities  or  administratives,  and  must  be  addressed  by 
extraordinary means and powers due be used during a limited or predefined period 

of time, regulated by regions or by the autonomous provinces… in the exercise of 

their respective legislative powers” (type b) 

The methodological reports do not provide further details on these definitions, such as criteria 
similar to those listed in Table 4, that might determine whether a flood event is classified to be 

at local, regional or national level. The reports do mention that national emergencies (type c) are 
those declared by the national Council of Ministers, potentially implying that regional and local 

floods also depend on administrative declarations.  

The methodological reports54 also refer to three types of documents used for information on past 
events: 

53  Text  translated  from  the  Relazione  metodologica,  Autorità  di  Bacino  Regionale,  Regione  autònoma  della 
at: 

Sardegna, 
https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/it/eu/floods2019/pfra_2019/documents/itr201/envxswyfg/Rel_metodologica_Distret
to_Sardegna_Giu2019.pdf (uploaded 10 July 2019, accessed 12 February 2021) 

available 

54  See  for  example,  Bacino  del  Fiume  Po  (ITB),  Relazione  metodologica,  p.  22.  Available  at: 
https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/it/eu/floods2019/pfra_2019/documents/itn008/envxrdirg/PFRA_APSFR_Relazione_
Distr_Po2019.pdf  

35 

 
                                                           
  Event reports prepared by the centres for Civil Protection  

  On-site data, including photographs, GPS data and geocoding of damage reports 

  Remote sensing data mapped by the Copernicus Emergency Management Service (EMS) 

The information provided in the methodological reports varies slightly. The report for ITB Po 
indicates  further  details:  for  this  RBD  at  least,  precipitation  data  were  also  used,  aerial 

photography was employed alongside remote sensing data from the Copernicus programme, and 
past floods were used to update hydraulic models55. Other methodological reports were checked, 
and the same section did not provide these additional details56.  

Table  5  provides  information  on  the  criteria  used  to  define  historic  significant  flood  events 
during the first cycle. As Italy applied Art. 13(1)(b) of the Floods Directive, it did not report on 

the criteria in the first cycle.  

While Italy did not report for the first cycle PFRA, the methodological reports explain that flood 
risk areas under Italy’s previous methods were identified via a census of historical flood events 

from 1918 to 2001, using official archives and other historical documents, together with more 
recent studies. The resulting areas at risk were identified in the Flood and Landslide Protection 
Plans (Piani stralcio di bacino per l'assetto idrogeologico, PAI)57. The methodological reports 
refer  to  the  PAIs  as  a  source  of  data  and  information  for  both  the  PFRA  and  the  FRMPs; 

moreover, it appears that these plans, developed before the FRMPs, remain in force.  

Table  5  Summary  of  assessment  of  MS’  WISE  reports  and  available  supplementary 

information during the first cycle assessment58 

MS 

Criteria to define significant historical 
floods 

Reasons for not including some types 
of floods that occurred in the past 

IT 

Article 13.1(b) applied – not applicable. 

55 Bacino del Fiume Po, Relazione metodologica, Section 7, p. 37 
56 For example, in the Relazione Metodologica (Section 7 and others) for ITA Eastern Alps, ITF Southern Apennines 

and ITG Sardinia.  

57  See  for  example,  Distretto  Alpi  Orientali  (ITA),  Relazione  Metodologica,  section  2.1.  Available  at: 
https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/it/eu/floods2019/pfra_2019/documents/itn004/envxouc9q/Relazione_metodologica_
Distr_Alpi_Orientali.pdf  

58 Taken from the first cycle European Overview Assessment of MS’ reports on Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment 
and 
2014, 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/pfra_reports/EU%20PFRA%20Overview%20Report.pdf 

Identification 

Significant 

Potentially 

Flood 

Areas 

Risk, 

of 

of 

36 

 
 
 
                                                           
Significant adverse impacts of past floods 

Table 6 summarises the types of impacts identified for past flood events as required under Article 

4.2(b). The table indicates that Italy reported 16 985 locations with adverse flood impacts (as 
seen in the table, a large number of additional locations have indicated that certain flood impacts 

are  “not  applicable”  –  these  are  not  included  in  the  16 985  locations  with  adverse  flood 
impacts59).    

The methodological reports explain that there is a national approach to gathering information on 

past impacts. The reports explain that flood events are recorded in a national database, FloodCat, 
that is then used to report to WISE; as noted above, the reports state that Italy has structured 

FloodCat schemas on the basis of EU reporting guidance.  

Among the applicable impacts (out of the 16 960 total individual impacts in the table): 

  15 274 are indicated for economic activity (90% of the total number of locations with 
applicable  impacts),  with  the  largest  category  being  impacts  on  infrastructure  (6 080) 
followed by other (4 152), property  (3 491),  economic activity  (1 442),  rural  land use 

(107) and then unknown (2). A high share of these impacts (46% of the national total) 
are reported for ITN008 Po; not unexpectedly, as it is Italy’s largest UoM and contains 

many centres of economic activity.  

  981 are indicated for human health and social (6% of locations with applicable impacts), 
with  the  largest  category  being  community  impacts  (825),  followed  by  human  health 
(129) and other (27). 

  573  are  indicated  for  environment  (3%  of  locations  with  applicable  impacts),  with 
waterbody being the largest category (450), followed by other (109), pollution sources 
(9), and protected areas (5). 

  157 are indicated for cultural heritage (1%), with the great majority of these for cultural 

assets (139), followed by other (14) and landscape (4). 

The  “other”  economic  impacts  reported  all  concern  water  works,  including  impacts  on  flood 
defences, irrigation works and canals. The “other” human health and social impacts include the 

provision  of  material,  food,  clothing,  meals  and  housing.  For  environment,  the  reporting 
mentions  several  times  “other  impacts  on  the  soil,  biodiversity,  flora  and  fauna”  without 

providing  further  details;  the  other  types  of  “other”  environmental  impacts  include  coastal 
erosion damages, the evacuation of workers from industrial facilities and the recovery of gas 

59  Italy  reported  48 172  locations  where  adverse  flood  impacts  are  not  applicable,  as  seen  in  Table  7.  Italy’s 
methodological reports mention that “not applicable” is indicated when no damage is identified, e.g. when a type 
of receptor (for example a school) is not present in the location under examination. 

37 

 
                                                           
containers, and the restoration of a natural bird protection site. Among other cultural heritage 
impacts, there are references to the reconstruction of city walls, damages to a cultural centre and 

several mentions of “other impacts on the cultural and landscape heritage”.  

The methodological reports for each RBD each contain a section on the methodology and data 
used  to  consider  past  impacts  and  estimate  future  impacts  (consequences).  These  sections 

explain that the identification of potential consequences was made by mapping: flood extent was 
compared  with  mapping  of  economic  activities,  of  community  buildings  (such  as  hospitals, 

schools, research centres and public transport stations), of protected environmental areas, and so 
forth.  The  methodological  reports  explain  that  this  includes  data  from  the  Civil  Protection 

Department, national spatial data (from the 2011 census) on inhabitants, regional landscape maps 
for protected landscapes and cultural heritage, and regional and national maps for land use and 

national maps of protected areas as well as the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register 
(E-PRTR) for information on polluting facilities60.  

No further information was found in the methodological reports on the methods to determine the 
types of impacts or their significance: for example, no information was found on the possible 
use of thresholds used to determine significant adverse impacts61.  

Italy’s reporting shows that all types of impacts – economic, environmental, human health and 

cultural – were considered.  

60 See, for example: Relazione metodologica for ITB Po, section 6. Similar information with further details on the 
specific sources can be found in the Relazione metodologica for ITA Eastern Alps and ITG Sardinia (always in 
section 6). It is expected that all the methodological reports contain similar information.  

61 Italy subsequently explained that the association to the type of flood event “b” or “c” is strictly connected to the 
state of emergency declared for the flood event and also to the eventual fatalities occurred. For example, if the 
national government declared a state of emergency for an event, this is considered a 4.2(b) flood event. An event 
with no state of emergency declared but with at least one fatality is considered a 4.2(c) flood event. The National 
Civil Protection Code defines the conditions (based on intensity and extent of impacts) by which a specific event 
can be classified as type a (municipal level), type b (provincial and regional) and type c (national). The level of 
the state of emergency declared for an event and victims caused by an event are objective criteria to identify what 
is significant. These criteria are “thresholds” and they are very similar to those adopted internationally (e.g. EM-
DAT International Disaster Database) . 

38 

 
 
                                                           
Table 6 Adverse impacts identified for all past flood events as required under Article 4.2(b) 

2
1
0
I
T
I

Cultural Heritage 

Cultural Assets 

4 

Landscape 

Other 

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

6 

1 

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

1 

3 

1 

2 

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

4 

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

4 

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

2 

9
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

22 

1 

Not applicable 

142 

776  43 

6 

7 

79 

842 

22 

66 

3 

10 

4 

94 

0 

9 

527 

12 

46 

7  16 

7484 

4 

4 

229 

18 

447 

8 

62 

3 

Unknown 

Economic Activity 

Property 

4 

326 

2 

Infrastructure 

114 

288  31 

2 

Rural land use 

Economic activity 

Other 

Not applicable 

Unknown 

Environment 

109 

37 

23 

12 

17 

8 

3 

1 

3 

2 

1 

2 

2 

1 

9 

1 

26 

47 

114 

29 

Waterbody 

12 

2 

3 

5 

Protected area 

Pollution sources 

8 

6 

2 

1 

3 

1 

39 

1 

3 

1 

5 

0 

2 

2 

15 

46 

25 

12 

3 

3 

1 

3 

2 

14 

15 

1 

15 

489 

4 

2 

3 

3 

2 

1 

2 

2 

4 

19 

7 

6 

12 

4 

2 

4 

5 

1 

1086 

1 

3286 

22 

255 

2335 

523 

1 

2 

5 

253 

0 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2
1
0
I
T
I

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

1 

Other 

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

1 

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

18 

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

Not applicable 

134 

782  42 

3 

7 

79 

841 

24 

65 

3 

10 

4 

94 

9 

513 

12 

43 

7  16 

7254 

4 

unknown 

Human Health 
Social 

Human Health 

Community 

Other 

1 

1 

21 

20 

2 

2 

2 

4 

18 

1 

7 

10 

4 

1 

3 

24 

273 

3 

Not applicable 

144 

762  44 

6 

7 

75 

826 

0 

24 

64 

3 

10 

4 

76 

9 

513 

12 

43 

7  13 

7207 

4 

unknown 

* Numbers represent the number of historic flood locations for which the adverse impact is relevant. Note, one flood event can impact multiple flood locations 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

0
2
0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

1
7
1
R
T
I

6
1
0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

Cultural Heritage 

Cultural Assets 

2 

1 

9 

10 

2 

3 

47 

1 

2 

1 

1 

10 

4 

Landscape 

Other 

1 

1 

3 

1 

6 

1 

Not applicable 

1094 

22 

13 

307  1873 

72 

109 

63 

748  199 

91 

32 

1 

62 

239 

90 

128  556 

216 

unknown 

Economic Activity 

Property 

Infrastructure 

Rural land use 

Economic activity 

Other 

Not applicable 

unknown 

Environment 

4 

1 

4 

4 

419 

295 

13 

80 

100 

190 

3 

6 

1 

3 

8 

2 

3 

894 

26 

172 

383 

28 

4 

24 

425 

26 

7 

7 

2 

7 

12 

128  112 

6 

11 

333 

39 

35 

3 

2 

2 

11 

150 

9 

21 

4 

5 

3 

1 

67 

31 

94 

39 

167 

19 

22 

15 

56 

72 

2 

2 

109 

19 

20 

5 

4 

1 

2 

11 

2 

6 

54 

100 

10 

40 

179 

14 

172 

18 

52 

110 

9 

2 

8 

166 

192 

77 

6 

8 

8 

2 

5 

1 

19 

44 

Waterbody 

62 

7 

20 

5 

44 

13 

9 

2 

Protected area 

Pollution sources 

1 

1 

41 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

2 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

Other 

1 

21 

5 

2 

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

0
2
0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

1
7
1
R
T
I

6
1
0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1 

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

59 

Not applicable 

1035 

23 

13 

307  1875 

61 

90 

56 

753  186 

82 

29 

unknown 

Human Health Social 

Human Health 

Community 

Other 

1 

128 

3 

1 

5 

2 

23 

93 

1 

22 

158 

2 

5 

1 

1 

4 

5 

5 

5 

4 

3 

1 

1 

63 

240 

90 

128  564 

157 

1 

7 

3 

1 

1 

18 

68 

3 

5 

4 

Not applicable 

968 

19 

13 

300  1789 

58 

104 

52 

619  192 

89 

28 

62 

233 

87 

111  504 

209 

Unknown 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Criteria for identifying past floods without known significant adverse impacts 
but with potential for adverse consequences in the future (Article 4.2(c)) 

Under Article 4.2(c), MS should provide a description of significant past floods without known 

significant adverse impacts for which the likelihood of similar future events is still relevant and 
where significant adverse consequences might be envisaged. They should devise a methodology 

for defining what constitutes a significant flood at the time of flooding.  

Article 

Summary Description 

Implications 

4.2(c) – Significant 
Adverse 
Consequences 

Description of 
significant past flood 
[without known 
significant adverse 
impacts at the time], but 
with likelihood for 
significant adverse 
consequences in the 
future. 

To filter past flood events a methodology is 
required for defining what constituted "a 
significant flood" at the time of the flooding. 

Requires defining the likelihood of repetition for 
each significant past flood (zero likelihood = 
irrelevant flood). 

To further filter events, requires a methodology 
for defining what would constitute a "significant 
adverse consequence" now, should the past flood 
repeat itself at the same location/s today, or in the 
future (long term developments relevant here). 

Table 7 summarises  the  criteria reported by  Italy for defining past floods without significant 

adverse impacts as required under Article 4.2(c). It can be noted that the information provided 
is exactly the same as the information provided in Table 5, i.e. the criteria for Article 4.2(b), 

significant  adverse  impacts  of  flood  events.  Please  refer  to  the  discussion  after  that  table  for 

further details on the specific criteria used.  

As also noted above, the RBD methodological reports explain that Article 4.2(c) floods in Italy 

are  those  defined  as  events  of  local  and  regional  importance  under  national  legislation.  As 
indicated above in the discussion of Art. 4.2(b), floods classified as being of national importance 

are considered Art. 4.2(b) floods. 

43 

 
 
 
Table 7 Criteria for defining past floods without known significant adverse impacts as required under Article 4.2(c) 

2
1
0
I
T
I

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T

I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

                         

                         

 

                     

                                              

Amount compensation 

       

                  

   

       

                  

   

   

   

 

 

Return period 

                         

Infrastructure affected 

                                              

                                              

       

                  

   

 

   

 

                

   

   

   

 

 

Flooded area 

Residents affected 

Buildings affected 

Commercial area 

Level of damage 

Community assets 

Duration 

Speed of onset 

Triggered warning level 

     

   

   

   

   

   

Weighting systems 

Expert Judgement 

Other 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

0
2
0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

1
7
1
R
T
I

6
1
0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

                                             

                                             

         

                                 

                                             

   

   

                                     

                                     

                                             

                                             

                                             

   

   

 

                                     

 

                                 

               

   

     

 

Flooded area 

Residents affected 

Buildings affected 

Commercial area 

Level of damage 

Amount compensation 

Return period 

Infrastructure affected 

Community assets 

Duration 

Speed of onset 

Triggered warning level 

Weighting systems 

Expert Judgement 

Other 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Criteria  for  identifying  future  floods  with  potential  adverse  consequences 
regardless of significance (Article 4.2 (d)) 

With regard to future floods, the PFRA process under Art. 4 (Article 4.2(d)), does not include 

the term “significance”. Only once information about past floods has been assessed, and once 
this  information  is  projected  into  the  future,  and  once  any  other  entirely  new  areas  of  future 

floods have been researched (regardless of significance), should the APSFRs be pronounced. 

Article 4.2(d) requires that an assessment of the potential adverse consequences of future floods 

is carried out for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity, taking 
into account as far as possible issues such as the topography, the position of watercourses and 

their general hydrological and geomorphological characteristics, including floodplains as natural 
retention areas, the effectiveness of existing manmade flood defence infrastructures, the position 

of populated areas, areas of economic activity and long-term developments including impacts of 

climate change on the occurrence of floods.  

Article 

Summary Description 

Implications 

4.2(d) – Potential 
Adverse 
Consequences 

Assessment of potential 
adverse consequences 
of future floods 

Depending on the specific needs of MS, requires 
looking at the whole territory of the MS* (in 
addition to areas identified under arts. 4.2.b and 
4.2.c) to scan for locations of future floods with 
potential adverse consequences (NB: There is no 
reference to significance here). 

Requires a methodology for defining what 
constitutes potential "adverse consequences" for 
each future flood (long term developments 
relevant also here). 

*hence the detailing of what should be taken into 
account as far as possible. 

Table  8  shows  which  criteria  have  been  used  by  each  UoM  for  defining  potential  adverse 

consequences of future floods. 

46 

 
 
Table 8 Criteria for potential adverse consequences of future floods as required under Article 4.2 (d) 

Residents affected 

Value property 

Buildings affected 

Infrastructural assets 

Exceedance threshold 

Economic damage 

Waterbodies 

2
1
0
I
T
I

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

                                              

 

 

 

 

 

   

       

 

       

                            

   

                                              

 

       

                            

   

                                              

Pollution from industry 

                                              

Rural land use 

Economic activity 

Cultural assets 

Recurrence periods 

                                              

                                              

                                              

                                              

Recurrence periods with land use 

 

 

 

 

Community assets 

Water level 

Water velocity 

Past occurrence 

Weighting systems 

                                              

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

      

 

 

       

                  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

0
2
0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

1
7
1
R
T
I

6
1
0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

                                             

                                             

                                             

                                             

 

 

 

                                 

   

   

   

 

 

     

     

               

               

   

   

   

     

                                     

 

   

 

 

 

Residents affected 

Value property 

Buildings affected 

Infrastructural assets 

Exceedance threshold 

Economic damage 

Waterbodies 

Pollution from industry 

Rural land use 

Economic activity 

Cultural assets 

Recurrence periods 

Recurrence periods with land use 

   

   

                           

   

Community assets 

Water level 

Water velocity 

Past occurrence 

Weighting systems 

                                             

   

   

   

   

   

                           

   

                                       

                                       

                                       

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 9 shows that: 

  All 47 UoMs considered the following criteria: residents affected, infrastructural assets 

and community assets 

  46 of the 47 UoMs (98%) considered economic activity 

  45 of the 47 UoMs (96%) considered water bodies 

  43 of the 47 UoMs (91%) considered buildings affected 

  40 UoMs (85%) considered pollution from industry and the same share considered rural 

land use 

  39 UoMs (83%) considered past occurrence 

  34 UoMs (72%) considered value of property 

  32 UoMs (68%) considered water velocity 

  30 UoMs (64%) considered water level 

  28 UoMs (60%) considered recurrence periods  

  26 UoMs (55%) considered cultural assets  

  24 UoMs (51%) considered recurrence periods with land use 

  23 UoMs (49%) considered economic damage 

  22 UoMs (47%) used weighting systems 

  No UoMs considered exceedance threshold. 

According to the methodological report for ITB Po (which reported using 12 criteria in ITN008 
Po, its largest UoM), not all criteria are always used for all locations62; the same caveat is also 
seen in other methodological reports. The methodological report for ITB Po also refers to the 
use  of  a  national  methodology  for  identifying  future  floods63  (as  do  other  methodological 
reports).  

The  methodological  report  for  ITB  Po  provides  further  details  on  the  identification  of  future 
floods. First, the territory for ITN008 was divided into five types of zones: the principle river 

network (the Po River and its main tributaries), the secondary hill and mountain river network, 
the secondary plains river network, and marine coast arees and the lake coast areas for the UoM’s 
large Alpine lakes. For the principle river network, hydrological and hydraulic models were used 

along all river lengths, while in other areas simpler methods were used, generally inventories of 
historical events and geomorphological analysis (the methodological report refers to the use of 

data  collected  for  the  national  plan  via  remote  sensing  for  the  national  geoportal).  For  the 
principle  river  network,  the  analysis  considered  flood  plains  (which  were  identified  in  the 

62 Distretto Fiume Po, Relazione metodologica, p. 27 (Section 5). 
63 Distretto Fiume Po, Relazione metodologica, p. 29 (Section 5). 

49 

 
                                                           
Hydrogeological Structure Plans in the 1990s64) as well as areas that would be flooded when 
river embankments are overtopped or broken – the methodological report states that this allows 

the  inclusion  of  climate  change  scenarios,  though  it  does  not  provide  further  details.  For 
mountain  sub-basins,  the  analysis  considers  flash  floods  and  debris  flow.  For  the  secondary 

plains river network, both fluvial and pluvial floods are considered: the report explains that in 
this area of the UoM, floods generally originate from intense, localised precipitation that cannot 

be fully drained. Finally, the report  explains that  the future flood  analysis was based on low 
probability floods: the return time varies, however, from 500 years for the principle river network 
to 50 or 200 years for the secondary plains network65. 

The methodological report explains that a similar approach was used for other UoMs that have 
been  added  to  the  Po  RBD  (ITB)  in  the  second  cycle  (i.e.  ITI021  Reno,  ITR081  Bacini 

Romagnoli,  ITI01319  Marecchia  Conca  and  ITI026  Fissero  Tartaro  Canalbianco),  though 

without the detailed study for primary river networks.  

In sum, this methodological report explains that the analysis looked at topography, including the 
role of flood plains in natural water retention, the effectiveness of flood defences, the positions 

of areas of population and economic activities. Climate change was considered in a qualitative 
way, while long-term scenarios of infrastructure and soil sealing or changes in rural land use 

were not considered. The report provides an overview table with a simple scale of low, medium 
and  high  (aggregated  for  damages  to  human  health,  economic  activities,  environment  and 

cultural heritage): the table shows that damages were estimated as high for all the territory except 
the  areas  identified  belonging  to  the  secondary  plains  river  network,  where  damages  were 

estimated  as  medium.  The  report  states  that  the  level  of  expected  damages  is  based  on  the 
characteristics of flooding, the intensity of average expected events and the impact on exposed 

elements (further detail on the method is not provided).  

The methodological report for the RBD ITF (Southern Apennines) does not provide a summary 
of the approach66, but it does include a detailed list of information sources, including a long list 
of studies on specific locations and on the state and need for flood protection works, a list of 

64  The  Flood  and  Landslide  Protection  Plans  (Piani  Assetto  Idrogeologico,  PAI),  required  under  national  law 
183/1989, were prepared to address risks from floods and other geological risks, such as landslides, in the period 
before Italy’s implementation of the Floods Directive. They were prepared at regional and basin level (referring 
to Italy’s national basins before implementation of the WFD and FD). The most recent PAI for the Po basin dates 
to 2001, though it was updated in 2008. See: https://pai.adbpo.it/index.php/documentazione-pai/  

65 See the Relazione metodologica for ITB, pp. 31-32 including Table 5.3. The report explains that further details 
are provided in Volume IIA and Annex 1 of the first cycle FRMP, including work for the first cycle FHRMs, and 
that  the  studies  used  are  those  for  the  Hydraulic  Structure  Plan  and  its  ongoing  updates,  available  at 
http://pai.adbpo.it/.  

66 Italy subsequently clarified that the approach is the national one; the data used are of course different for every 

RBD so details of the sources of data or on the areas considered for future floods are essential. 

50 

 
                                                           
modifications to the separate Hydraulic Structure Plan for key areas at risk, as well as factsheets 
that provide brief, largely qualitative summaries of information gathered for each key area at 
risk67.  

The methodological report for RBD ITG Sardinia68 (corresponding to UoM ITR201) refers to a 
similar set  of sources.  This  report lists a series of hydraulic and  geological  studies that were 

carried out in 2018; it refers to the determination of hazard areas identified in the updated PAI; 
and to an analysis of flash floods carried out to  assess climate impacts.  This report does not, 

however, include factsheets on key areas of risk such as those found in the report for ITF, nor 
other details on how information from different sources was integrated69.  

Table 9 provides information on the methods used to define potentially significant future floods 

used during the first cycle. As can be seen, Italy used Art. 13.1(b) and did not report in the first 
cycle.  Nonetheless,  there  is  reference  to  modelling:  as  explained  above,  the  methodological 

report  for  ITB  Po  indicates  that  the  methods  for  the  second  cycle  build  on  work  carried  out 

previously for both the Hydrogeological Structure Plans and the first cycle FHRMs and FRMPs.  

Table 9 Summary overview of the methods used to identify and quantify potential future 

adverse consequences reported in the first cycle70 

MS 

IT 

Not reported 

Expert judgement / 
qualitative manner 

Quantitative methods 

X (art 13.1(b)) Referring to 
modelling 

Potential adverse consequences of future floods 

Table  10  summarises  the  types  of  potential  adverse  consequences  identified  for  future  flood 

events. 

67 Distretto Appennino meridionale (ITF), Relazione metodologica, section 5.1, pp. 91-123. 
68  Distretto  Sardegna 
(ITG),  Relazione  metodologica, 

section  5.1,  pp.  44-49,  Availabe 

at: 

https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/it/eu/floods2019/pfra_2019/documents/itr201/envxswyfg/Rel_metodologica_Distret
to_Sardegna_Giu2019.pdf 

69 Italy subsequently informed that the factsheets used in the ITF report are not a national nor EU standard, they are 

only the way that ITF RBD Authority decided to describe information used for future events. 

70 Taken from the first cycle European Overview Assessment of MS’ reports on Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment 

and Identification of Areas of Potentially Significant Flood Risk, 2014. 

51 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Table 10 Potential adverse consequences identified for future flood events as required under Article 4.2(d)*  

2
1
0
I
T
I

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

Cultural Heritage 

Cultural Assets 

Landscape 

Other 

Not applicable 

unknown 

Economic Activity 

Property 

Infrastructure 

Rural land use 

Economic activity 

Other 

Not applicable 

unknown 

Environment 

Waterbody 

Protected area 

Pollution sources 

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1 

2 

1 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

2 

4 

6 

6 

1 

1 

3 

1 

5 

5 

1
0
0
N
T
I

1 

2
0
0
N
T
I

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

16 

14 

1 

1 

4 

1 

1 

10 

9
0
0
N
T
I

1 

8
0
0
N
T
I

5 

5 

1 

1 

4 

2 

4 

2 

1 

9 

10 

14 

36 

1 

96 

9 

641 

5 

6 

2 

3 

2 

9 

2 

2 

3 

2 

11 

3 

2 

3 

2 

4 

5 

6 

4 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

4 

2 

16 

24 

6 

4 

2 

4 

6 

12 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

11 

4 

5 

7 

2 

1 

7 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

3 

1 

0 

0 

0 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

52 

5 

1 

30 

95 

30 

1 

2 

1 

4 

2 

3 

2 

4 

10 

28 

15 

37 

68 

19 

5 

30 

8 

0 

2 

33 

7 

1 

1 

1 

28 

1 

10 

2 

2 

2 

15 

26 

59 

20 

6 

2 

2 

2 

3 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

4 

2 

577 

69 

1 

239 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2
1
0
I
T
I

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

3 

3 

2 

4 

1 

2 

5 

3 

2 

11 

11 

3 

3 

4 

4 

3 

3 

3 

6 

2 

4 

2 

6 

6 

2 

0 

11 

3 

38 

403 

1 

1 

4 

3 

1 

1 

5 

5 

8 

2 

2 

30 

10 

5 

3 

1 

5 

4 

4 

3 

9 

5 

5 

31 

5 

34 

94 

11 

611 

Other 

Not applicable 

unknown 

Human Health Social 

Human Health 

Community 

Other 

Not applicable 

unknown 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

0
2
0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

Cultural Heritage 

Cultural Assets 

2 

4 

1 

1 

Landscape 

Other 

Not applicable 

1 

7 

8 

unknown 

Economic Activity 

Property 

2 

Infrastructure 

16 

4 

Rural land use 

Economic activity 

Other 

Not applicable 

unknown 

Environment 

Waterbody 

Protected area 

Pollution sources 

2 

5 

1 

4 

3 

1 

2 

3 

2 

8 

5 

1 

8 

1 

2 

2 

6 

3 

1 

6 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

6 

8 

5 

6 

5 

6 

4 

4 

4 

5 

3 

4 

2 

4 

5 

4 

4 

4 

6 

10 

4 

4 

2 

14 

1 

1 

1 

1 

394 

466 

22 

6
1
0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

4 

83 

210 

432 

1
7
1
R
T
I

12 

12 

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

6 

6 

10 

10 

6 

8 

361 

1082 

63 

258 

2 

45 

58 

94 

337 

278 

3 

33 

182 

6 

6 

6 

16 

3 

4 

2 

4 

12 

391 

386 

18 

21 

22 

17 

13 

5 

5 

4 

5 

45 

12 

5 

671 

930 

19 

15 

3 

5 

4 

6 

2 

4 

4 

5 

1 

17 

1 

2 

3 

9 

5 

2 

4 

3 

2 

4 

2 

5 

4 

54 

3 

2 

3 

4 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

0
2
0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

1
7
1
R
T
I

6
1
0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

Other 

Not applicable 

3 

0 

3 

6 

3 

unknown 

Human Health Social 

Human Health 

Community 

Other 

Not applicable 

unknown 

2 

4 

5 

3 

5 

2 

5 

1 

4 

4 

1 

3 

3 

3 

3 

10 

19 

6 

5 

3 

5 

1 

4 

6 

2 

3 

5 

2 

2 

2 

469 

324 

16 

2 

4 

4 

4 

5 

3 

5 

4 

5 

4 

5 

4 

6 

12 

10 

12 

5 

4 

721 

368 

10 

144 

6 

107 

308 

18 

* Numbers represent the number of future flood locations for which the potential adverse consequence is relevant 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
As shown in Table 10, Italy reported that in all 47 UoMs, there were future flood locations where 
impacts  on  cultural  assets,  infrastructure  and  human  health  were  relevant.  A  total  of  1 994 

locations with impacts on infrastructure were reported; 1 380 locations with impacts on human 

health were reported; and 462 locations with impacts on cultural assets. 

In terms of impacts on cultural heritage, in addition to those on cultural assets, 16 UoMs (34% 

of the 47 UoMs) reported future flood locations with impacts on landscape with a total of 520 

locations identified, and one UoM reported an “unknown” impact.  

Among impacts on economic activity, in addition to those on infrastructure, 38 UoMs (81%) 

reported future flood locations with impacts on property, 37 UoMs (79%) reported future flood 
locations with impacts on rural land use, 36 (77%) with impacts on economic activity, 6 UoMs 

(13%), “other” impacts, and 1 UoM, “unknown” impacts. In terms of locations, however, the 

greatest number, over 2 300, were reported for rural land use.  

Among impacts on environment, 41 UoMs (87%) reported future flood locations with impacts 
on pollution sources, 38 (81%) with impacts on protected areas and 30 (64%), impacts on water 

bodies. In terms of future flood locations, the greatest number (over 1 100) were reported for 

protected areas.  

In terms of human, health and social impacts, in addition to those on human health, future flood 

locations with impacts on community were identified in 40 UoMs (85% of the total), with 297 

locations reported.  

Three  UoMs  reported  far  more  locations  of  impacts  than  others:  ITR191  Sicily  Region  and 
ITR201 Sardinia Region each reported over 3 000 locations (not counting those reported as not 

applicable), and ITN009 Tagliamento reported almost 1 000. In contrast, ITN008 Po – by far 
Italy’s largest UoM – reported only 55 locations. These differences suggest that the UoMs may 

have used very different methods to identify the number of locations with potential future flood 

impacts. However, no explanation for these differences was found in the methodological reports. 

Details about potential future floods 

The  table  in  Annex  D  summarises  the  sources,  mechanisms  and  characteristics  provided  for 
potential future flood events71. 

71 Italy subsequently informed that the difference in “FL details” numbers (FL=flood locations) is related to the way 
the RBD Authorities decided to represent/describe future flood locations. Using a “singlepart” or  a “multipart” 
spatial representation, grouping (or not) features that refers for example to the same scenario, means very different 
numbers in FL and related details. 

56 

 
                                                           
It shows that Italy identified potential future fluvial floods in all the 47 UoMs reporting (100%). 
In terms of mechanisms, 43 of the 47 UoMs reported natural exceedance as a mechanism for 

potential future fluvial floods; 27 reported defence exceedance; 11 reported defence failure; 10 
reported blockage; four reported other mechanisms; and 10 reported no data (with one UoM, 

ITR191, only reporting no data for both mechanism and characteristics). The other mechanisms 
reported are flooding together with debris and mud flows72. 

Potential future pluvial floods were identified in 14 UoMs (this is a lower number of UoMs than 

the significant past pluvial flood events, which were identified in 32 UoMs, as shown in Table 
4).  Among  these,  natural  exceedance  was  identified  as  a  mechanism  in  six  UoMs;  defence 

exceedance, defence failure and blockage in four UoMs; and other mechanisms (with debris flow 

as the characteristic) in nine UoMs; and no data was reported in one UoM.  

In total, 34 UoMs identified potential future seawater floods (this is higher number of UoMs 

than  those  identifying  significant  past  seawater  floods,  which  as  shown  in  Table  4  were  13 
UOMs).  Of  these,  26  identified  natural  exceedance  as  a  mechanism;  23  identified  defence 
exceedance; four identified defence failure; 10 identified other mechanisms; and three reported 

no data for the mechanism. The other seawater mechanisms reported are overtopping coastal 
elevations and the rise of marine waves. The other mechanisms reported are flooding together 

with debris and mud flows.  

Italy  reported  that  three  UoMs  identified  potential  future  floods  from  artificial  water-bearing 
infrastructure (this is lower than the number of UoMs identifying past significant floods of this 

type, 7 UoMs according to Table 4). All three reported both defence exceedance and other as a 

mechanism.  

Table 11 provides a summary of the methods and criteria used to identify potentially significant 
future  floods  during  the  first  cycle.  In  addition,  the  methodological  reports73  note  that  the 
methodologies  for  the  PAI  (including,  for  example,  a  1998  Presidential  Decree,  DPCM 
29/09/1998) were the basis of flood risk assessment in the first cycle. The identification of future 
floods  was  done  on  the  basis  of  data  on  historical  floods,  together  with  modelling  for  risk 
scenarios. The original work for the PAIs was moreover updated over the years on the basis of 

new flood information. For the second cycle, the national FloodCat was put in place. Moreover, 
the European Commission’s reporting guidance, as well as national reporting guidance, were 

72 Italy subsequently informed that the difference in “FL details” numbers is related to the way the RBD Authorities 
decided to represent/describe future flood locations. Using a “singlepart” or a “multipart” spatial representation, 
grouping (or not) features that refers for example to the same scenario, means very different numbers in FL and 
related details. 

73 Section 2.1 of the methodology reports. 

57 

 
                                                           
used.   Among the new approaches, climate change has been considered in the second cycle (see 

the section below); it is not mentioned in the first cycle overview in Table 11.  

Table  11  Summary  of  assessment  of  MS’  WISE  reports  and  available  supplementary 
information  on  methods  and  criteria  used  to  identify  potentially  significant 
future floods from the first cycle assessment74 

MS 

Methods and criteria were used to identify 
potentially significant future floods 

Reasons for not including some types 
of potential future floods 

IT 

Flood simulations for different recurrence 
periods. A multi-criteria GIS valuation of 
future significant floods has been developed, 
based on land-use data and on flood 
estimation. 

Issues considered in the application of Article 4.2(d), the assessment 
of potential adverse consequences  

During the assessment of the potential adverse consequences of future floods, MS shouldtake 

into account possible issues as specified in Article 4.2(d).  

Table  12  details  the  specific  issues  that  have  been  taken  into  account  in  each  UoM  in  the 

assessment of potential adverse consequences. According to the table: 

  All  47  UoMs  took  into  account  topography,  positions  of  watercourses  and  their 

characteristics, positions of populated areas, and areas of economic activity.  

  46 of the 47 UoMs (98%) took into account the effectiveness of existing man-made flood 

defence structures.  

  44 of the 47 that reported (94%) took into account the impacts of climate change. 

  38 (81%) took into account floodplains as natural retention areas. 

The 11 elements in Table 12 are drawn from Art. 4.2(d). There are gaps, in that one UoM did 
not report taking into account the impacts of climate change and nine did not take into account 

74 Taken from the first cycle European Overview Assessment of MS’ reports on Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment 
and 
2014, 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/pfra_reports/EU%20PFRA%20Overview%20Report.pdf 

Identification 

Significant 

Potentially 

Flood 

Areas 

Risk, 

of 

of 

58 

 
 
 
                                                           
flood plains. Moreover, none took into account long-term developments (whether of settlements, 

infrastructure or rural land-use change). 

The methodological reports prepared by the RBD authorities do not always explain these gaps. 

For example, while the report for ITB Po specifically notes that flood plains were considered, 
the report for ITA Eastern Alps does not mention this. Floodplains are not listed as a criterion 

for  all  the  UoMs  in  ITA;  however,  it  is  believed  that  these  would  be  relevant  in  the  RBD’s 
extensive plains. Moreover, the methodological reports all contain a section on climate change. 

The methodological report does not explain why this criterion was not considered in ITN001 
Adige while it was considered in other UoMs in ITA75.  

On the other hand, while the methodological reports refer to ongoing soil sealing as a long-term 

issue that can exacerbate climate impacts on flooding (see “Consideration of climate change” 
below), the report for ITB Po mentions that only past data rather than future projections were 

used for long-term economic and population data.  

75 Italy subsequently clarified that the reason is that ITN001 was not included in the area of the 2011 LIFE TRUST 

project, which covered the other UoMs in the RBD. 

59 

 
 
                                                           
Table 12 What specific issues have been taken into account in assessment of potential adverse consequences in the application of Article 

4.2(d) 

2
1
0
I
T
I

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

Topography 

                                              

Position of watercourses and their 
general hydrological and 
geomorphological characteristics,  

                                              

Floodplains as natural retention areas  

       

                  

 

 

 

The effectiveness of existing man-made 
flood defence infrastructures  

                                              

The position of populated areas  

                                              

Areas of economic activity  

                                              

                            

               

Impacts of climate change on the 
occurrence of floods  

Long-term developments; development 
of settlements (private, public and 
commercial)  

Long-term developments; development 
of infrastructure (transport, water, energy 
and telecoms)  

Long-term developments; rural land-use 
change 

The specific needs of the of the MS do 
not require an assessment under Article 
4.2(d)  

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

0
2
0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

1
7
1
R
T
I

6
1
0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

Topography 

                                             

Position of watercourses and their 
general hydrological and 
geomorphological characteristics,  

                                             

Floodplains as natural retention areas  

   

                                     

                                       

   

                                             

                                             

                                 

   

   

The effectiveness of existing man-made 
flood defence infrastructures  

The position of populated areas  

Areas of economic activity  
Impacts of climate change on the 
occurrence of floods  
Long-term developments; development 
of settlements (private, public and 
commercial)  
Long-term developments; development 
of infrastructure (transport, water, energy 
and telecoms)  
Long-term developments; rural land-use 
change 
The specific needs of the of the MS do 
not require an assessment under Article 
4.2(d)  

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 13 provides a summary of the aspects considered in the application of Article 4 in the first 
cycle, whilst Table 14 provides more information on the long term developments considered by 

MS in the assessment of flood risk during the first cycle.  

As Table 13 shows, Italy applied Article 13(1)(b) in the first cycle, so information on the aspects 
considered in the application of Article 4 is not available. In terms of long-term developments, 

preliminary work was reported as available though further details were not provided. The main 
change for the second cycle is that most UoMs report the consideration of climate change, as 

indicated  above,  though  none  consider  the  long-term  development  of  settlements  or 

infrastructure, and none consider socio-economic long-term developments. 

Table 13 Summary of  aspects considered in the application of Article 4 during the  first 

cycle reporting76 

MS 

IT 

Main findings from the first cycle reporting 

Article 13.1(b) applied – not applicable 

Concerning the consideration of long-term developments in the first cycle, here too Italy noted 
that Article 13.1(b) had been applied; nonetheless, Italy reported that some preliminary work is 

available (although as reported in Table 12, long-term developments were not considered in the 

second cycle)  

Table 14 Summary of the long term developments considered by MS in the assessment of 

flood risk during the first cycle reporting77 

MS 

Climate change 

IT 

13.1(b) applied but 
some preliminary 
work is available 

Development of 
settlements 

13.1(b) applied but 
some preliminary 
work is available 

Development of 
infrastructure 
13.1(b) applied but 
some preliminary 
work is available 

Socio-economic 
developments 
13.1(b) applied but 
some preliminary 
work is available 

Identification 

76 Taken from the first cycle European Overview Assessment of MS’ reports on Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment 
and 
2014, 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/pfra_reports/EU%20PFRA%20Overview%20Report.pdf 
77 Taken from the first cycle European Overview Assessment of MS’ reports on Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment 
and 
2014, 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/pfra_reports/EU%20PFRA%20Overview%20Report.pdf 

Identification 

Significant 

Significant 

Potentially 

Potentially 

Flood 

Flood 

Areas 

Areas 

Risk, 

Risk, 

of 

of 

of 

of 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk 

Article 5 of the Directive requires MS to use their PFRA analyses to identify areas for which 

MS conclude that potential significant flood risk exists or might exist in the future for each river 
basin district, each UoM or portion of international UoM that lies within their territory. Of all 

the  past  and  future  floods  analysed  during  the  PFRA  phase  only  the  floods  deemed  of 
significance for the present and the future will be retained as APSFRs. MS may designate larger 

APSFRs compared to the areas that might actually be flooded. 

Each  MS  is  asked  through  the  reporting  to  provide  information  on  the  methodology  for  the 
designation of APSFRs, including information for the determination of significant present and 

future flood risk, the criteria for inclusion or exclusion of areas (following the analyses carried 
out under Art. 4) and how the consequences to human health, the environment, cultural heritage 

and economic activity have been considered for the identification of APSFRs.  

Criteria to determine significance of present or future flood risk 

As  part  of  their  methodology  for  the  designation  of  APSFRs,  MS  should  specify  in  their 
reporting the criteria used for the determination of present or future significant flood risk as part 

of their approach to designating APSFRs. Table 15 reports which criteria may have been used 

by each UoM for the determination of significant flood risk. 

As seen in Table 16, Italy reported that: 

  All  46  of  the  46  UoMs  that  reported  APSFR  data78  considered  residents  affected, 
infrastructural  assets,  economic  activity,  cultural  assets,  recurrence  periods  and  flood 

extent 

  45 of the 46 UoMs (98%) considered waterbodies and rural land use 

  37 UoMs (80%) considered community assets and damage in past flood events 

  36 UoMs (78%) considered flood duration and past flood events 

  33 UoMs (72%) considered economic damage 

  32 UoMs (70%) considered water level depth and water velocity 

  29 UoMs (63%) considered past occurrence 

  26 UoMs (57%) considered buildings affected 

  13 UoMs (28%) considered weighting systems 

78 Criteria are not reported for ITI026 Fissero Tartaro Canalbianco. The methodological report for the Po RBD states 

that there are only two APSFRs in this UoM and these have been assigned to the Po UoM (ITN008).  

63 

 
                                                           
  Four UoMs (9%) considered expert judgement (all of these considered other criteria as 

well) 

None of the UoMs were reported as considering an exceedance threshold or an “other” criterion. 

Each of the methodological reports for the RBDs reproduce this table (showing a common table 
with a single check for all their UoMs). The report for ITB Po notes, however, that not all criteria 

have been used together in all locations. 

64 

 
 
Table 15 Criteria for the determination of significant flood risk 

2
1
0
I
T
I

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

Residents affected 
Value property 
Buildings affected 
Infrastructural assets 
Exceedance threshold 
Economic damage 
Waterbodies 
Pollution from industry 
Rural land use 
Economic activity 
Cultural assets 
Recurrence periods 
Recurrence periods with land use 
Community assets 
Water level depth 
Water velocity 
Past occurrence 
Weighting systems 
Expert judgement 
Other 
Flood extent 
Flood duration 
Past flood events 
Damage caused in past events 

                                              
               
   
   
           
 
                                              

        
        

     
   

     
     

     
     

   

   

   

     

                

 
                                              
                                              
                                              
                                              
                                              
                                              
   
       
     
 
     
 
   
   
     
   

                    
                
   
                
   
        
       
   
   
   

   
   
   
   

   
   
   
   

   
   
   

   
   

   

   

   

                                              
       
       
       

                    
                    
                    

   
   
   

   
   
   

   
   
   

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Residents affected 
Value property 
Buildings affected 
Infrastructural assets 
Exceedance threshold 
Economic damage 
Waterbodies 
Pollution from industry 
Rural land use 
Economic activity 
Cultural assets 
Recurrence periods 
Recurrence periods with land use 
Community assets 
Water level depth 
Water velocity 
Past occurrence 
Weighting systems 
Expert judgement 
Other 
Flood extent 
Flood duration 
Past flood events 
Damage caused in past events 

0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

0
2

1
7
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

6
1

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

                                             
       
       
                                             

           
                 

       

   

   

                                   
   
           
                                 
                                             
           
                                 
                                             
                                             
                                             

   

   

   
   
   
   
 

                                       
     
   
     
   
   
           

                             
                             

                   

   
   

       

     

                                             
     
                                 
   
                                 
     
   
                                       
   

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Criteria for the inclusion of an area as an APSFR 

Once what constitutes significant flood risk has been determined (existing or likely to occur), a 

MS should decide on the criteria to include a specific geographic area as an APSFR and how 
(e.g. point, linear or polygon; continuous or not). Table 16 reports which criteria have been used 

in each UoM for including a flood risk area as an APSFR. As shown in the table: 

  All 46 of the 46 UoMs reporting79 cited risks to human health, to economic activity, to 

the environment and to cultural heritage among their criteria. 

  44 UoMs (96%) consider failure of flood defence 

  37 UoMs (80%) consider infrastructure and impact of past events 

  35 UoMs (76%) consider high-level damage 

  33 UoMs (72%) consider community assessment and occurrence of past events 

  32 UoMs (70%) consider economic damage 

  20 UoMs (43%) consider local knowledge 

  19 UoMs (41%) consider expert judgement 

  15 UoMs (33%) consider increased vulnerability 

  14 UoMs (30%) consider lack of flood defence 

  11 UoMs (24%) consider exceedance threshold 

  1 UoM (2%) agreement with neighbour is considered 

The methodological reports explain that the national methodology to identify APSFRs sets out 

the following three-step process: 

1.  Areas of flood risk from the first cycle were used as a starting point 

2.  Areas affected by past or future floods not included in those areas where then considered, 

and  

3.  Areas  affected  by  past  or  future  floods  within  the  areas  of  risk  were  then  linked  to 

scenarios of particular interest 

In the Po RBD80, areas at risk were divided into three levels: district areas of strategic relevance 
that require action by more than one region; regional areas of high and very high risk; and all 

other areas were designated as local. This RBD’s APSFRs correspond to the district and regional 

79 As noted previously, ITI026 did not report as its two UoMs are addressed under ITN008.  
80  Distretto 

at: 
https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/it/eu/floods2019/pfra_2019/documents/itn008/envxrdirg/PFRA_APSFR_Relazione_
Distr_Po2019.pdf 

Relazione  metodologica, 

9.  Available 

section 

Fiume 

(ITB), 

del 

Po 

67 

 
                                                           
areas. The level of risk was determined based on a summary indicator whose parameters include 
key factors such as the flooded area, size and distribution of the resident population, economic 

activities  and  infrastructure  (the  Po  RBD  states  that  the  procedure  followed  is  described  in 
greater detail in an annex to the 2016 Po Flood Risk Management Plan81).  

This summary indicator was calculated for cells of 1km by 1km on the first cycle hazard maps. 
Information from the Hydraulic Structure Plan on critical hydraulic nodes82 is then added, along 
with information on environmental sites (protected areas, high-risk facilities, water bodies) and 

cultural sites as well as information on schools and hospitals.  

Other RBDs contain less detail.  The methodological  report for the RBD  ITG Sardinia (UoM 
ITR201),  for  example,  is  brief  and  simply  states  that  elements  damaged  in  past  events  or 
potentially damaged in future events were considered83.  

81 Annex 3 (Allegato 3) of the Plan, available at: https://pianoalluvioni.adbpo.it/il-piano/ 
82 The methodological report uses this term from the Hydraulic Structure Plan but does not define it.  
83 
Relazione 

metodologica, 

Sardegna 

Distretto 

section 

(ITG), 

9, 

Availabe 

at: 

https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/it/eu/floods2019/pfra_2019/documents/itr201/envxswyfg/Rel_metodologica_Distret
to_Sardegna_Giu2019.pdf 

68 

 
 
                                                           
Table 16 Criteria for inclusion of flood risk areas as APSFRs 

2
1
0
I
T
I

1
3
1
0
I
T
I

9

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

Risk human Health 

                                              

Risk economic activity 

                                              

Economic damage 

Risk environment 

 

     

   

                

   

   

                                              

Risk cultural heritage 

                                              

Community assets 

Infrastructure 

 

     

   

                

   

       

                    

   

   

   

   

Lack flood defence 

                    

    

    

Failure flood defence 

                              

Agreement neighbour 

   

Occurrence past events 

 

     

   

                

   

Impact past events 

Local knowledge 

       

             

       

   

     

     

   

      

   

   

Increased vulnerability 

   

   

   

      

Exceedance threshold 

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

       

             

       

   

   

69 

Expert judgement 

High level damage 

Other 

   

   

   

   

   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Risk human Health 

Risk economic activity 

Economic damage 

Risk environment 

Risk cultural heritage 

Community assets 

Infrastructure 

Lack flood defence 

Failure flood defence 

Agreement neighbour 

Occurrence past events 

Impact past events 

Local knowledge 

Increased vulnerability 

Exceedance threshold 

Expert judgement 

High level damage 

Other 

0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

I
1
6
1
R
T
I

0
2
0

1
7
1
R
T
I

I
1
8
1
R
T
I

6
1
0

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

                                             

                                             

   

   

                               

   

                                             

                                             

   

   

   

                                   

                                       

   

                    

                        

   

   

 

 

 

   

                                   

                                       

                 

   

             

           

                 

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

                           

       

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Designated APSFRs 

Table 17 shows the number of APSFRs that have been designated by the MS in each UoM. In 

total, Italy has designated 3748 APSFRs across its 47 UoMs.  

The number of APSFRs per UoM range from 957 in ITR191 Sicily Region to four in ITI014 
Fiora Interregional Basin, with an average of just under 80 APSFRs per UoM. These differences 

may be due to topography. Nonetheless, it can be noted that almost six times as many APSFRs 
were identified in ITN009 Tagliamento as in the much larger ITN008 Po, and both UoMs are 

located in  northern  Italy and both  have Alpine, hill,  plains and coastal topographies.  ITR201 
Sardinia has the second highest number of APSFRs, following Sicily. Its methodological report 

describes a similar approach to other RBDs and does not explain how this RBD and UoM might 
have such a high number of APSFRs84.  

While Italy’s UoMs vary in terms of topography and land use, these differences in the number 
of  APSFRs  per  UoM  may  suggest  that,  although  a  common  national  methodology  was 

developed, it was applied in different ways. 

Table  17  also  indicates  those  APSFRs  which  cross  national  borders  possibly  requiring 
international cooperation, and those UoMs where hazard areas have been identified85. It appears, 
however, that this information is unclear as most of the UoMs listed in this column do not touch 
Italy’s  national  borders.  Moreover,  Italy  did  not  report  any  hazard  areas  crossing  national 

borders. Nevertheless, a total of 13 APSFRs are reported for UoMs that touch or cross national 
borders: ITN001 Adige (one UoM); ITN004 Isonzo (two); ITN007 Piave (three); ITN008 Po 

(three); ITN009 Tagliamento (one); and ITR061 Friuli Venezia Giulia Region (three). Given the 
unclarity mentioned above, however, it is not certain that Italy indeed has identified 13 cross-

border APSFRs. Moreover, while the methodological report for the Eastern Alps RBD refers to 

84 Italy subsequently informed that APSFRs are designated in all UoMs considering: (1) flood risk areas defined 
during the first cycle of flood risk management; (2) areas affected by past or future events which are not included 
in the areas under point (1); (3) areas affected by past or future events which are included in the areas under point 
(1) but which are reported as stand-alone parts because they are significant to describe a specific scenario (e.g. 
areas prone to flash floods or areas where floods with a high content of transported sediments and debris floods 
can  occur).  For  past  events  some  locations  were  excluded  because  of  their  spatial  approximation.  Different 
numbering  of  APSFRs  depend  on  the  different  way  every  RBD  Authoritiy  decided  to  represent/describe  the 
related flood locations, using a “singlepart” or “multipart” spatial grouping of features. 

85 MS may designate Hazard Areas which lie within an APSFR (particularly where the APSFR covers a large area). 

Reporting on Hazard Areas is optional.  

71 

 
                                                           
cross-border cooperation with Slovenia, it does not mention cross-border APSFRs (neither with 
Slovenia nor Austria nor Switzerland)86. 

Table 17 Number of reported APSFRs per UoM and number of APSFRs crossing national 

borders 

UoMs 

Number of APSFRs 

Number of APSFRs 
identified as crossing 
national borders 

Number of hazard 
areas (if applicable) 

ITI012 

ITI01319 

ITI014 

ITI015 

ITI017 

ITI018 

ITI021 

ITI022 

ITI023 

ITI024 

ITI025 

ITI026 

ITI027 

ITI028 

ITI029 

ITN001 

ITN002 

ITN003 

ITN004 

ITN005 

ITN006 

ITN007 

ITN008 

ITN009 

ITN010 

ITN011 

156 

8 

4 

9 

5 

10 

11 

6 

16 

72 

7 

- 

7 

7 

5 

10 

17 

15 

37 

53 

97 

20 

116 

642 

13 

15 

1 

1 

0 

2 

5 

0 

2 

4 

0 

0 

0 

- 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

6 

2 

0 

4 

3 

3 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

86 

Alpi 

Distretto 

at: 
Relazione 
https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/it/eu/floods2019/pfra_2019/documents/itn004/envxouc9q/Relazione_metodologica_
Distr_Alpi_Orientali.pdf  

metodologica, 

Available 

Orientali 

(ITA), 

43. 

p. 

72 

 
                                                           
UoMs 

Number of APSFRs 

Number of APSFRs 
identified as crossing 
national borders 

Number of hazard 
areas (if applicable) 

ITR051 

ITR061 

ITR071 

ITR081 

ITR091 

ITR092 

ITR093 

ITR111 

ITR121 

ITR131 

ITR141 

ITR151 

ITR152 

ITR153 

ITR154 

ITR161I020 

ITR171 

ITR181I016 

ITR191 

ITR201 

ITSNP01 

8 

9 

16 

19 

8 

8 

10 

12 

9 

6 

23 

5 

5 

5 

5 

66 

253 

88 

957 

866 

12 

6 

3 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

TOTAL 

3 748 

51 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

For each APSFR the MS is required to report to the EIONET CDR the source, mechanisms and 
characteristics  of  possible  floods  (sources,  mechanisms  and  characteristics  of  floods).  The 

information reported can be found in Annex B. For 22 types of floods, Italy did not report the 

mechanism, and for 16, Italy did not report the characteristics. 

In several cases, “other” sources were identified. For ITI023 Sangro and ITI028 Tronto, these 
are reported as having complex origin involving snowmelt, precipitation and river overtopping; 

ITI027  Trigno  mentions  heavy  snowfall  followed  by  rapid  melting  and  followed  by 
precipitation. Italy did not provide information for the the three other UoMs that reported “other” 

sources of floodings (ITR131 Abruzzo Region, ITR141 Molise Region and Biferno and minor 

basins or ITR181I016 Puglia Region and Ofanto Interregional basin).  

73 

 
 
For several UoMs, Italy reported “other” mechanisms for flooding in their APSFRs: nine UoMs 
(ITI025, ITN005, ITN011, ITR151, ITR152, ITR153, ITR154, ITR161I020 and ITR181I016) 
mention  debris  flows;  six  UoMs  (ITI018,  ITN002,  ITR071,  ITR091  ITR092,  ITSNP01)  cite 
rising marine waters; four UoMs (ITI012, ITI024, ITI029, and ITR171) identify overtopping of 

coastal  elevations;  two  UoMs  (ITI018  and  ITR141)  refer  to  flooding  directly  arising  from 
rainwater; one UoM (ITI015), to erosion and solid transport; one (ITR141), to storm surges; one 
(ITN010),  to  erosion  tied  to  flooding;  and  three  UoMs  (ITR141,  ITN005  and  ITR181I016) 
mention cases where data are not complete. 

Italy reported “other” characteristics for some UoMs. Most of these are similar to the “other” 

mechanisms,  though  it  can  be  noted  that  ITN010  refers  to  “surface  runoff  and  insufficient 

drainage capacity”.  

During the first cycle Italy did not report APSFRs and the types of floods, as it applied Article 

13.1(b) and therefore no comparison could be made between the two cycles. 

Consequences considered in the identification of APSFRs  

MS are required to indicate how the consequences to human health, the environment, cultural 
heritage and economic activity have been considered in the identification of APSFRs. Table 18 

indicates whether or not a UoM has considered consequences to human health, the environment, 

cultural heritage or economic activity in the designation of APSFRs.  

All four of these types of consequences have been considered the 46 UoMs reporting. . 

As  described  above,  the  methodological  report  for  ITB  Po  presents  its  method  to  identify 
APSFRs, using an overall index, calculated for 1 km2 cells, that is the sum of sub-indexes for 
key parameters including the surface area that could be flooded, population resident, surface area 
for residences and for economic activities and the presence of key infrastructure such as roads 
and  railway  lines87;  however,  other  methodological  reports  reviewed  did  not  provide  similar 
details.  

Table 18 Consideration of consequences in the identification of APSFRs 

UoM 

Cultural Heritage  Economic Activity  Environment  Human Health 

ITI012 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

87 Bacino Po (ITB), Relazione metodologica, section 8.1, p. 41. Please note that the text provides examples of key 
indices 
at: 
https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/it/eu/floods2019/pfra_2019/documents/itn008/envxrdirg/PFRA_APSFR_Relazione_
Distr_Po2019.pdf 

Available 

rather 

used 

than 

list. 

full 

a 

74 

 
                                                           
UoM 

Cultural Heritage  Economic Activity  Environment  Human Health 

ITI01319 

ITI014 

ITI015 

ITI017 

ITI018 

ITI021 

ITI022 

ITI023 

ITI024 

ITI025 

ITI027 

ITI028 

ITI029 

ITN001 

ITN002 

ITN003 

ITN004 

ITN005 

ITN006 

ITN007 

ITN008 

ITN009 

ITN010 

ITN011 

ITR051 

ITR061 

ITR071 

ITR081 

ITR091 

ITR092 

ITR093 

ITR111 

ITR121 

ITR131 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

75 

 
UoM 

Cultural Heritage  Economic Activity  Environment  Human Health 

ITR141 

ITR151 

ITR152 

ITR153 

ITR154 

ITR161I020 

ITR171 

ITR181I016 

ITR191 

ITR201 

ITSNP01 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Table 19 indicates the potential adverse consequences in each APSFR.  

76 

 
 
4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

Table 19 Potential adverse consequences of floods in APSFRs* 

2
1
0
I
T
I

15 

11 

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

5 

8 

Cultural Heritage 

Cultural Assets 

Landscape 

Other 

Not applicable 

141 

2 

7 

4 

2 

2 

1 

8 

2 

2 

11 

6 

6 

4 

0 

2 

4 

12 

66 

3 

2 

2 

8 

unknown 

Economic Activity 

Property 

Infrastructure 

Rural land use 

Economic activity 

Other 

Not applicable 

Environment 

Waterbody 

Protected area 

Pollution sources 

Other 

15 

124 

11 

11 

22 

17 

23 

11 

11 

8 

8 

8 

8 

7 

2 

2 

3 

4 

2 

1 

3 

2 

2 

4 

3 

2 

1 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

4 

5 

4 

3 

4 

6 

6 

10 

11 

10 

11 

0 

11 

10 

11 

2 

11 

11 

6 

5 

2 

6 

10 

68 

6 

4 

8 

6 

2 

4 

4 

6 

6 

7 

3 

7 

6 

6 

77 

1 

0 

3 

3 

5 

5 

1 

15 

1 

1 

6 

1 

1 

90 

1 

15 

10  113 

4 

6 

9 

2 

14 

36 

47 

96 

9 

1 

641 

3 

6 

4 

4 

2 

4 

2 

5 

6 

1 

7 

3 

2 

1 

1 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

1 

17 

17 

5 

1 

2 

1 

4 

23 

4 

2 

3 

2 

114 

114 

4 

2 

10 

16 

15 

37 

5 

16 

8 

2 

0 

7 

6 

68 

19  109  577 

33 

7 

114 

69 

13 

1 

2 

1 

15 

1 

5 

116 

1 

10 

2 

1 

1 

15 

26 

59 

20 

69 

239 

6 

2 

2 

2 

3 

78 

2 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2
1
0
I
T
I

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

133 

1 

1 

3 

0 

12 

65 

7 

8 

11 

12 

8 

7 

2 

3 

2 

4 

1 

10 

11 

2 

11 

6 

2 

4 

2 

6 

8 

4 

3 

144 

2 

6 

12 

64 

3 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

3 

6 

4 

3 

2 

5 

5 

5 

3 

6 

1
0
0
N
T
I

8 

2 

2 

2
0
0
N
T
I

2 

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

11 

46 

38 

403 

17 

10 

5 

3 

1 

9 

5 

4 

3 

9 

114 

31 

112 

5 

34 

43 

94 

11 

2 

611 

Not applicable 

unknown 

Human Health Social 

Human Health 

Community 

Other 

Not applicable 

unknown 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cultural Heritage 

Cultural Assets 

Landscape 

Other 

Not applicable 

unknown 

Economic Activity 

Property 

Infrastructure 

Rural land use 

Economic activity 

Other 

Not applicable 

No information 

Environment 

Waterbody 

Protected area 

Pollution sources 

0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

4 

0 

1 

9 

0 

5 

0 

0 

11 

0 

8 

3 

12 

10 

5 

8 

7 

1 

6 

2 

2 

1 

3 

1 

3 

0 

0 

2 

1 

0 

0 

7 

0 

3 

2 

8 

5 

0 

0 

1 

8 

1 

1 

0 

0 

8 

0 

2 

2 

6 

3 

0 

0 

1 

6 

2 

1 

1 

0 

14 

1 

7 

19 

0 

0 

0 

13 

19 

14 

19 

1 

19 

13 

19 

0 

2 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

19 

10 

6 

7 

0 

0 

1 

0 

8 

8 

8 

7 

0 

0 

8 

3 

4 

3 

1 

0 

5 

0 

8 

8 

3 

7 

4 

0 

1 

1 

1 

4 

0 

0 

5 

0 

5 

8 

4 

4 

2 

1 

4 

3 

3 

2 

0 

0 

4 

0 

4 

6 

4 

6 

3 

2 

5 

2 

2 

4 

0 

0 

19 

0 

8 

9 

7 

5 

4 

4 

2 

4 

4 

5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

4 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

4 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

9 

0 

0 

1 

0 

8 

1 

0 

4 

0 

10 

8 

10 

12 

10 

10 

0 

0 

10 

2 

5 

5 

9 

6 

0 

8 

5 

3 

79 

0
2
0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

7 

0 

0 

6
1
0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

5 

0 

0 

1
7
1
R
T
I

14 

12 

0 

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

84 

220 

432 

0 

0 

4 

59  239  83  876  656 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

9 

9 

0 

3 

0 

2 

18 

54  391  486  11 

46  191  19  671  672  11 

0 

0 

12 

13 

17 

56 

2 

11 

0 

0 

6 

13 

12 

12 

8 

8 

2 

5 

0 

1 

3 

361  626 

3 

115  288  11 

0 

68 

918 

64 

6 

0 

95 

0 

10 

337  280 

33 

156 

2 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

0 

6 

0 

3 

9 

0 

13 

0 

8 

4 

0 

0 

0 

5 

2 

0 

3 

0 

5 

1 

1
8
0
R
T
I

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

15 

16 

19 

1 

19 

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

0 

0 

0 

8 

0 

4 

3 

0 

3 

6 

3
9
0
R
T
I

0 

0 

0 

10 

0 

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

0 

3 

0 

6 

8 

0 

4 

0 

6 

6 

0 

1 

0 

3 

3 

1 

16 

0 

8 

4 

0 

2 

0 

5 

3 

0 

3 

0 

5 

4 

0 

5 

0 

5 

4 

0 

2 

0 

5 

4 

0
2
0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

1
7
1
R
T
I

6
1
0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

60  240  84  944  514 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

0 

2 

0 

6 

6 

13 

19 

8 

5 

739  368  12 

0 

158 

8 

3 

7 

4 

4 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

4 

2 

3 

16 

0 

0 

0 

0 

59  233  79  218  490 

0 

Other 

Not applicable 

unknown 

Human Health Social 

Human Health 

Community 

Other 

Not applicable 

unknown 

* Numbers represent the number of APSFRs to which the consequence applies 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  19  shows  that  APSFRs  in  all  46  UoMs  reporting  on  APSFRs  face  potential  adverse 

consequences of floods to their cultural assets, infrastructure and human health.  

In terms of other cultural heritage impacts, in addition to those to cultural assets, 16 UoMs (35%) 

reported  APSFRs  facing  potential  adverse  consequences  to  landscape,  and  three  UoMs  (7%) 
other consequences. For other, one explanation mentions a cultural centre, and all others refer to 

“other  impacts  on  cultural  and  landscape  heritage”.  In  addition,  two  UoMs  (4%)  reported 

“unknown” cultural heritage impacts.  

For economic activity (in addition to consequences to infrastructure), 41 UoMs (89%) reported 

adverse potential consequences to property, 38 (83%) to rural land use and to economic activity, 
and 21 UoMs (43%) reported other adverse consequences. Italy reported, under other: adverse 

consequences to water infrastructure, notably to flood defence works and land drainage, though 

some entries refer just to water works.  

Concerning environment, 39 UoMs (85%) reported potential adverse consequences to pollution 
sources,  37 (80%) to  protected areas, 31 (67%)  to  water bodies and two (4%) reported other 

adverse consequences (no information is provided to explain these, however). In addition, two 

UoMs reported “unknown” adverse environmental consequences.  

For  other  human,  health  and  social  (in  addition  to  human  health),  39  UoMs  (85%)  reported 

potential adverse consequences to community.  

During the first cycle, all types of consequences were reported as being applicable to at least one 
APSFR  identified88.  It  appears  that  in  the  second  cycle,  environmental  consequences  are  not 
applicable in at least two UoMs, ITR153 Sele Regional Left and ITI025 Sele.  

Changes to APSFRs since the first cycle assessment  

MS  are  required  to  consider  all  APSFRs  that  were  reported  under  the  first  cycle,  to  identify 
where modifications to APSFRs have been made for the second cycle, and to identify where no 

changes have been made since the first cycle. 

As  Italy used  Art.  13(1)(b), it did  not  report APSFRs in  the first  cycle  and therefore has not 

reported any changes.  

88 Information taken from the first cycle European Overview Assessment of MS’ reports on Preliminary Flood Risk 
Assessment 
2014, 
of 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/pfra_reports/EU%20PFRA%20Overview%20Report.pdf 

Flood  Risk, 

Identification 

of  Areas 

Significant 

Potentially 

and 

81 

 
                                                           
Consideration of climate change  

Article 14 requires reviews and updates of each of the three flood risk management steps of the 

Directive  to  be  provided  and  specifically  requests  that  the  impact  of  climate  change  on  the 

occurrence of floods is taken into account as part of the review process.  

The methodological reports published by the river basin district authorities refer to the 2013 EU 

Adaptation Strategy and to Italy’s 2015 National Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change: the 
latter  notes  that  an  increase  in  extreme  meteorological  events  is  likely,  including  intense 

precipitation episodes, that can lead to higher risks of flash floods and debris flow. The reports 

also refer to the ongoing expansion of soil sealing across the country.  

The  reports  explain  that  to  address  potential  climate  impacts,  the  national  Ministry  of  the 
Environment asked the river basin district authorities to analyse the growth in flash floods as a 

potential climate impact. A methodology used by the Northern Apennines RBD authority, called 

the “Arno method”, was recommended.  

The methodological report for the Northern Apennines RBD89 explains the method in further 
detail: it focuses on high precipitation events (over 50 mm/h) in an area under 500 km2. Under 
this method, a territory is divided into sub-basins whose vulnerability to such events is assessed, 

based on calculations of the following parameters: the area of the sub-basins; their flooding lag 
times; and the return time for critical precipitation volumes: on the basis of these parameters, a 

score is derived that is used to classify each sub-basin in terms of its propensity for flash floods, 
on a scale of four, from low to very high. The method was originally used for the Arno UoM in 

2013. The Northern Apennines methodological report presents updated results in maps of five 
UoMs (ITN002 Arno, ITR091 Tuscany Region Coast, ITR092 Tuscany Region North, ITR093 

Tuscany Region Ombrone, and ITSNP01 Serchio). This document also notes that the approach 

could be further updated to take into account increased soil sealing.  

The methodological report for the Po RBD90 does not present similar maps, but it does note that 
the Alpine arc is vulnerable to flash floods, potentially accompanied by debris flow, with high 

risks for human life.  

89  Bacino  Appennino  Settentrionale 

(ITC),  Relazione  metodologica, 

section  9.1.  Available  at: 

https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/it/eu/floods2019/pfra_2019/documents/itn002/envxo_s5g/Relaz_metod_Appennino
_Settentrionale_20190322.pdf  

90 

Bacino 

at: 
https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/it/eu/floods2019/pfra_2019/documents/itn008/envxrdirg/PFRA_APSFR_Relazione_
Distr_Po2019.pdf  

metodologica, 

Relazione 

Available 

section 

(ITB), 

10. 

Po 

82 

 
                                                           
The methodological report for the Sardinia RBD mentions that an EU project, LIFE MASTER 
ADAPT,  was  used  to  study  potential  future  climate  impacts.  The  Sardinia  document  also 

describes the “Arno method”; it mentions that studies to apply this method to the region were 
underway91, and it includes a detailed annex on climate impacts. 

No information was found, however, to indicate if the approach to address climate change has 
led to changes in APSFRs92. 

International information exchange 

In  their  reporting  for  the  second  cycle,  MS  are  required  to  provide  information  on  the 
methodology for international information exchange relating to PFRAs and APSFRs that cross 
international boundaries.  

PFRAs in a transboundary context 

Article 4.3 of the FD states where international river basin districts or units of management exist 
which are shared with other MS, exchange of relevant information relating to the undertaking of 
PFRAs should be ensured between the CAs concerned. 

Table 20 provides an overview of the methods of coordination in  the relevant  transboundary 
UoMs. Italy reported that five of its 47 UoMs undertook transboundary coordination93.  

For  ITN001 Adige,  “other” is  reported for the methods of coordination.  Italy  reported to  the 
EIONET  CDR  that  “other”  for  ITN001  refers  to  a  methodological  report  that  was  sent  to 

neighbouring countries.  

For  ITN004  Isonzo  and  ITR061  Friuli  Venezia  Giulia  Region,  the  methods  of  coordination 

comprise a bilateral water commission and working group, regulations, pre-existing structures 
and  (for  ITR061  only)  “other”:  it  is  believed  that  these  methods  refer  to  coordination  with 
Slovenia. This more or less reflects the information provided in the methodological report for 
the  Eastern  Alps94,  which  refers  to  the  Italian-Slovenian  Commission  for  Hydro-economy, 

91 

Distretto 

Sardegna, 

Relazione 

metodologica, 

pp. 

58-66, 

Availabe 

at: 

https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/it/eu/floods2019/pfra_2019/documents/itr201/envxswyfg/Rel_metodologica_Distret
to_Sardegna_Giu2019.pdf 

92 Italy subsequently informed that the approach is used to define specific future flood locations and their related 

APSFRs.  

93 As seen in Table 23, Italy reported for a sixth UoM – ITR161I020 Puglia Region and Ofanto Interregion Basin – 
“no information”. This UoM does not touch a national border (moreover, Italy has also reported to the EIONET 
CDR for this UoM, “no international UoM”). 

94 Bacino Alpi Orientali (ITA), Relazione metadologica, p. 43 onwards. 

83 

 
                                                           
working  groups,  and  a  joint  project  on  transboundary  flood  risk  management;  the 
methodological report does not, however, mention the use of regulations in place, suggesting 

that there may have been errors in reporting to the EIONET CDR. Moreover, the methodological 
report  also  refers  to  an  international  river  commission  but  only  mentions  cooperation  with 

Slovenia, suggesting that this again refers to the bilateral Commission for Hydro-economy with 
Slovenia  and  not  to  a  body  involving  additional  countries.  A  joint  project  with  Slovenia, 

VISFRIM, 
the 
implementation  of  the  PFRA,  including  joint  risk  modelling  and  mapping,  according  to  the 

is  developing  common  methodologies  and 

instruments  for 

technical 

methodological report, which states that coordination on basins shared with Slovenia will take 

place within this project.  

For  ITN008  Po,  bilateral  working  groups,  pre-existing  structures  and  informal  arrangements 

were used. The methodological report for this UoM (also covering ITI01319 Conca Marecchia) 
refers  to  coordination  with  France,  San  Marino  and  Switzerland.  Its  mentions:  with  France, 

information  exchanges  with  France;  with  Switzerland,  informal  accords  and  information 
exchanges,  a  technical  coordination  group  and  a  joint  commission;  and,  with  San  Marino, 

information exchanges via existing agreements between that country and the Emilia Romagna 
Region  and  Italy’s  national  Civil  Protection  Department,  as  well  as  plans  to  develop  an 
agreement for the preparation of flood risk and hazard maps in San Marino’s territory95.  

Italy has reported a river commission and bilateral working groups for ITR071, Liguria Region, 

with  shares  a  river  basin  (the  Roia  or  Roya)  with  France.  The  methodological  report  for  the 
Northern Apennines RBD, of which the Liguria Region is a part, describes coordination with 

France. While this document contains a table indicating that a river commission and working 
groups are in place, the text mentions a joint 2013 declaration and joint projects but does not 
specify  a  river  commission  or  working  groups  in  place96,  97.  The  text  states  that  the  various 
entities that signed the 2013 intend to work together on risk and hazard determinations in the 

basin; the joint project will support information exchanges among authorities.  

95 Bacino Po (ITB), Relazione metadologica, p. 52 onwards. 
96  Distretto  Appennino  Settentrionale 

(ITA),  Relazione  metadologica,  pp.  92-93.  Available  at: 
https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/it/eu/floods2019/pfra_2019/documents/itr071/envxqeanq/Relaz_metod_Appennino_
Settentrionale_20190322.pdf  

97 Italy subsequently informed that this is because the two initiatives in place are considered as equivalent. 

84 

 
 
 
                                                           
Table 20  Methods of international information exchange during the second cycle PFRA  

River Commission 
Bilateral water commission 
International working groups 
Bilateral working groups 
Regulations 
Pre-existing structures 
Informal arrangements 
Joint declaration 
No information 
Other 

River Commission 
Bilateral water commission 
International working groups 
Bilateral working groups 
Regulations 
Pre-existing structures 
Informal arrangements 
Joint declaration 
No information 
Other 

2
1
0
I
T
I

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

                     

   

0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

   

   
   
   

   

   

   
   

0
2
0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

1
7
1
R
T
I

6
1
0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

                     

   

   
   
     

   

   

85 

   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Transboundary APSFRs 

Further  to  information  exchange  during  the  PFRA  phase,  where  an  APSFR  belongs  to  an 

international River Basin District or UoM shared with another MS, the designation of these areas 
should be coordinated between the MS concerned. Table 21 provides an overview of the methods 

of coordination in the relevant international UoMs for the second cycle. Italy reported that five 

of its 47 UoMs coordinated the designation of APSFRs with another MS or third country. 

  For ITN001 Adige, an “other” method is reported: as for the exchange of information on 
the  PFRAs,  described  in  the  previous  section,  it  is  reported  that  under  this  “other” 

method, a methodological report was sent to neighbouring countries. 

  For  ITN004  Isonzo  and  ITR061  Friuli  Venezia  Giuli  Region,  the  methods  of 
coordination  comprise  a  bilateral  water  commission  and  working  groups,  existing 
structures  and  international  working  groups.  The  distinction  between  bilateral  and 

international  working  groups  is  not  clear,  and  as  for  the  previous  section,  this 

coordination may only be bilateral, i.e. with Slovenia.  

  For ITN008 Po, bilateral working groups, pre-existing structures and informal contacts 
were used. Details from the methodological report are provided in the previous section. 

 

Italy has reported a river commission and bilateral working groups for ITR071, Liguria 
Region.  As  noted  in  the  previous  section,  the  methodological  report  for  the  Northern 

Apennines RBD, of which the Liguria Region is a part, mentions a joint 2013 declaration 
and joint projects but does not specify a river commission or working groups in place98.  

Despite the information reported in Table 21, it is not clear from the methodological reports for 
ITA, ITB and ITC if any transboundary APSFRs have been designated. The report for ITB Po 

mentions  that  risks  from  upstream  areas  were  identified  in  the  first  cycle  and  addressed  by 
measures in the first FRMP; it also notes that there is a local area of risk in the Spol (or Spoel) 

sub-basin,  assigned  for  national  purposes  to  ITB  but  actually  miniscule  part  of  the  Danube 
International  RBD  –  this  mountainous  area  of  risk  does  not,  however,  present  transboundary 

issues, according to the methodological report. The report does not indicate any transboundary 
APSFRs99. 

98  Distretto  Appennino  Settentrionale 

(ITA),  Relazione  metadologica,  pp.  92-93.  Available  at: 
https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/it/eu/floods2019/pfra_2019/documents/itr071/envxqeanq/Relaz_metod_Appennino_
Settentrionale_20190322.pdf  

99 Distretto Po (ITB), Relazione metadologica, section 11, p. 52 onwards. 

86 

 
                                                           
Table 21  Methods of coordination in international UoMs in the designation of APSFRs  

River Commission 
Bilateral water commission 
International working groups 
Bilateral working groups 
Regulations 
Pre-existing structures 
Informal arrangements 
Joint declaration 
No information 
Other 

River Commission 
Bilateral water commission 
International working groups 
Bilateral working groups 
Regulations 
Pre-existing structures 
Informal arrangements 
Joint declaration 
No information 
Other 

2
1
0
I
T
I

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

                     

   

   
   
   

   

   

   
   

0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

I
1
6
1
R
T
I

0
2
0

1
7
1
R
T
I

I
1
8
1
R
T
I

6
1
0

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

                     

   

   

   
   
     

   

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Changes in international information exchange since the first cycle 

During the first cycle, Italy reported two international UoMs100.  

The following mechanisms of international coordination for addressing flood risk management 

in international UoMs were reported: 

 

 

No information reported 

International River Commission101 

Consequently, Italy has reported much greater information concerning international information 

exchange in the second cycle, now covering five international UoMs.  

100 

First 

report, 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/pfra_reports/PFRA%20Report%20-%20IT.pdf First cycle 
PFRA assessment EU overview report, https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/overview.htm 

assessment 

PFRA 

cycle 

MS 

101 Italy did not directly report this mechanism but was named in another MS’s report as being the subject of their 

international coordination. 

88 

 
                                                           
Annex A – Flood type definitions102 

Source 

Description  

Fluvial 

Pluvial 

Groundwater 

Sea water 

Artificial water-
bearing 
Infrastructure 

Flooding of land by waters originating from part of a natural drainage system, 
including natural or modified drainage channels. This source could include 
flooding from rivers, streams, drainage channels, mountain torrents and 
ephemeral watercourses, lakes and floods arising from snow melt. 

Flooding of land directly from rainfall water falling on, or flowing over, the 
land. This source could include urban storm water, rural overland flow or 
excess water, or overland floods arising from snowmelt. 

Flooding of land by waters from underground rising to above the land surface. 
This source could include rising groundwater and underground flow from 
elevated surface waters. 

Flooding of land by water from the sea, estuaries or coastal lakes. This source 
could include flooding from the sea (e.g. extreme tidal level and/or storm 
surges) or arising from wave action or coastal tsunamis. 

Flooding of land by water arising from artificial, water-bearing infrastructure or 
failure of such infrastructure. This source could include flooding arising from 
sewerage systems (including storm water, combined and foul sewers), water 
supply and wastewater treatment systems, artificial navigation canals and 
impoundments (e.g. dams and reservoirs). 

Other 

Flooding of land by water due to other sources, can include other tsunamis. 

102 

See 

page 

61 

of 

https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/acbcd98a-9540-480e-a876-

420b7de64eba/Floods%20Reporting%20guidance%20-%20final_with%20revised%20paragraph%204.2.3.pdf 
and https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/help/Floods/Floods_2018/index.html  

89 

 
 
                                                           
Annex B – Floods identified as posing significant flood risk at the 
APSFR level.  

UoM 

Source 

Mechanism 

Characteristics 

ITI012 
ITI012 

ITI012 
ITI012 

Fluvial 
Fluvial 

Fluvial 
Fluvial 

Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance 

Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance 

ITI012 

Fluvial 

Natural exceedance 

ITI012 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 
Fluvial 

Natural exceedance, 
Defence failure 

Defence exceedance 
Defence failure 

ITI012 
ITI012 

ITI012 
ITI012 
ITI012 
ITI012 

ITI012 

ITI012 

ITI012 

ITI012 

ITI012 

Natural exceedance, Other 
Defence failure 
Blockage 
No data 

Fluvial, Sea Water 
Pluvial 
Pluvial 
Pluvial 
Sea Water, Artificial 
Water Bearing 
Infrastructure 
Artificial Water 
Bearing Infrastructure  Natural exceedance 
Artificial Water 
Bearing Infrastructure  Defence exceedance 
Artificial Water 
Bearing Infrastructure  Blockage 
Artificial Water 
Bearing Infrastructure  Blockage 

Other, Defence exceedance 

ITI01319 

Fluvial 

ITI01319 

Fluvial 

ITI01319 

Fluvial 

ITI01319 

Fluvial 

Natural exceedance,  
Defence exceedance, 
Natural 
exceedance,Blockage 
Natural exceedance, 
Blockage 
Defence failure, Blockage,  
Natural 

ITI014 

Fluvial 

Natural exceedance 

ITI014 

Fluvial 

Natural exceedance 

ITI014 

Pluvial 

Natural exceedance, 
Blockage 

90 

Number 
of 
APSFRs 
15 
7 

10 
1 

1 

1 

1 
6 

1 
96 
2 
1 

1 

5 

4 

3 

1 

4 

1 

2 

1 

2 

1 

1 

Flash Flood 
Other rapid onset 
Medium onset 
flood 
Debris Flow 
High Velocity 
Flow 
Medium onset 
flood, Other rapid 
onset 
Medium onset 
flood 
Other rapid onset 
Deep Flood, High 
Velocity Flow 
Debris Flow 
Debris Flow 
No data 
High Velocity 
Flow, Other rapid 
onset 

Other rapid onset 

Other rapid onset 

Other rapid onset 
Medium onset 
flood 
Medium onset 
flood 

Other rapid onset 
Medium onset 
flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
Medium onset 
flood, Slow onset 
flood 
Medium onset 
flood, Debris 
Flow 

 
UoM 

Source 

Mechanism 

Characteristics 

Number 
of 
APSFRs 

ITI015 
ITI015 
ITI015 
ITI015 
ITI015 

Fluvial 
Fluvial 
Fluvial 
Pluvial 
Pluvial 

ITI015 

Sea Water 

ITI017 

Fluvial 

ITI017 
ITI018 
ITI018 

ITI018 
ITI018 
ITI018 

ITI018 
ITI018 

Fluvial, Sea Water 
Fluvial 
Fluvial 

Fluvial 
Fluvial 
Pluvial 

Pluvial 
Sea Water 

ITI018 

Sea Water 

Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance 
Other 
Defence exceedance 
Blockage 

Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Defence exceedance 
Natural exceedance 

Other 
Other 

Other 

ITI021 

Fluvial 

Natural exceedance 

ITI021 

Fluvial 

ITI021 

Fluvial 

ITI021 

Fluvial 

ITI021 

Fluvial 

Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 

ITI022 

Fluvial 

Natural exceedance 

ITI022 
ITI023 

ITI023 
ITI023 

ITI023 
ITI023 
ITI023 
ITI023 

Sea Water 
Fluvial 

Fluvial 
Fluvial 

Fluvial 
Fluvial 
Other 
Other 

Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance 

Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Blockage 
Defence exceedance 
Blockage 
No data 

ITI024 

Fluvial 

Natural exceedance 

91 

Medium onset 
flood 
No data 
Flash Flood 
Other rapid onset 
Other rapid onset 
Medium onset 
flood 

Slow onset flood 

Slow onset flood 
Flash Flood 
Slow onset flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
Flash Flood 
Flash Flood 
Other 
characteristics 
Other rapid onset 
Other 
characteristics 
Medium onset 
flood, High 
Velocity Flow 
Medium onset 
flood, High 
Velocity Flow 
Medium onset 
flood 
Medium onset 
flood 

Slow onset flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
Flash Flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
No data 

No data 
Slow onset flood 
Flash Flood 
No data 
Medium onset 
flood 

2 
1 
1 
1 
3 

1 

4 

1 
1 
2 

1 
1 
1 

2 
1 

1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

1 

4 

2 
1 

3 
2 

2 
2 
2 
4 

1 

 
UoM 

Source 

Mechanism 

Characteristics 

ITI024 

Fluvial 

Natural exceedance 

ITI024   

Fluvial 

ITI024 

Fluvial 

ITI024 

Fluvial 

ITI024 

Fluvial 

ITI024 

Fluvial 

ITI024 

Fluvial 

ITI024 

Fluvial 

Natural exceedance, 
Defence failure 

Natural exceedance, 
Defence failure 

Natural exceedance, 
Defence failure 

Natural exceedance, 
Defence failure 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence failure 

Defence failure, Defence 
exceedance 

Defence failure, Defence 
exceedance 

ITI024 
ITI024 

Fluvial, Sea Water 
Pluvial 

Natural exceedance, Other 
Defence failure 

ITI024 

Sea Water 

Natural exceedance 

ITI024 

ITI024 

ITI024 

Sea Water,Artificial 
Water Bearing Inf 
Artificial Water 
Bearing Infrastructure 
Artificial Water 
Bearing Infrastructure  Defence exceedance 

Other, Defence exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance 

ITI025 

Fluvial 

Natural exceedance 

ITI025 

Fluvial 

Natural exceedance 

ITI025 
ITI025 
ITI025 

Fluvial 
Pluvial 
Pluvial 

No data 
Defence failure 
Other 

ITI025 

Sea Water 

No data 

ITI027 
ITI027 

Fluvial 
Fluvial 

Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance 

ITI027 

Sea Water 

Natural exceedance 

92 

Number 
of 
APSFRs 
1 

1 

2 

11 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 
32 

1 

1 

Debris Flow 
Flash Flood, 
Other rapid onset, 
Me 
Other rapid onset, 
Medium onset 
flood,  
Medium onset 
flood, Slow onset 
flood 
Other rapid onset, 
Medium onset 
flood,  
Slow onset flood, 
Flash Flood, Oth 
Other rapid onset, 
Medium onset 
flood,  
Medium onset 
flood, Slow onset 
flood 

Deep Flood, High 
Velocity Flow 
Debris Flow 
High Velocity 
Flow 
High Velocity 
Flow, Other rapid 
onset 

Other rapid onset 

16 

Other rapid onset 
Flash Flood, 
Other rapid onset 
High Velocity 
Flow, Deep Flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
Debris Flow 
Debris Flow 
Medium onset 
flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
Debris Flow 
Medium onset 
flood 

1 

2 

1 

1 
1 
1 

1 

2 
1 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
UoM 

Source 

Mechanism 

Characteristics 

Number 
of 
APSFRs 

Artificial Water 
Bearing Infrastructure  Blockage 

ITI027 

ITI027 
ITI027 

ITI028 
ITI028 

Other 
Other 

Fluvial 
Fluvial 

ITI028 

Fluvial 

ITI028 

Fluvial 

ITI028 
ITI029 

ITI029 
ITI029 

Other 
Fluvial 

Fluvial 
Fluvial 

Natural exceedance, No 
data 
Blockage 

Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance, No 
data 
Natural exceedance, No 
data 
Natural exceedance, No 
data 
Natural exceedance 

Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance 

ITI029 

Fluvial, Sea Water 

Natural exceedance, Other 

ITI029 
ITN001 
ITN001 

Sea Water 
Fluvial 
Fluvial 

ITN001 

Fluvial 

ITN001 

Fluvial 

ITN001 

Fluvial 

ITN001 
ITN002 

Fluvial, Sea Water 
Fluvial 

ITN002 

Fluvial 

ITN002 
ITN002 
ITN002 

Fluvial 
Fluvial 
Pluvial 

ITN002 

Pluvial 

ITN002 
ITN003 
ITN003 

Sea Water 
Fluvial 
Fluvial 

ITN003 

Fluvial 

ITN003 

Fluvial 

Other 
Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance 
Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Blockage 
Defence failure 
Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance 

Other 
Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance 

93 

Other rapid onset 

No data 
Flash Flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
No data 
Medium onset 
flood, No data 

No data 

No data 
Other rapid onset 
Medium onset 
flood 
Debris Flow 
Deep Flood, High 
Velocity Flow 
High Velocity 
Flow 
Slow onset flood 
Debris Flow 
Medium onset 
flood 

Slow onset flood 

Debris Flow 

Slow onset flood 
Flash Flood 

Slow onset flood 

Flash Flood 
Flash Flood 
Flash Flood 

Flash Flood 
Other 
characteristics 
Slow onset flood 
Debris Flow 
Medium onset 
flood 

Slow onset flood 

1 

1 
1 

1 
1 

2 

2 

1 
1 

1 
1 

1 

1 
1 
4 

1 

2 

1 

1 
6 

1 

3 
2 
3 

1 

1 
1 
3 

1 

1 

 
UoM 

Source 

Mechanism 

Characteristics 

Number 
of 
APSFRs 

ITN003 

Fluvial 

ITN003 

Fluvial 

ITN004 

Fluvial 

ITN004 

Fluvial 

ITN005 

Fluvial 

ITN005 

Fluvial 

Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 

Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 

ITN005 

Fluvial 

Defence failure 

ITN005 

Fluvial 

No data 

ITN005 

Fluvial, Sea Water 

Natural exceedance 

ITN005 
ITN005 

ITN005 
ITN006 

Pluvial 
Pluvial 

Sea Water 
Fluvial 

ITN006 

Fluvial 

ITN006 
ITN007 
ITN007 

Fluvial 
Fluvial 
Fluvial 

ITN007 

Fluvial 

ITN007 

Fluvial 

ITN007 

Fluvial 

ITN007 

Fluvial, Sea Water 

ITN008 

Fluvial 

ITN008 

Fluvial 

ITN008 

Fluvial 

ITN008 

Fluvial 

ITN008 

Fluvial 

Blockage 
Other 

Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 

Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 

94 

Debris Flow 

Slow onset flood 

Debris Flow 

Slow onset flood 
Deep Flood, High 
Velocity Flow 
Other 
characteristics 
Medium onset 
flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
Deep Flood, High 
Velocity Flow 
Medium onset 
flood 
Debris Flow 
Deep Flood, High 
Velocity Flow 
Debris Flow 

Debris Flow 

Slow onset flood 
Slow onset flood 
Debris Flow 
Medium onset 
flood 

Debris Flow 

Slow onset flood 

Slow onset flood 

Slow onset flood 

Flash Flood 

Flash Flood 

Flash Flood 
Flash Flood, 
Medium onset 
flood 

4 

5 

35 

2 

1 

37 

2 

1 

1 

9 
1 

1 
1 

92 

4 
1 
2 

1 

13 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

6 

 
UoM 

Source 

Mechanism 

Characteristics 

Number 
of 
APSFRs 

ITN008 

Fluvial 

ITN008 

Fluvial 

ITN008 

Fluvial 

ITN008 

Fluvial 

ITN008 

Fluvial 

ITN008 

Fluvial 

ITN008 

Fluvial 

ITN008 

Fluvial 

ITN008 

Fluvial 

ITN008 

Fluvial 

ITN008 

Fluvial 

ITN008 

Fluvial 

ITN008 

Fluvial 

ITN008 
ITN009 

Sea Water 
Fluvial 

ITN009 

Fluvial 

ITN009 

Fluvial 

ITN009 

Fluvial 

ITN009 
ITN010 

Fluvial, Sea Water 
Fluvial 

Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 

Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 

Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 

Natural exceedance, 
Defence failure 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence failure, 24 
Natural exceedance, 
Blockage 
Natural exceedance, 
Blockage 
Natural exceedance, 
Blockage 

Defence exceedance,  
Defence failure 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Defence failure, Natural 
exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Natural exceedance 

ITN010 

Fluvial 

Natural exceedance 

ITN010 

Fluvial 

Natural exceedance 

95 

Flash Flood, 
Medium onset 
flood, Debris 
Flow 
Flash Flood, 
Debris Flow 

Other rapid onset 
Medium onset 
flood 
Medium onset 
flood, Slow onset 
flood 
Medium onset 
flood, Debris 
Flow, H 

Slow onset flood 
Medium onset 
flood, Debris 
Flow 
Flash Flood, Slow 
onset flood 
Flash Flood, Slow 
onset flood 

Other rapid onset 
Medium onset 
flood 
Other rapid onset, 
High Velocity 
Flow,  
Medium onset 
flood 
Debris Flow 

1 

5 

6 

72 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

5 

3 

5 

1 
1 

Debris Flow 

636 

Slow onset flood 

Slow onset flood 

Slow onset flood 
Flash Flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
Medium onset 
flood, Slow onset 
flood 

3 

1 

1 
1 

1 

1 

 
UoM 

Source 

Mechanism 

Characteristics 

Number 
of 
APSFRs 

ITN010 

Fluvial 

ITN010 

Fluvial 

ITN010 

Fluvial 

ITN010 
ITN010 
ITN010 

Fluvial 
Fluvial 
Pluvial 

ITN010 

Pluvial 

Natural exceedance, 
Defence failure 

Natural exceedance, 
Defence failure 
Natural exceedance, 
Blockage 

Defence failure 
No data 
Natural exceedance 

Natural exceedance, 
Blockage 

ITN010 

ITN010 

Pluvial 
Artificial Water 
Bearing Infrastructure  No data 

No data 

ITN011 

Fluvial 

Natural exceedance 

ITN011 

Fluvial 

ITN011 
ITN011 

ITN011 
ITN011 

Fluvial 
Fluvial 

Fluvial 
Fluvial 

Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Defence exceedance 

Defence failure 
Defence failure 

ITN011 

Fluvial 

No data 

ITN011 

Fluvial, Sea Water 

Natural exceedance 

ITN011 

Pluvial 

ITN011 

Pluvial 

ITN011 
ITN011 

Pluvial 
Pluvial 

ITN011 

Sea Water 

ITR051 

Fluvial 

ITR051 

Fluvial 

ITR051 

Fluvial, Sea Water 

ITR061 

Fluvial 

Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Other 

Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance 

96 

Other rapid onset, 
Medium onset 
flood 
Medium onset 
flood, Slow onset 
flood 

No data 
Medium onset 
flood 
No data 
Debris Flow 
Medium onset 
flood, Debris 
Flow 
Other 
characteristics 
Other 
characteristics 
Other rapid onset, 
Debris Flow 
High Velocity 
Flow, Deep Flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
Flash Flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
Slow onset flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
High Velocity 
Flow, Deep Flood 
Other rapid onset, 
Debris Flow 

Other rapid onset 
Medium onset 
flood 
Debris Flow 
High Velocity 
Flow, Deep Flood 

Debris Flow 

Slow onset flood 

Slow onset flood 

Debris Flow 

1 

1 

1 

1 
2 
1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 
1 

1 
1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 
1 

1 

2 

5 

1 

6 

 
UoM 

Source 

Mechanism 

Characteristics 

Number 
of 
APSFRs 

ITR061 

Fluvial 

ITR061 
ITR071 

Fluvial, Sea Water 
Fluvial 

ITR071 

Fluvial 

ITR071 
ITR071 
ITR071 

Fluvial 
Fluvial 
Pluvial 

Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence failure, 24 
Defence failure 
No data 

ITR071 

Sea Water 

Other 

ITR081 

Fluvial 

ITR081 

Fluvial 

ITR081 

Fluvial 

ITR081 

Fluvial 

ITR081 

Fluvial 

ITR081 
ITR091 
ITR091 

ITR091 
ITR091 
ITR091 

ITR091 
ITR092 

Fluvial 
Fluvial 
Fluvial 

Fluvial 
Fluvial 
Pluvial 

Sea Water 
Fluvial 

ITR092 

Fluvial 

ITR092 
ITR092 

Fluvial 
Fluvial 

ITR092 
ITR092 

Fluvial, Pluvial, Sea 
Water 
Pluvial 

ITR092 

Pluvial 

ITR092 
ITR093 
ITR093 

Sea Water 
Fluvial 
Fluvial 

Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Natural exceedance, 
Blockage 
Natural exceedance, 
Blockage 
Defence failure, Blockage,  
Natural 
Natural exceedance 
Defence exceedance 

Defence exceedance 
Blockage 
Blockage 

Other 
Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Blockage 
Defence failure 

Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance 
Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance 

Other 
Natural exceedance 
Defence exceedance 

97 

Slow onset flood 

Slow onset flood 
Flash Flood 

Slow onset flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
Flash Flood 
Flash Flood 
Other 
characteristics 
Medium onset 
flood, High 
Velocity Flow 
Medium onset 
flood 

Slow onset flood 

Other rapid onset 
Medium onset 
flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
Flash Flood 
 Flash Flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
 Flash Flood 
 Flash Flood 
Other 
characteristics 
 Flash Flood 

 Flash Flood 

 Flash Flood 
 Flash Flood 
Medium onset 
flood, Other 
characteristics 
 Flash Flood 

 Flash Flood 
Other 
characteristics 
 Flash Flood 
Slow onset flood 

2 

1 
2 

1 

3 
1 
5 

4 

1 

7 

1 

4 

5 

1 
1 
3 

1 
1 
1 

1 
1 

1 

1 
1 

1 
1 

1 

1 
5 
1 

 
UoM 

Source 

Mechanism 

Characteristics 

ITR093 
ITR093 
ITR093 

ITR093 
ITR111 
ITR111 

Fluvial 
Fluvial 
Pluvial 

Sea Water 
Fluvial 
Fluvial 

Defence failure 
Blockage 
Natural exceedance 

Defence exceedance 
Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance 

ITR111 

Fluvial 

Natural exceedance 

ITR111 

Fluvial 

ITR111 

Fluvial 

ITR111 

Fluvial 

ITR111 

Fluvial 

ITR111 

Fluvial 

ITR111 
ITR111 
ITR111 

ITR111 
ITR121 

Fluvial 
Pluvial 
Pluvial 

Sea Water 
Fluvial 

Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance 

Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 

Natural exceedance, 
Defence failure 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence failure 

Natural exceedance, 
Blockage 
No data 
No data 

Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance 

ITR121 

Fluvial 

Natural exceedance 

ITR121 

Fluvial 

Defence failure 

ITR121 
ITR131 

Pluvial 
Fluvial 

ITR131 

Fluvial 

ITR131 

Fluvial 

ITR131 
ITR131 
ITR141 

ITR141 
ITR141 

Fluvial 
Other 
Fluvial 

Fluvial 
Fluvial 

Natural exceedance, 
Blockage 
Natural exceedance 

Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence failure 
Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance 

Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance 

98 

 Flash Flood 
 Flash Flood 
 Flash Flood 
Other 
characteristics 
 Flash Flood 
Other rapid onset 
Medium onset 
flood 
 Flash Flood, 
Other rapid onset, 
Me 
Other rapid onset, 
Medium onset 
flood,  

No data 
Other rapid onset, 
Medium onset 
flood,  
Medium onset 
flood 
Other rapid onset, 
Medium onset 
flood 
Other rapid onset 
No data 
Medium onset 
flood 
Flash Flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
Medium onset 
flood, Debris 
Flow 
Flash Flood 
Medium onset 
flood 

No data 

No data 
No data 
Flash Flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
Debris Flow 

Number 
of 
APSFRs 
1 
1 
1 

1 
1 
1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 
1 
1 

1 
2 

4 

1 

2 
1 

1 

1 

1 
2 
1 

2 
1 

 
UoM 

Source 

Mechanism 

Characteristics 

Number 
of 
APSFRs 

ITR141 

Pluvial 

Natural exceedance 

ITR141 

Pluvial 

Natural exceedance, 
Blockage, Othe 

ITR141 

Pluvial 

Blockage, Other 

ITR141 

Sea Water 

Natural exceedance 

ITR141 

Sea Water 

Defence exceedance 

ITR141 
ITR141 

Sea Water 
Other 

Other 
Blockage 

ITR151 

Fluvial 

Natural exceedance 

ITR151 

Fluvial 

No data 

ITR151 
ITR151 

Fluvial, Sea Water 
Pluvial 

Natural exceedance 
Other 

ITR151 

Sea Water 

Natural exceedance 

ITR152 

Fluvial 

Natural exceedance 

ITR152 

Fluvial 

No data 

ITR152 
ITR152 

Fluvial, Sea Water 
Pluvial 

Natural exceedance 
Other 

ITR152 

Sea Water 

ITR153 

Fluvial 

No data 

No data 

ITR153 
ITR153 

Fluvial, Sea Water 
Pluvial 

Natural exceedance 
Other 

ITR154 

Fluvial 

Natural exceedance 

ITR154 

Fluvial 

No data 

ITR154 
ITR154 

Fluvial, Sea Water 
Pluvial 

Natural exceedance 
Other 

Sea Water 

ITR154 
ITR161I020  Fluvial 
ITR161I020  Fluvial 

Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance 

99 

Other rapid onset, 
Medium onset 
flood 
Other rapid onset, 
Medium onset 
flood 
Other 
characteristics 
Medium onset 
flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
Flash Flood 
High Velocity 
Flow, Deep Flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
High Velocity 
Flow, Deep Flood 
Debris Flow 
High Velocity 
Flow, Deep Flood 
High Velocity 
Flow, Deep Flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
High Velocity 
Flow, Deep Flood 
Debris Flow 
Medium onset 
flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
High Velocity 
Flow, Deep Flood 
Debris Flow 
High Velocity 
Flow, Deep Flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
High Velocity 
Flow, Deep Flood 
Debris Flow 
High Velocity 
Flow, Deep Flood 
 Flash Flood 
Other rapid onset 

4 

8 

2 

1 

1 

1 
2 

1 

1 

1 
1 

1 

1 

1 

1 
1 

1 

1 

3 
1 

1 

1 

1 
1 

1 
7 
5 

 
UoM 

Source 

Mechanism 

Characteristics 

Number 
of 
APSFRs 

ITR161I020  Fluvial 

ITR161I020  Fluvial 
ITR161I020  Fluvial 

ITR161I020  Fluvial 
ITR161I020  Fluvial 

ITR161I020  Fluvial 
ITR161I020  Fluvial 
ITR161I020  Fluvial 
ITR161I020  Fluvial 

ITR161I020  Fluvial 

ITR161I020  Fluvial 
ITR161I020  Fluvial 

Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence failure 
Defence exceedance 

Defence exceedance 
Defence failure 

Defence failure 
Defence failure 
Defence failure 
Blockage 

Blockage 

No data 
No data 

ITR161I020  Fluvial,Pluvial 
ITR161I020  Pluvial 

Natural exceedance 
Other 

ITR161I020  Sea Water 
ITR171 
ITR171 

Fluvial 
Fluvial 

ITR171 
ITR171 

Fluvial 
Fluvial 

ITR171 

Fluvial 

ITR171 

Fluvial 

ITR171 

Fluvial 

No data 
Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance 

Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance 

Blockage,  Natural 
exceedance, Defe 

Blockage,  Natural 
exceedance, Defe 
Blockage,  Natural 
exceedance, Defe 

ITR171 

Fluvial, Sea Water 

Natural exceedance, Other 

ITR171 

Pluvial 

Defence failure, Blockage 

ITR171 

Pluvial 

Defence failure, Blockage 

ITR171 

ITR171 

ITR171 

Other, Defence exceedance 

Sea Water,Artificial 
Water Bearing Inf 
Artificial Water 
Bearing Infrastructure  Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Artificial Water 
Defence exceedance, 
Bearing Infrastructure 

100 

Medium onset 
flood 

Other rapid onset 
Other rapid onset 
Medium onset 
flood 
Other rapid onset 
Medium onset 
flood 
Slow onset flood 
Debris Flow 
Other rapid onset 
Medium onset 
flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
No data 
High Velocity 
Flow, Deep Flood 
Debris Flow 
Medium onset 
flood 
 Flash Flood 
Other rapid onset 
Medium onset 
flood 
Debris Flow 
 Flash Flood, 
Slow onset flood, 
Oth 
Other rapid onset, 
Medium onset 
flood,  
Debris Flow, 
Other rapid onset 
Deep Flood, High 
Velocity Flow 
Debris Flow, 
Deep Flood 
Debris Flow9 -
Other 
characteristics 
High Velocity 
Flow, Other rapid 
onset 

Other rapid onset 

Other rapid onset 

1 

1 
6 

2 
1 

11 
1 
10 
3 

7 

1 
5 

2 
1 

2 
1 
1 

3 
1 

52 

1 

26 

3 

44 

80 

1 

10 

27 

 
UoM 

Source 

Mechanism 

Characteristics 

Number 
of 
APSFRs 

ITR171 

Artificial Water 
Bearing Infrastructure  Defence exceedance 

ITR181I016  Fluvial 

Natural exceedance 

ITR181I016  Fluvial 

Natural exceedance 

ITR181I016  Fluvial 

No data 

ITR181I016  Fluvial, Sea Water 
ITR181I016  Pluvial 

Natural exceedance 
Other 

ITR181I016  Sea Water 

ITR181I016  Sea Water 

Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 

ITR181I016 

Artificial Water 
Bearing Infrastructure 

Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 

ITR181I016 

Artificial Water 
Bearing Infrastructure 

Defence exceedance, 
Defence failure, 24 

ITR181I016 

Artificial Water 
Bearing Infrastructure 

Defence failure, Blockage, 
Other,  

ITR181I016 

Artificial Water 
Bearing Infrastructure 

Other, 26 -No data,  
Natural exceedance 

ITR181I016 

Artificial Water 
Bearing Infrastructure 

ITR181I016  Other 
ITR191 

Fluvial 

ITR191 

Fluvial 

ITR191 

Fluvial 

ITR191 
ITR191 

Fluvial 
Fluvial 

ITR191 

Fluvial 

No data,  Natural 
exceedance, Defen 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence failure, 24 
Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 

Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance, 

Natural exceedance, 
Blockage 
Defence exceedance 
Defence exceedance,  
Natural exceedance, 

ITR191 

Fluvial 

Defence failure 

ITR191 
ITR191 

Fluvial 
Fluvial 

Defence failure,  Natural 
exceedance 
No data 

101 

Other rapid onset 
Other rapid onset, 
Debris Flow 
High Velocity 
Flow, Deep Flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
High Velocity 
Flow, Deep Flood 
Debris Flow 
High Velocity 
Flow, Deep Flood 

No data 
 Flash Flood9 -
Other 
characteristics, 40  
 Flash Flood9 -
Other 
characteristics, 40 
 Flash Flood9 -
Other 
characteristics, 40 
 Flash Flood9 -
Other 
characteristics, 40 
 Flash Flood9 -
Other 
characteristics, 40 

 Flash Flood 
Other rapid onset 
Other rapid onset1 
- Flash Flood, Me 
Debris Flow, 
Other rapid onset1 
- Fl 
Other rapid onset, 
High Velocity 
Flow,  
Other rapid onset 
Other rapid onset1 
- Flash Flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
High Velocity 
Flow, Slow onset 
flood 
No data 

3 

3 

1 

1 

1 
1 

1 

6 

59 

1 

2 

2 

7 

3 
2 

15 

1 

12 
2 

20 

1 

20 
828 

 
Number 
of 
APSFRs 

8 

33 
10 
1 

1 

1 

2 
18 

658 
190 
1 

1 
1 

1 

1 
5 

1 

1 

UoM 

Source 

Mechanism 

Characteristics 

High Velocity 
Flow 
High Velocity 
Flow 
 Flash Flood 
Other rapid onset 
High Velocity 
Flow 
High Velocity 
Flow 

 Flash Flood 
 Flash Flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
Deep Flood 
 Flash Flood 

 Flash Flood 
 Flash Flood 
High Velocity 
Flow, Deep Flood 
Other rapid onset, 
Medium onset 
flood,  
 Flash Flood 

 Flash Flood 
Other 
characteristics 

ITR191 

Pluvial 

ITR191 
ITR191 
ITR191 

Pluvial 
Pluvial 
Pluvial 

Defence exceedance 
Defence exceedance, 
Defence failure, 24 
Blockage 
Blockage 

ITR191 

Pluvial 

Blockage 

ITR191 

ITR191 
ITR201 

ITR201 
ITR201 
ITSNP01 

ITSNP01 
ITSNP01 

Defence failure 

Sea Water 
Artificial Water 
Bearing Infrastructure  Blockage 
Fluvial 

Natural exceedance 

Fluvial 
Fluvial 
Fluvial 

Fluvial 
Fluvial 

Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Blockage 
Defence exceedance 

ITSNP01 

Fluvial 

Defence failure 

ITSNP01 
ITSNP01 

Fluvial,Fluvial,Fluvial 
Pluvial 

ITSNP01 

Pluvial 

Natural exceedance,  
Natural exceedance, 
Natural exceedance 
Natural exceedance, 
Defence exceedance 

ITSNP01 

Sea Water 

Other 

102 

 
Annex C – Sources, mechanisms and characteristics of flooding identified for past floods 

Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

2
1
0
I
T
I

1 

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

2 

1 

1 

1 

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

8 

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

1  12 

3 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

Natural 
exceedance 

 Flash Flood 

Natural 
exceedance 

 Other rapid 
onset 

Natural 
exceedance 

 Medium onset 
flood 

Natural 
exceedance 

 Slow onset 
flood 

Natural 
exceedance 

 Debris Flow 

Natural 
exceedance 

 High Velocity 
Flow 

Natural 
exceedance 

 Deep Flood 

Natural 
exceedance 

 Other 
characteristics 

Natural 
exceedance 

Defence 
exceedance 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

 No data 

2 

1 

4 

5 

 Flash Flood 

1 

1 

Defence 
exceedance 

 Other rapid 
onset 

1 

3 

Defence 
exceedance 

 Medium onset 
flood 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

103 

7 

13 

3 

5 

1 

3 

14 

8 

1 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

2
1
0
I
T
I

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

1 

2 

1 

Defence 
exceedance 

 Slow onset 
flood 

Defence 
exceedance 

 Debris Flow 

Defence 
exceedance 

 High Velocity 
Flow 

Defence 
exceedance 

 Other 
characteristics 

Defence 
exceedance 

 No data 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

 Flash Flood 

1 

 Other rapid 
onset 

3 

2 

 Medium onset 
flood 

1 

1 

1 

1 

 Slow onset 
flood 

 Debris Flow 

 High Velocity 
Flow 

 Deep Flood 

 Other 
characteristics 

104 

1 

2 

4 

5 

8 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

2
1
0
I
T
I

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

Fluvial 

Defence 
failure 

No data 

Fluvial 

Blockage 

Flash Flood 

Fluvial 

Blockage 

Fluvial 

Blockage 

Fluvial 

Blockage 

Other rapid 
onset 

Medium onset 
flood 

Slow onset 
flood 

Fluvial 

Blockage 

Debris Flow 

Fluvial 

Blockage 

Fluvial 

Blockage 

High Velocity 
Flow 

Other 
characteristics 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Fluvial 

Blockage 

No data 

2 

Fluvial 

Other 

Flash Flood 

1 

Fluvial 

Other 

Fluvial 

Other 

Fluvial 

Other 

Other rapid 
onset 

Medium onset 
flood 

Slow onset 
flood 

2 

1 

1 

1 

105 

3 

9 

5 

8 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

2
1
0
I
T
I

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

1 

1 

Fluvial 

Other 

Other 
characteristics 

Fluvial 

Other 

No data 

Fluvial 

No data 

Flash Flood 

Fluvial 

No data 

Fluvial 

No data 

Fluvial 

No data 

Other rapid 
onset 

Medium onset 
flood 

Slow onset 
flood 

Fluvial 

No data 

Debris Flow 

Fluvial 

No data 

Other 
characteristics 

Fluvial 

No data 

No data 

2 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Natural 
exceedance 

Flash Flood 

Natural 
exceedance 

Other rapid 
onset 

Natural 
exceedance 

Medium onset 
flood 

Natural 
exceedance  Debris Flow 

1 

1 

2 

4 

2 

4 

106 

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

2
1
0
I
T
I

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Natural 
exceedance 

Other 
characteristics 

Defence 
exceedance 

Flash Flood 

Defence 
exceedance 

Other rapid 
onset 

Defence 
exceedance 

Medium onset 
flood 

Defence 
exceedance  Debris Flow 

Defence 
exceedance 

High Velocity 
Flow 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

Flash Flood 

Medium onset 
flood 

Debris Flow 

High Velocity 
Flow 

2 

Deep Flood 

Other 
characteristics 

Pluvial 

 Blockage 

Flash Flood 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2  2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

2
1
0
I
T
I

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

Pluvial 

Blockage 

Pluvial 

Blockage 

Other rapid 
onset 

Medium onset 
flood 

Pluvial 

Blockage 

Debris Flow 

Pluvial 

Blockage 

High Velocity 
Flow 

1 

Pluvial 

Blockage 

Deep Flood 

Pluvial 

Blockage 

Other 
characteristics 

1 

1 

1 

Pluvial 

Other 

Flash Flood 

1 

Pluvial 

Other 

Pluvial 

Other 

Pluvial 

Other 

Other rapid 
onset 

Medium onset 
flood 

Other 
characteristics 

Pluvial 

Other 

No data 

3 

3 

5 

Pluvial 

No data 

Pluvial 

No data 

Medium onset 
flood 

Other 
characteristics 

108 

1 

1 

1 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

2
1
0
I
T
I

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

Pluvial 

No data 

No data 

Sea Water 

Natural 
exceedance 

High Velocity 
Flow 

1 

Sea Water 

Natural 
exceedance 

Other 
characteristics 

Sea Water 

Natural 
exceedance  No data 

Sea Water 

Defence 
exceedance 

Medium onset 
flood 

Sea Water 

Defence 
exceedance 

Other 
characteristics 

Sea Water 

Defence 
exceedance  No data 

Sea Water 

Sea Water 

Sea Water 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

Sea Water  Other 

Sea Water  Other 

High Velocity 
Flow 

Other 
characteristics 

No data 

Medium onset 
flood 

Other 
characteristics 

Sea Water  No data 

No data 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

2
1
0
I
T
I

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 

Natural 
exceedance 

Flash Flood 

Natural 
exceedance 

Other rapid 
onset 

Natural 
exceedance 

Other 
characteristics 

1 

Natural 
exceedance  No data 

Defence 
exceedance 

Flash Flood 

Defence 
exceedance 

Other rapid 
onset 

Defence 
exceedance 

Other 
characteristics 

1 

1 

1 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

2
1
0
I
T
I

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

Infrastructu
re 

Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 

Defence 
exceedance  No data 

Defence 
failure 

Flash Flood 

Defence 
failure 

Other 
characteristics 

Defence 
failure 

No data 

Blockage 

Flash Flood 

Blockage 

Other rapid 
onset 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

1 

2
1
0
I
T
I

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

1 

1 

Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 

Blockage 

Medium onset 
flood 

Blockage 

Other 
characteristics 

Blockage 

No data 

Other 

Flash Flood 

Other 

Other 
characteristics 

Other 

No data 

No data 

Flash Flood 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

2
1
0
I
T
I

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

Infrastructu
re 

Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 

Other 

Other 

Other 

No data 

Other 
characteristics 

No data 

No data 

Natural 
exceedance 

Flash Flood 

Natural 
exceedance  No data 

Defence 
failure 

Flash Flood 

Other 

Blockage 

Flash Flood 

Other 

Other 

Flash Flood 

Other 

Other 

Other 
characteristics 

1 

1 

2 

1 

Other 

No data 

No data 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
7
0
R
T
I

2 

3 

Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Natural 
exceedance 

Flash Flood 

Natural 
exceedance 

Other rapid 
onset 

Natural 
exceedance 

Medium onset 
flood 

Natural 
exceedance 

Slow onset 
flood 

Natural 
exceedance  Debris Flow 

Natural 
exceedance 

High Velocity 
Flow 

Natural 
exceedance  Deep Flood 

Natural 
exceedance 

Other 
characteristics 

Natural 
exceedance  No data 

Defence 
exceedance 

Flash Flood 

Defence 
exceedance 

Other rapid 
onset 

Defence 
exceedance 

Medium onset 
flood 

Defence 
exceedance 

Slow onset 
flood 

Defence 
exceedance  Debris Flow 

1 

3 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

2 

2 

5 

1 

1 

1
4
1
R
T
I

1 

2 

2 

5 

5 

1 

1 

4 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

114 

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

0
2

1
7
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

6
1

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

2 

3 

1 

2 

2 

3 

5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

1 

0
1
0
N
T
I

1 

3 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

3 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

0
2

1
7
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

6
1

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

0
1
0
N
T
I

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Defence 
exceedance 

High Velocity 
Flow 

Defence 
exceedance 

Other 
characteristics 

Defence 
exceedance  No data 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

Flash Flood 

Other rapid 
onset 

Medium onset 
flood 

Slow onset 
flood 

Debris Flow 

High Velocity 
Flow 

Deep Flood 

Other 
characteristics 

No data 

Fluvial 

 Blockage 

Flash Flood 

1 

2 

1 

2 

2 

3 

1 

3 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

3 

2 

3 

1 

1 

3 

2 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0
1
0
N
T
I

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

Fluvial 

Blockage 

Fluvial 

Blockage 

Fluvial 

Blockage 

Other rapid 
onset 

Medium onset 
flood 

Slow onset 
flood 

Fluvial 

Blockage 

Debris Flow 

Fluvial 

Blockage 

Fluvial 

Blockage 

High Velocity 
Flow 

Other 
characteristics 

Fluvial 

Blockage 

No data 

Fluvial 

Other 

Flash Flood 

Fluvial 

Other 

Fluvial 

Other 

Fluvial 

Other 

Fluvial 

Other 

Other rapid 
onset 

Medium onset 
flood 

Slow onset 
flood 

Other 
characteristics 

Fluvial 

Other 

No data 

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1 

3 

1
1
1
R
T
I

2 

3 

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

2 

0
2

1
7
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

6
1

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

116 

0
1
0
N
T
I

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

Fluvial 

No data 

Flash Flood 

Fluvial 

No data 

Fluvial 

No data 

Fluvial 

No data 

Other rapid 
onset 

Medium onset 
flood 

Slow onset 
flood 

Fluvial 

No data 

Debris Flow 

Fluvial 

No data 

Other 
characteristics 

Fluvial 

No data 

No data 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Natural 
exceedance 

Flash Flood 

Natural 
exceedance 

Other rapid 
onset 

Natural 
exceedance 

Medium onset 
flood 

Natural 
exceedance  Debris Flow 

Natural 
exceedance 

Other 
characteristics 

Defence 
exceedance 

Flash Flood 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

117 

1
1
1
R
T
I

1 

4 

4 

1 

3 

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

0
2

1
7
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

6
1

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

0
1
0
N
T
I

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

5 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

0
2

1
7
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

6
1

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

0
1
0
N
T
I

1 

1  2 

1 

1 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Defence 
exceedance 

Other rapid 
onset 

Defence 
exceedance 

Medium onset 
flood 

Defence 
exceedance  Debris Flow 

Defence 
exceedance 

High Velocity 
Flow 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

Flash Flood 

Medium onset 
flood 

Debris Flow 

High Velocity 
Flow 

Deep Flood 

Other 
characteristics 

Pluvial 

Blockage 

Flash Flood 

Pluvial 

Blockage 

Pluvial 

Blockage 

Other rapid 
onset 

Medium onset 
flood 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

Pluvial 

Blockage 

Debris Flow 

Pluvial 

Blockage 

High Velocity 
Flow 

Pluvial 

Blockage 

Deep Flood 

Pluvial 

Blockage 

Other 
characteristics 

Pluvial 

Other 

Flash Flood 

Pluvial 

Other 

Pluvial 

Other 

Pluvial 

Other 

Other rapid 
onset 

Medium onset 
flood 

Other 
characteristics 

Pluvial 

Other 

No data 

Pluvial 

No data 

Pluvial 

No data 

Medium onset 
flood 

Other 
characteristics 

Pluvial 

No data 

No data 

Sea Water 

Natural 
exceedance 

High Velocity 
Flow 

0
1
0
N
T
I

1 

1 

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1 

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1 

1
2
1
R
T
I

2 

2 

1 

5 

5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

0
2

1
7
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

6
1

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

0
1
0
N
T
I

1 

1 

1 

2 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

0
2

1
7
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

6
1

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

0
1
0
N
T
I

Sea Water 

Natural 
exceedance 

Other 
characteristics 

Sea Water 

Natural 
exceedance  No data 

Sea Water 

Defence 
exceedance 

Medium onset 
flood 

Sea Water 

Defence 
exceedance 

Other 
characteristics 

Sea Water 

Defence 
exceedance  No data 

Sea Water 

Sea Water 

Sea Water 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

Defence 
failure 

Sea Water  Other 

Sea Water  Other 

Sea Water  No data 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 

Natural 
exceedance 

High Velocity 
Flow 

Other 
characteristics 

No data 

Medium onset 
flood 

Other 
characteristics 

No data 

Flash Flood 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

2 

120 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 

Natural 
exceedance 

Other rapid 
onset 

Natural 
exceedance 

Other 
characteristics 

Natural 
exceedance  No data 

Defence 
exceedance 

Flash Flood 

Defence 
exceedance 

Other rapid 
onset 

Defence 
exceedance 

Other 
characteristics 

Defence 
exceedance  No data 

121 

6
1

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

0
1
0
N
T
I

0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

0
2

1
7
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

0
2

1
7
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

6
1

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

0
1
0
N
T
I

Infrastructu
re 

Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 

Defence 
failure 

Flash Flood 

Defence 
failure 

Other 
characteristics 

Defence 
failure 

No data 

Blockage 

Flash Flood 

Blockage 

Other rapid 
onset 

Blockage 

Medium onset 
flood 

122 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

0
2

1
7
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

6
1

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

0
1
0
N
T
I

Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 

Blockage 

Other 
characteristics 

Blockage 

No data 

Other 

Flash Flood 

Other 

Other 
characteristics 

Other 

No data 

No data 

Flash Flood 

No data 

Other 
characteristics 

123 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

0
2

1
7
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

6
1

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

0
1
0
N
T
I

1 

Infrastructu
re 

Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastructu
re 

Other 

Other 

Other 

No data 

No data 

Natural 
exceedance 

Flash Flood 

Natural 
exceedance  No data 

Defence 
failure 

Flash Flood 

Other 

Blockage 

Flash Flood 

Other 

Other 

Flash Flood 

Other 

Other 

Other 
characteristics 

Other 

No data 

No data 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

1 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex D – Sources, mechanisms and characteristics of potential future floods 

Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

High Velocity 
Flow 

Natural 
exceedance  Flash Flood 
Other rapid 
Natural 
onset 
exceedance 
Medium onset 
Natural 
flood 
exceedance 
Slow onset 
Natural 
flood 
exceedance 
Natural 
exceedance  Debris Flow 
Natural 
exceedance 
Natural 
exceedance  Deep Flood 
Defence 
exceedance  Flash Flood 
Other rapid 
Defence 
onset 
exceedance 
Medium onset 
Defence 
flood 
exceedance 
Slow onset 
Defence 
flood 
exceedance 
Defence 
exceedance  Debris Flow 

2
1
0
I
T
I

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

1 

1 

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1 

1 

1 

1 

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

1 

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

1 

1 

6 

2 

2 

2 

2 

4 

3 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

2 

5 

3 

2 

1 

4 

2 

7 

2 

4  4 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

5 

7 

1 

5  9 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

5 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

125 

2 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

3 

2 

6 

2 

4  3 

3 

1 

4 

1 

4  7 

1 

5 

2 

5 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

2
1
0
I
T
I

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Defence 
exceedance  Deep Flood 
Defence 
failure 
Defence 
failure 
Defence 
failure 
Defence 
failure 
Defence 
failure 

Flash Flood 
Other rapid 
onset 
Medium onset 
flood 
Slow onset 
flood 

Debris Flow 

Fluvial 

Blockage 

Fluvial 

Blockage 

Fluvial 

Blockage 

Fluvial 

Blockage 

Fluvial 

Blockage 

Fluvial 

Other 

Flash Flood 
Other rapid 
onset 
Medium onset 
flood 
Slow onset 
flood 

Debris Flow 
High Velocity 
Flow 

Fluvial 

Other 

Deep Flood 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

5 

2 

4  3 

2 

5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

3 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

5 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

126 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

2
1
0
I
T
I

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

Fluvial 

No data 

Fluvial 

No data 

Medium onset 
flood 
High Velocity 
Flow 

Fluvial 

No data 

Deep Flood 

Fluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

No data 
Medium onset 
flood 
Slow onset 
flood 
High Velocity 
Flow 

No data 
Natural 
exceedance 
Natural 
exceedance 
Natural 
exceedance 
Natural 
exceedance  Deep Flood 
Defence 
exceedance 
Defence 
exceedance 
Defence 
failure 
Defence 
failure 

Medium onset 
flood 
Slow onset 
flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
Slow onset 
flood 
Medium onset 
flood 

Pluvial 

Blockage 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

127 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

1 

1 

1 

2
1
0
I
T
I

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

1 

Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

Pluvial 

Blockage 

Pluvial 

Other 

Pluvial 

No data 

Slow onset 
flood 

Debris Flow 
High Velocity 
Flow 

Pluvial 

Sea Water 

Sea Water 

Sea Water 

Sea Water 

Sea Water 

Sea Water 

Sea Water 

Sea Water 

Sea Water 

Deep Flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
Slow onset 
flood 
High Velocity 
Flow 

No data 
Natural 
exceedance 
Natural 
exceedance 
Natural 
exceedance 
Natural 
exceedance  Deep Flood 
Other rapid 
Defence 
onset 
exceedance 
Medium onset 
Defence 
flood 
exceedance 
Slow onset 
Defence 
flood 
exceedance 
High Velocity 
Defence 
Flow 
exceedance 
Other 
Defence 
characteristics 
exceedance 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

128 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9
0
0
N
T
I

1 

Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

2
1
0
I
T
I

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

Sea Water 

Defence 
failure 

Sea Water  Other 

Sea Water  Other 

Sea Water  Other 

Sea Water  Other 

Sea Water  No data 

Sea Water  No data 

Defence 
exceedance 

Sea Water  No data 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastruct
ure 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastruct
ure 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 

 Other 

Defence 
exceedance 

1 

2 

1 

1 

Slow onset 
flood 
Other rapid 
onset 
High Velocity 
Flow 

Deep Flood 
Other 
characteristics 
Medium onset 
flood 
High Velocity 
Flow 

Deep Flood 

Other rapid 
onset 

High Velocity 
Flow 

Other rapid 
onset 

1 

2 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

3 

2 

2 

1 

1 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

2
1
0
I
T
I

9
1
3
1
0
I
T
I

4
1
0
I
T
I

5
1
0
I
T
I

7
1
0
I
T
I

8
1
0
I
T
I

1
2
0
I
T
I

2
2
0
I
T
I

3
2
0
I
T
I

4
2
0
I
T
I

5
2
0
I
T
I

6
2
0
I
T
I

7
2
0
I
T
I

8
2
0
I
T
I

9
2
0
I
T
I

1
0
0
N
T
I

2
0
0
N
T
I

3
0
0
N
T
I

4
0
0
N
T
I

5
0
0
N
T
I

6
0
0
N
T
I

7
0
0
N
T
I

8
0
0
N
T
I

9
0
0
N
T
I

Infrastruct
ure 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastruct
ure 

 Other 

High Velocity 
Flow 

Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Natural 
exceedance  Flash Flood 
Other rapid 
Natural 
onset 
exceedance 
Medium onset 
Natural 
flood 
exceedance 
Slow onset 
Natural 
exceedance 
flood 
Natural 
exceedance  Debris Flow 
Natural 
exceedance 
Natural 
exceedance  Deep Flood 

High Velocity 
Flow 

1 

0
1
0
N
T
I

1 

1 

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

6 

2 

3 

1 

2 

2 

1 

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

0
2

1
7
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

6
1

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

3 

1 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

1 

3 

1 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Defence 
exceedance  Flash Flood 
Other rapid 
Defence 
onset 
exceedance 
Medium onset 
Defence 
flood 
exceedance 
Slow onset 
Defence 
flood 
exceedance 
Defence 
exceedance  Debris Flow 
Defence 
exceedance  Deep Flood 
Defence 
failure 
Defence 
failure 
Defence 
failure 
Defence 
failure 
Defence 
failure 

Flash Flood 
Other rapid 
onset 
Medium onset 
flood 
Slow onset 
flood 

Debris Flow 

Fluvial 

Blockage 

Fluvial 

Blockage 

Flash Flood 
Other rapid 
onset 

6 

2 

3 

1 

6 

3 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1
9
0
R
T
I

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

131 

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

0
2

1
7
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

6
1

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

2 

2 

2 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

0
2

1
7
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

6
1

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

Fluvial 

Blockage 

Fluvial 

Blockage 

Fluvial 

Blockage 

Fluvial 

Other 

Fluvial 

Other 

Fluvial 

No data 

Fluvial 

No data 

Medium onset 
flood 
Slow onset 
flood 

Debris Flow 
High Velocity 
Flow 

Deep Flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
High Velocity 
Flow 

Fluvial 

No data 

Deep Flood 

Fluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

No data 
Medium onset 
flood 
Slow onset 
flood 
High Velocity 
Flow 

No data 
Natural 
exceedance 
Natural 
exceedance 
Natural 
exceedance 
Natural 
exceedance  Deep Flood 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

132 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

3 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

0
2

1
7
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

6
1

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Pluvial 

Defence 
exceedance 
Defence 
exceedance 
Defence 
failure 
Defence 
failure 

Pluvial 

Blockage 

Pluvial 

Blockage 

Pluvial 

Other 

Pluvial 

No data 

Medium onset 
flood 
Slow onset 
flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
Slow onset 
flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
Slow onset 
flood 

Debris Flow 
High Velocity 
Flow 

Pluvial 

Sea Water 

Sea Water 

Sea Water 

Sea Water 

Deep Flood 
Medium onset 
flood 
Slow onset 
flood 
High Velocity 
Flow 

No data 
Natural 
exceedance 
Natural 
exceedance 
Natural 
exceedance 
Natural 
exceedance  Deep Flood 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

133 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

3 

3 

2 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

0
2

1
7
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

6
1

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

Sea Water 

Sea Water 

Sea Water 

Sea Water 

Sea Water 

Sea Water 

Defence 
exceedance 
Defence 
exceedance 
Defence 
exceedance 
Defence 
exceedance 
Defence 
exceedance 
Defence 
failure 

Sea Water  Other 

Sea Water  Other 

Sea Water  Other 

Sea Water  Other 

Sea Water  No data 

Sea Water  No data 

Other rapid 
onset 
Medium onset 
flood 
Slow onset 
flood 
High Velocity 
Flow 
Other 
characteristics 
Slow onset 
flood 
Other rapid 
onset 
High Velocity 
Flow 

Deep Flood 
Other 
characteristics 
Medium onset 
flood 
High Velocity 
Flow 

Sea Water  No data 

Deep Flood 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

3 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

134 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Mechanism  Characteristics 

0
1
0
N
T
I

1
1
0
N
T
I

1
5
0
R
T
I

1
6
0
R
T
I

1
7
0
R
T
I

1
8
0
R
T
I

1
9
0
R
T
I

2
9
0
R
T
I

3
9
0
R
T
I

1
1
1
R
T
I

1
2
1
R
T
I

1
3
1
R
T
I

1
4
1
R
T
I

1
5
1
R
T
I

2
5
1
R
T
I

3
5
1
R
T
I

4
5
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
6
1
R
T
I

0
2

1
7
1
R
T
I

0
I
1
8
1
R
T
I

6
1

1
9
1
R
T
I

1
0
2
R
T
I

1
0
P
N
S
T
I

Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastruc
ture 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastruc
ture 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastruc
ture 
Artificial 
Water 
Bearing 
Infrastruc
ture 

Defence 
exceedance 

Other rapid 
onset 

Defence 
exceedance 

High Velocity 
Flow 

 Other 

Other rapid 
onset 

 Other 

High Velocity 
Flow 

4 

1 

1 

1 

135 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
136