1 REV09_en

Study on the acting and elaboration of new crisis action plans in the CB region Project “Measures for establishment of flood prevention and quick reaction conditions in Chiprovci and Bolevac”, No CB007.1.31.364 under the Interreg – IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme 2014 - 2020, CCI Number: CCI 2014TC16I5CB007. The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

TABLE OF CONTENTS: 1. PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT......................................................................................................4 2. SURVEY AND ANALYSIS OF EUROPEAN LEGISLATION AND PRESENTATION OF GOOD PRACTICES IN THE EU. ............................................................................................................5 2.1. PRELIMINARY FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT.....................................................................5 2.2. MAPS OF FLOOD-PRONE AREAS AND MAPS OF FLOOD RISK AREAS ...................7 2.3. FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PLANS.................................................................................8 2.4. PRESENTING GOOD PRACTICES IN THE EU ................................................................11 3. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE NATIONAL LEGISLATION AND THE CURRENT EMERGENCY PLAN OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CHIPROVCI, BULGARIA.........................19 3.1. PRELIMINARY FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT...................................................................20 3.2. MAPS OF FLOOD-PRONE AREAS AND MAPS OF FLOOD RISK AREAS .................20 3.3. FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PLANS (FRMP)................................................................44 3.4. OPERATIONAL EMERGENCY PLAN OF CHIPROVCI MUNICIPALITY, RBULGARIA ........................................................................................................................................45 3.5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................49 4. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE NATIONAL LEGISLATION AND THE CURRENT EMERGENCY PLAN OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BOLEVAC, RSERBIA. ...............................51 4.1. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN ..................52 4.2. CONTENT OF THE OPERATIONAL FLOOD PROTECTION PLAN ON THE TERRITORY OF BOLEVAC MUNICIPALITY..............................................................................53 4.3. ANALYSIS OF THE CONTENTS OF THE PLAN IN TERMS OF EUROPEAN PRACTICES..........................................................................................................................................54 4.4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................56 5. ELABORATION OF A PROPOSAL FOR A CRISIS PLAN OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CHIPROVCI FOR FLOOD PROTECTION, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE GOOD EUROPEAN PRACTICES AND THE NATIONAL LEGISLATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA. ..............................................................................................................................................58 I. GENERAL PROVISIONS ...............................................................................................................58 І.1. Reason for developing the plan......................................................................................................58 І.2. Aim of the plan................................................................................................................................58 І.3. Basic tasks........................................................................................................................................59 І.4. Link to other plans..........................................................................................................................60 1 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

І.5. Putting the plan into action............................................................................................................60 II. ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT OF THE RISK OF FLOODING............................................61 ІІ.1. Protected category \"human health\"............................................................................................64 ІІ.2. Protected category of “business activity”....................................................................................65 ІІ.3. Protected category \"environment\"..............................................................................................66 ІІ.4. Protected category \"cultural heritage\".......................................................................................66 ІІ.5. Characteristics of dams, equalizers, ponds and rivers...............................................................67 ІІ.6. Analysis and assessment of the possible situation. .....................................................................70 III. MEASURES TO PREVENT OR REDUCE THE RISK OF FLOODS. ......................................71 ІІІ.1. Preliminary assessment of flood risk on the territory of Chiprovci Municipality.................71 ІІІ.2. Major measures to prevent and mitigate the effects of floods. ................................................71 ІІІ.3. Construction and restoration of facilities. .................................................................................72 ІІІ.4. Expertise on the condition of critical and potentially hazardous sites and facilities. ............73 ІІІ.5. Surveillance, early warning and disclosure systems for control bodies, response forces and the population. .......................................................................................................................................73 ІІІ.6. Training of control bodies, response forces and population. ...................................................74 IV. MEASURES TO PROTECT THE POPULATION.......................................................................74 ІV.1. Temporary restrictions and measures to protect the population. ...........................................74 ІV.2. Control of the water level of the dams .......................................................................................76 ІV.3. Informing the population. ...........................................................................................................76 ІV.4. Temporary removal of the population. Evacuation and distraction.......................................76 ІV.5. Order for proclamation of the population during evacuation organizing..............................77 ІV.6. Temporary accommodation places for disasters.......................................................................78 V. DISTRIBUTION OF DUTIES AND RESPONSIBLE PERSONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ENVISAGED MEASURES. ..............................................................78 V.1. Assessment of the needs for food, water, medical supplies, medicines and other essential and follow-up supplies..................................................................................................................................78 V.2. Organization of communications. ................................................................................................79 V.3. Legality and order .........................................................................................................................79 V.4. Logistics..........................................................................................................................................80 V.5. Transportation...............................................................................................................................80 V.5. Healthcare. .....................................................................................................................................80 V.6. Restoration of the services and infrastructure of the municipality. .........................................81 2 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

V.7. Assistance (emergency help) to the affected population. ...........................................................82 V.8. Perform of UERW.........................................................................................................................83 V.9. Material-technical support. ..........................................................................................................84 V.10. Announcement of a distress situation. .......................................................................................84 VI. tools and resources provided for liquidation of consequences of disasters. .................................85 VII. WAY OF INTERACTION BETWEEN THE COMPONENTS OF THE SINGLE LIFE- SAVING SYSTEM AND COORDINATING THE STRUCTURES OF THE SINGLE FLOOD EMERGENCY SYSTEM (URS) .............................................................................................................86 VІІ.1. General Conditions.....................................................................................................................86 VІІ.2. Disclosure by URS and Authorities: .........................................................................................87 VІІ.3. Organization of the interaction between the operational duty centers of the URS structures................................................................................................................................................87 VІІ.4. Interaction and distribution of URS component activities in case of flood: .........................90 VIII. PROCEDURE FOR EARLY WARNING AND DISCLOSURE OF EXECUTIVE BODIES OF THE CONSTITUENT PARTS OF URS AND THE POPULATION IN CASE OF DANGER OR EARTHQUAKE...............................................................................................................93 VІІІ.1. Responsible officials and their functions; ...............................................................................93 VІІІ.2. Implementation, review and updating of the municipality plan. .........................................96 IX. INFORMATION ABOUT THE TEAMS AND THE RESOURCES OF THE URS COMPONENTS ........................................................................................................................................97 X. X. time for readiness to respond to the constituents of the urs ...................................................111 XI. FINANCIAL PROVISION OF THE PLAN.................................................................................111 XII. ANNEXES (and provided on magnetic media): ...........................................................................111 3 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

1. PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT The present project aims to evaluate the flood risk management plans of the National Plans for flood risk management (Bulgaria and Serbia), the regional and municipal (Bolevac and Chiprovci) and to make proposals for improvement of the municipal plans in the context harmonization, pooling and better coordination based on the lessons learned and the latest European and international regulations and trends in this area. Review of the plans will be carried out and improvements will be proposed in areas such as Organizational Information, Facility Preparation, Authorities and References, Emergency Responsible Roles, Communication Plan and Resources, Emergency Alert, Resource Call List, Staff Call Log, Response, Population Tracking System, Overvoltage Capability Plan, Security / Safety Issues, Evacuation, Incorporating Trends in Collaboration, Level and Accuracy of Risk and Risk Assessment, etc. Based on the study, proposals for new crisis plans will be developed. The action will significantly contribute to the implementation of the project outcome indicator to improve joint risk management across the border region as it will provide valuable information on the current state and adequacy level in line with EU legislation. In order to achieve the goals in the development, the following tasks are solved: 1. Overview and analysis of EU legislation and presentation of good practices in the EU. 2. Review and Analysis of the National Legislation and the Current Emergency Plan of the Municipality of Chiprovci, Bulgaria 3. Review and analysis of the national legislation and the current emergency plan of the municipality of Bolevac, Serbia. 4 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

4. Making a proposal for a new emergency plan for the municipality of Chiprovci, taking into account the good European practices and the national legislation of the Republic of Bulgaria. The plan has been developed in scope and content according to the local legislation of the Republic of Bulgaria taking into account the good European practices. Prior to its application on the territory of the municipality of Bolevac - Serbia, the national legislative framework in the Republic of Serbia, as well as the regional and local structures related to it, should be taken into account. 2. SURVEY AND ANALYSIS OF EUROPEAN LEGISLATION AND PRESENTATION OF GOOD PRACTICES IN THE EU. The main European document that EU Member States have to meet as far as flood risk assessment and management is concerned is Directive 2007/60 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007. According to Directive 2000/60 / EC, the assessment and management of flood risk in each Member State consists of three stages: • • Preparation of Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment; • • Mapping maps of flood-prone areas and Maps of flood risk areas; • • Development of a flood risk management plan (FRMP) with a Program of Measures (POM) 2.1. PRELIMINARY FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT Article 4 of Directive 2000/60 / EC clarifies the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment requirements: 1. For each river basin district or management unit, or for that part of an international river basin district located in their territory, Member States shall carry out a preliminary flood risk assessment in accordance with the requirements. 5 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

2. On the basis of available or easily accessible information, such as data and studies of long-standing phenomena, in particular the impact of climate change on the occurrence of floods, the ex-ante flood risk assessment shall be carried out in order to assess the potential risks. The assessment shall include at least the following: a) maps of river basin districts on an appropriate scale, including river basin boundaries, sub-basins and, where available, coastal areas indicating topography and land use; b) a description of floods that have occurred in the past with significant adverse effects on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity and for which the likelihood of recurrence still exists, including the magnitude of the floods, their distribution patterns and the assessment of unfavorable their consequences; c) a description of the serious floods in the past when major adverse effects arising from such future events can be expected; and, depending on the specific needs of the Member States, includes: d) an assessment of the possible adverse effects of future floods on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity, taking into account as far as possible aspects such as topography, the location of the water courses and their general hydrological and geomorphological characteristics, including flood plains as natural water-retaining surfaces, the effectiveness of man-made flood protection infrastructures, the location of settlements, business areas and long -term developments including impacts of climate change on the occurrence of floods. 3. In the case of international river basin districts or management units common to other Member States, Member States shall ensure the exchange of up-to-date information between the competent authorities concerned. Article 5 defines areas with a significant potential flood risk: 6 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

1. On the basis of the ex-ante flood risk assessment, Member States shall determine for each river basin district or management unit or part of an international river basin district adjacent to their territory those areas where they believe there is significant potential flood risk or a probability of such a possibility could be foreseen. 2. The designation of areas belonging to an international river basin district or to a management unit common to another Member State shall be agreed between the Member States concerned. 2.2. MAPS OF FLOOD-PRONE AREAS AND MAPS OF FLOOD RISK AREAS Article 6 of Directive 2000/60 / EC provides recommendations and requirements for the compilation of flood risk maps and Flood risk maps for both national rivers and cross-border: 1. Member States shall draw up, at the level of a river basin district or a management unit, maps of flood risk areas and maps of flood risk areas at the most appropriate scale for the areas identified under Article 5 (1). 2. The compilation of maps of flood risk areas and maps of flood risk areas common to other Member States shall be carried out following a prior exchange of information between the Member States concerned. 3. Maps of flood-prone areas shall cover geographic areas that may be flooded under the following scenarios: a) floods with a low probability of occurrence or unforeseeable events; b) floods with an average probability of occurrence (probable re-occurrence period ≥ 100 years); c) floods with high probability of occurrence, where appropriate. 4. For each scenario under paragraph 3, the following elements shall be displayed: a) the scale of the flood; 7 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

b) depth or level of water, if appropriate; c) where appropriate, the flow rate or the corresponding water flow rate. 5. Flood risk maps shall show the potential adverse effects of the flood scenarios referred to in paragraph 3 and expressed by the following indicators: (a) an indicative number of potentially affected residents; (b) type of economic activity in the area potentially affected; (c) installations pursuant to Annex I to Council Directive 96/61 / EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (1), which may cause additional pollution due to an accident in the event of flooding, and protected areas in Annex IV, paragraph 1 (i), (iii) and (v) of Directive 2000/60 / EC, which are susceptible to interference; (d) other information deemed useful by the Member State, such as an indication of areas where floods with high sediment and waste content may occur, as well as information on other significant sources of pollution. 6. Member States may decide that for coastal areas where there is a high level of protection, the drawing up of flood hazard maps shall be limited to the flood scenario with a low probability of occurrence or unforeseeable events. 7. Member States may decide that, for floods caused by groundwater, the drawing up of flood hazard maps shall be limited to flood scenarios with a low probability of occurrence or unforeseeable events. 2.3. FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PLANS Article 7 provides guidelines for the preparation of flood risk management plans: 1. On the basis of the maps referred to in Article 6, Member States shall draw up flood risk management plans agreed at river basin district level or management unit for areas with a significant potential flood risk. 2. Member States shall set appropriate targets in relation to flood risk management for areas with significant potential flood risks focusing on the reduction of potential 8 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

adverse impacts of floods on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity, and, as appropriate, on non-structural initiatives and / or the reduction of the likelihood of flooding. 3. Flood risk management plans shall include measures to achieve the objectives defined in accordance with paragraph 2 and shall include the components set out in Part A of the Annex. Flood risk management plans shall take into account relevant aspects such as costs and benefits, coverage and distribution of floods and areas likely to contain flood waters such as natural flood plains, environmental objectives under Article 4 of Directive 2000/60 / EC, soil and water management, spatial planning, land use, nature conservation, shipping-related infrastructure and ports. Flood risk management plans shall address all aspects of risk management, focusing on prevention, protection, preparedness, including flood forecasts and early warning systems, and taking into account the characteristics of the particular river basin or sub-basin. Flood risk management plans may also include promoting sustainable land use practices, improving water retention, and controlled flooding of certain areas in the event of flooding. ANNEX A. Flood risk management plans provide requirements for the content of the Flood Risk Management Plans: I. Elements of the first flood risk management plans: 1. the conclusions of the preliminary flood risk assessment in accordance with the requirements of the chapter PRELIMINARY FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT in the form of a baseline river basin district map or management unit outlining the areas identified under Article 5 (1) which are the subject of this plan for flood risk management; 2. maps of flood-prone areas and maps of flood risk areas developed in accordance with the MAPS OF FLOOD-PRONE AREAS AND MAPS OF FLOOD RISK AREAS and the conclusions that may be drawn from these maps; 9 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

3. a description of the objectives of flood risk management identified in accordance with Article 7 (2); 4. a brief presentation of the measures and their priority to achieve the objectives of flood risk management, including measures taken in accordance with Article 7, and flood measures taken under other Community acts, including Directive 85/337 / EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) and Council Directive 96/82 / EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances substances (2), Directive 2001/42 / EC O of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programs on the environment (3) and Directive 2000/60 / EC; 5. Where available, for common river basins and sub-basins, a description of the methodology used by the Member States concerned for the cost-benefit analysis used for the assessment of measures with transnational impact. II. Description of plan implementation: 1. a description of the priorities and how to monitor progress on the implementation of the plan; 2. a summary of the public information and measures / consultation actions undertaken; 3. a list of the competent authorities and, where appropriate, a description of the reconciliation process in any international river basin district and the process of alignment with Directive 2000/60 / EC. ANNEX B. Elements of subsequent updating of flood risk management plans provide requirements for the updating of flood risk management plans: 1. any changes or updates from the publication of the previous version of the flood risk management plan, including a summary of the reviews; 2. an assessment of the progress towards the achievement of the objectives under Article 7 (2); 10 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

3. a description and explanation of all measures foreseen in an earlier version of the flood risk management plan that have been planned but have not been undertaken; 4. a description of all additional measures from the publication of the previous version of the flood risk management plan. 2.4. PRESENTING GOOD PRACTICES IN THE EU Good European practices in the field of flood risk assessment and management are summarized in the “Strengthening And Redesigning European FLOOD risk practices: Towards appropriate and resilient flood risk governance arrangements” – STAR-FLOOD project, which was active in the period 2012-2016: This project focuses on analyzing, explaining, evaluating and developing policies to better address flood risks from rivers in urban environments across Europe. Partners in the project are organizations from Belgium, England, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and Poland. Flood Risk Management Strategies Flood risk management in European Member States traditionally focuses on structural flood protection solutions, and this method can be described as \"water retention away from people\". However, it is now widely recognized that flood risk management requires a combination of options to minimize both the likelihood and the consequences of floods. For example, such a diversified approach is recommended in recent legislation such as the European Floods Directive (2007/60 / EC) and the UNIDSR Hyogo Framework for Action. The STAR-FLOOD project distinguishes between five flood risk management strategies that can be combined in a diversified approach. These strategies are illustrated on Figure 1. 11 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

Figure 1. Flood risk management strategies (STAR-FLOOD Project) In their Handbook, STAR-FLOOD participants grouped the five strategies into three main scenarios: pre-flood, flood and post-flood. Segregation of \"before\", \"during\" and \"after\" flooding is based on the risk management cycle. Yet, it is quite intuitive and not always clear. For example, flood warning systems and evacuation plans that fall under the flood prevention and response strategy must be developed before flooding to function well. For the recovery mechanism, such as insurance, the same applies. In addition, strategies can be interlinked. For example, a high insurance premium in a high- risk area may lead to people not being built there (prevention) or taking measures to protect them from flooding their houses (mitigation). 1. Before flooding: 1. Flood risk prevention aims to reduce the consequences of floods by reducing exposure to people and property through measures that prohibit or discourage development in areas at risk of flooding (eg space planning, redistribution policy, and expropriation policy). The main purpose of this 12 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

strategy is to \"keep people away from the water\" by building only outside areas prone to flooding. 2. Flood protection measures are designed to reduce the likelihood of flooding. This is done by using infrastructure facilities for flood protection such as dikes and dams; by increasing the capacity of existing channels; by increasing the space for water and by creating a space for water retention upstream. In other words, \"to keep water away from people\". 3. Flood risk mitigation focuses on reducing the magnitude (extent) or consequences of floods through measures in vulnerable areas. The rate of flooding may be reduced by retention or storage of water in or below areas prone to flooding (eg rainwater retention). Implications can be reduced by zoning of floods or (regulation of) building of buildings that are resistant to floods. 2. During the flood: 1. Flood preparation and response measures include the development of flood warning systems, the preparation of disaster management plans and evacuation and flood management when this occurs. 3. After the flood: 1. Post-flood recovery includes reconstruction and recovery plans, as well as public compensation or private insurance schemes. Management strategies in the STAR-FLOOD project countries Due to the increasing risk of floods and recent floods, flood risk management is high on the political agenda in many European countries. Furthermore, the implementation of the 2007 Floods Directive requires all EU Member States to analyze the flood risk in their country and to develop integrated flood risk management plans. However, the countries have a great deal of freedom in terms of the goals they are aiming for and the strategies and measures they use to achieve these goals. Also, STAR-FLOOD 13 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

participating countries differ in the strategies they adopt. Table 1 shows the relative importance of each of the five flood risk management strategies in the STAR-FLOOD countries. Dark blue refers to the relative importance of country strategy and light blue - the relatively low importance of the strategy. Labels are given at national level, regional and local differences may exist. Labeling is based on an analysis of many scientific and political documents and many interviews with stakeholders for each. Table 1. Review of the relative importance of flood risk management strategies in six EU countries (2015) Belgium consists of three political regions: Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels. These regions have developed their own policy and planning independently over the past 25 years. Following floods in 1953 and 1976, flood risk management in Belgium focuses mainly on risk prevention and flood protection. Mitigation measures have been introduced in recent years. Due to the institutional complexity of the country, there is a wide range of instruments in each of the regions. Although the discussion in France focuses on the prevention strategy through the implementation of the risk prevention plan, French policy is in fact dominated by two strategies: protection and recovery. In 2002, France introduced its Action Plan for the Prevention of Floods (PAPI), which introduced the principle of integrated flood risk management at the local level. Under this action program, flood protection remains dominating from a financial point of view, but other strategies are also taken into account. 14 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

Due to historical events and dramatic experiences, Poland has preference for technical infrastructure solutions for flood risk management. Poland focuses primarily on flood protection, supported by flood prevention and risk prevention. Due to pressure from the EU to implement the flood directive, Poland has also begun to address mitigation and recovery plans, although the implementation of this new approach is only just beginning. In the Netherlands, flood protection is a prerequisite for settling in low-lying areas since the Middle ages. Following the floods in 1953, the defense strategy gained even more force by implementing (the first) Delta program. The coastline has been shortened and the height of the dykes and dunes has increased. In recent years, flood risk mitigation and flood preparations have climbed higher on the agenda. Flood risk management also has a long history in England. In addition, there has long been a diversified and holistic approach to flood risk management, all five of which have been established for about 65 years. Within this approach, a number of measures have been implemented consistently and new innovations and measures have been added in recent years. Examples include ownership-level measures and community action plans for floods to improve mitigation, preparation and response strategies. England now has a relatively comprehensive approach to flood risk management, which gives different strategies almost the same level of importance. Sweden, unlike other countries, has no national adaptation or flood risk management strategy. Sweden addresses flood risk management mainly through a number of environmental policies. Since the effects of the floods are felt primarily at the local level, most flood risk management measures are also taken locally. For example, emergency management and flood preparation are organized by municipalities. Relatively little is organized at national level. There is flood insurance and is included in the household or building insurance, which implies that flood restoration is important. In recent years, flood protection has climbed higher on the agenda. 15 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

Towards sustainability, legitimacy and efficiency There is a wide variety of strategies and there are significant differences between the strategies applied by the parties. One can ponder the direction in which the current set of strategies and measures in a given country can be improved. Or in other words: What can be considered an improvement? The answer to this question consists of two parts. First of all, there are no \"one- size-fits-all\" solutions. What is considered to be an improvement depends on the public and political preferences and on the specific physical and social context: What types of floods do they encounter? How important is the risk? What flood risks are acceptable and for whom? How much does society want to reduce the risk of flooding? At what (public) price? What measures have already been implemented? And what are the physical and institutional boundary conditions that determine what is possible in the future? Secondly, the user can generally deliver desired results that indicate possible forward-looking approaches based on the most up-to-date disaster management literature. This section describes three desirable results from flood risk management and their main criteria - sustainability, legitimacy and effectiveness. They can help determine where to improve. Criteria can be applied to select strategies and measures, and to design improved governance mechanisms. The results and the main criteria are explained in more detail below. Sustainability Sustainability can be divided into three components: capacity to withstand floods, uptake and recovery capacities, and adaptive capacity. Capacity to resist is defined as the ability to prevent the occurrence of flood risks, usually by using flood protection. This can be seen as the \"first line of defense\". The next \"line of defense\" and the next aspect of sustainability is the ability to assume and recover from floods. This ability is important because floods can always happen no matter how good the defense is. This offers the opportunity for a (relatively) safe defeat, just like the airbag in the car. Capability can be improved by measures that 16 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

mitigate the consequences in the event of a flood and allow for a good recovery. For example, economic damage in the event of flooding can be reduced by a flood-adapted building (before flooding); residents can be evacuated according to evacuation plans (during flooding); and insurance schemes can allow a faster recovery after the flood. Indirectly, insurance schemes can also promote prevention and mitigation of individual risks, for example by offering cheaper insurance policies to property owners who take measures to mitigate the damage. This allows communities to overcome floods and return to \"the usual\" with the least possible inconvenience. The third aspect of sustainability is adaptive capacity or the ability to learn, implement and improve flood risk management. Efficiency Efficiency is a desirable result that stresses that flood risk management must make effective use of resources (economic, human and technological); maximize desired results and minimize input data. Economic efficiency focuses on the use of financial resources. The broad criterion for resource efficiency usage focuses on other types of resources such as technology, infrastructure assets and human resources (eg knowledge, skills and staff). Legitimacy Legitimacy can be defined as public acceptance of input data, process and outcome of flood risk management and related governance mechanisms. This includes many aspects: accountability, transparency, social justice, participation, access to information, procedural justice and acceptability. For example, the decision-making process and relevant information should be transparent so that all concerned stakeholders can see how decisions are made. In addition, there should be opportunities for different stakeholders to take part in relevant points in the decision-making process. All interested parties should be able to challenge the decisions taken and the rule of law guaranteed. Finally, costs and benefits should be distributed fairly among stakeholders. 17 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

How to choose risk management strategies for floods One can wonder what is the desired result of sustainability, effectiveness and legitimacy for the strategies that has to be implemented. The criteria that are most directly applicable to defining an optimal set of strategies are the ability to withstand, the ability to absorb and the resource efficiency. The first two capacities reflect that flood- vulnerable regions will be more sustainable if several flood risk management strategies are applied simultaneously. In several European countries, engineers and flood protection measures dominate flood risk management. Although this is often an effective and cost-effective strategy, other strategies can enrich and improve flood risk management. By combining multiple flood risk management strategies, the loss of human life and social, economic, environmental and cultural losses can be reduced and rehabilitation or smart adaptation after flooding can be made possible. In other words, if one strategy fails, another is still in place, creating a backup option. On the other hand, it may not be efficient to apply all flood risk management strategies at the same time. For example, it may be more effective to invest money in flood protection than to invest money in flood-proof buildings. This depends heavily on the local physical situation, on past investments and on the management capacity to implement certain strategies. For example, in countries with a predominant focus on flood protection (Belgium, France, Poland and the Netherlands), the availability of an effective flood protection infrastructure is a need (\"must be\") and other strategies can be seen as additional strategies to reduce residual risks (\"nice to have\"). A country like England, which has a more balanced approach to strategies, is experiencing more flooding but at the same time is doing better in terms of reaction and recovery. And in France (and to a lesser extent in Belgium) the recovery system is well developed. This contributes to sustainability, but also to the risk that citizens and businesses pay less attention to prevention and 18 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

mitigation. This means that citizens and businesses trust that their losses in the event of flooding will be offset by denying the need to prevent and mitigate the risk. An important discovery of STAR-FLOOD is that deploying multiple strategies at a given location can lead to fragmentation. Participants, policies, laws and other tools that link and harmonize strategies are therefore essential. Because there is no \"one size fits all\" solution, it is recommended to evaluate the pros and cons of each strategy and combination of strategies for a given country or region. In this way, an approach tailored to local physical, socio-economic and institutional conditions can be developed. 3. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE NATIONAL LEGISLATION AND THE CURRENT EMERGENCY PLAN OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CHIPROVCI, BULGARIA The acquisitions of the 2007/60 / EU Floods Directive have been transposed into Bulgarian legislation, in particular the Water Act, the relevant methodologies necessary for the three phases of flood risk assessment and management are developed and the first cycle of these stages is finished. The three stages required by Directive 2007/60 / EC are: • Preparation of Preliminary flood risk assessment for each basin management area; • Mapping flood risk areas and maps of flood risk areas; • Development of a flood risk management plan (FRMP) with a program of measures (PoM) included. The methodologies that correspond to each stage are as follows: • Stage Preliminary flood risk assessment: o Preliminary flood risk assessment in the main river basins of the Republic of Bulgaria - methodology for flood risk assessment as required by Directive 60/2007 / EC; 19 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

o Criteria and methods for identifying and classifying risk and identifying areas with significant potential flood risk (ASPFR); • Stage Map of areas under flooding danger and Map of areas under flooding risk: o Methodology for assessing the threat and risk of floods, as required by Directive 2007/60 / EC • Stage Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMP): o National catalogue of measuers under FRMP 3.1. PRELIMINARY FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT Preliminary flood risk assessment aims to, on the basis of available and easily accessible information, make an initial determination of the risk of floods and of areas with significant flood risk, so that the scope of the necessary work for subsequent in- depth research. Also, within the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment phase, areas for which no significant potential damage is expected can be excluded. Preliminary flood risk assessment is made on the basis of significant past floods and on the basis of a significant potential flood threat (significant potential future floods). Areas with a significant potential flood risk are defined on the basis of the Uniform Risk Classification Criteria for the determination of POPs. These criteria are in 4 categories - \"Human Health\", \"Economic Activity\", \"Environment\" and \"Cultural Heritage\". 3.2. MAPS OF FLOOD-PRONE AREAS AND MAPS OF FLOOD RISK AREAS • Maps of areas under flood threat The methodology for developing maps of flood risk areas has been developed according to the requirements of national and European legislation. According to it, the following scenarios are considered: 20 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

• floods with a low probability of occurrence for which the probable re- occurrence period is greater than or equal to 1000 years, as well as unforeseeable events; • floods with an average probability of occurrence where the likely re- occurrence period is greater than or equal to 100 years; • floods with a high probability of occurrence where the likely re-occurrence period is greater than or equal to 20 years where appropriate. For each of these card scenarios, the following elements should be presented: • the extent of the flood; • water depths or water levels, as appropriate; • the flow rate or the respective water quantities, where appropriate. The process of creating flood threat maps covers the following steps: • Hydrological studies to determine maximum water quantities with a fixed repetition period of Q20, Q100 and Q1000. • Hydraulic calculations based on 1D and 2D modeling to obtain water levels at maximum water quantities with a fixed repetition period of Q20, Q100 and Q1000. • Creation of topographic data and information using modern methods and tools. The quality of the results depends on the accuracy of the digital terrain models. • Results processing - it is expressed in a combination of hydraulic modeling results and topographic data. Using GIS methods and technologies to create the data needed for card production. Below are some requirements and recommendations from the Methodology on these steps. Hydrological studies Different statistical methods are used to determine typical water quantities based on certain annual maximum water quantities for hydrometric stations. In places where hydrometric measurements are absent and in those in which a river network is absent, regional analyzes and dependencies are used to determine maximum water quantities with a repetition period of 20, 100 and 1000 g. In Bulgaria the 21 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

methods of Prof. Gerasimov are widely spread. Worldwide, in recent years, different regionalization methodologies and applications have been developed. Hydraulic calculations Hydraulic modeling uses a variety of hydraulic mathematical models based on the underlying hydraulic equations in open currents to provide a relationship between water and water in a given cross section along the river. Hydrodynamic calculations are based on one-dimensional (1D) and two- dimensional (2D) modeling. Typically, either a 1D model or a 2D pattern is used, but in some cases a combination of these is used in sophisticated software. At present, 1D models are the most commonly used not only in terms of their number and cost of commercial programs, but also in terms of their practical use in water management. This includes a set of mathematical models that simplify the movement of the flow in the transverse profile in motion at one point. The computing area is described as a set of multiple profiles and structures, if necessary. Each transverse profile is represented in the calculation scheme as 1 computing point, with the hydraulic characteristics describing its shape and type and assuming that the result obtained at the computing point characterizes the median for a given profile. In this way, the horizontal and vertical differences in a given profile are ignored and all hydraulic features are presented as one flow rate, velocity and water level for each profile, which varies over time. Thanks to this simplification, a large territory can be described with a 1D model with a relatively small number of computing points. The number of points that are entered in the calculation scheme has a direct effect on the length of the calculations. 2D mathematical models are currently marketed thanks to the rapid development of computing, which was a major limiting element for their massive use. These mathematical models use a two-dimensional horizontal scheme that can be characterized as a spatial view of the desired territory, where the computing network (typically a square or triangle) covers the territory required by the operator. For this method of describing the reality, the following simplification has been made: the speed in the different parts of 22 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

the cross-section is assumed to be constant. As mentioned, the area of interest is covered by a network of calculation points, which allows a very detailed description of the observed hydraulic characteristics, including their plane distribution. This advantage is achieved at the cost of large computer requirements as it is necessary to solve flow equations in a significant number of points and on the other hand the stability of the calculations requires a small time step which again increases the need for better computing technique and extends the calculation time. Most often, 2D models are used for small local flow studies in areas with complicated hydraulic conditions where we need to have detailed spatial knowledge of speed, depth and water quantity. A classic example of the use of this type of model is the location around bridges, river inflows, water movement in complex flooded terraces, water movement in settlements and more. Digital terrain model (DTM) The results of hydraulic calculations (water surface elevations) are used to create a spatial distribution of the water surface and create a grid on the water surface in the different scenarios. This grid is compared to terrain grid (DTM). Areas with positive values are flooded, and those with negative values are protected. The result is a map of the flooded territories. It provides clear and easy to understand information about the depth and area of flooding. The digital terrain model is one of the most important elements for mapping flood risk areas. DTM is a series of numbers that represent the spatial distribution of terrain heights above a reference plane. When determining the flooding areas for different scenarios and their analysis, it is necessary to have a digital model of the terrain with high precision. The right choice of horizontal and vertical DTM accuracy has a significant impact on the reliability and accuracy of the final product. The accuracy of DTM depends on many factors including the degree of detail, the density and distribution of output data, the interpolation algorithm and the DTM 23 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

resolution. Generally, the more accurate and denser the output data, the more accurate the DTM is created. There are different methods and techniques for creating DTMs such as topographic maps, stereo aero images, satellite data, LIDAR laser scanning information. The most commonly used method of creating DTM in our country is the use of digitized vector height data obtained from contour maps on different scales. The results, and more precisely the DTM obtained using digitized maps, can be improved using additional geodetic measurements. This activity requires many field activities, time and costs the end product. Creation of the flood threat maps The first step in receiving maps of the flood threat is creating a continuous water surface. This water surface is obtained by interpolating the water levels in the cross sections. It is recommended to first create a triangulated irregular network (TIN) where the height points are in an asymmetrical irregular triangular mesh and then transform into a grid of cell size identical to that of the DTM created. Next step is to determine the flooded areas as from the water area grid is extracted the grid of the terrain. Areas with positive values are flooded, and those with negative values are protected. Depth of flooding should be shown on all flood maps. It is recommended that the flooding be represented in blue color. It is recommended that water levels to be presented in several categories, with the limits of these categories being: 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3 and 4 m. Table 2 Depth [m] R G B Color 0 ÷ 0.5 189 17 95 0.5 ÷ 1.0 200 30 90 1.0 ÷ 1.5 208 54 94 24 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

1.5 ÷ 2.0 210 73 90 2.0 ÷ 2.5 213 85 85 2.5 ÷ 3.0 223 83 78 3.0 ÷ 4.0 232 85 64 >4 240 97 50 The speed of the stream is information that is more difficult to obtain than the depth of water. Adequate information can only be obtained from 2D hydraulic models. The velocity of the flow can be represented as vectors, with the length of the vector representing how big the velocity is. It is recommended that the water speeds be represented by arrows in the following three categories: Table 3 Water Speed m/s Presentation R G B Color 0.2 - 0.5 m/s 151 204 99 Green 0,5 - 2 m/s 255 232 89 Yellow > 2 m/s 255 69 36 Red • classification of probable occurrence of flooding If the map represents the flooded territories in the three scenarios, each probability must be represented in a different color. It is recommended that the green color be used for frequent floods, the yellow flood color for floods with an average probability of occurrence, and the red flood color for floods with low probability of occurrence. Recommended color range to represent flooding according to likelihood of occurrence: Table 4 probability of flooding occurring color R G B Color floods with a high probability of green 151 204 99 25 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

occurrence (20 years) floods with an average probability of yellow 255 232 89 occurrence (100 years) floods with low probability (1000 red 255 69 36 years) • classification / different degree of threat depending on the depth of flooding After a thorough review of the methods and criteria used in the world, the following classification is recommended: Table 5 Level of Description Color R G B Color Depth [m] threat 0 214 96 < 0.5 Low Caution green 235 255 61 0.5 ÷ 1.5 Middle Dangerous for some 255 181 20 1.5 ÷ 2.5 Significant people - children, adults, yellow 255 31 0 > 2.5 Very high people with disabilities Dangerous for most orange people Dangerous for all people, buildings and emergency red services Presenting maps of a flood threat Mapping requirements for presenting results. Cards need to be clear, understandable and contain the necessary information. Figure 2 presents schematically 26 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

the elements to be presented on the maps and their location. The basic information to be displayed on the maps is: Figure 2. - Card name - Content or destination of the map - Organization that created and published the map, contacts - Date of elaboration and publication - Legend (description of symbols) - Purpose and use - Creation method, a brief description of used data and models and software - Coordinate system and height system - Direction - Scale – it is recommended that the scale be from 1: 2,500 to 1: 10,00 - Map showing the location of the flood threat area. In cases where the RSPPN for which the relevant map is drawn is larger and this does not allow both the map sheet size and the scale to be complied with, it is recommended to create several threat maps covering the whole ASPFR. This will be reflected in the flood threat location field 27 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

Figure 2. Template for mapping the flood threat map For format A3: Cartographic Image Field: This is the most important part of the map. It can distinguish two components - general geographic and thematic. Thematic content is leading. It presents the corresponding threat map and should dominate the general geographic content. The latter, in turn, aims to help the reader gain a clear picture of the location and scope of the ASPFR. For this purpose, an aerial photograph, satellite image or topographic map can be used. The dimensions of this field for the A3 format are: • a width of 31.4 cm and a height of 25.4 cm In another maps format, the dimensions change proportionally. 28 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

Map Title field - Located in the top right corner of the map. It should indicate the period of repetition and the corresponding probability of occurrence of the event. • font size of the card name - 14 Legend field and description of symbols – it’s located immediately below the map heading. It contains contingencies for all elements of the individual threat maps. • width 10,0 cm and height 7,4 cm Field for Legend of general geographic layers and legend of hydrotechnical facilities • width 10.0 cm and height 12.1 cm 29 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

Study Area field is located in the lower right corner of the map. It lists the exact name of the ASPFR to which the risk map and its location refer. The latter can be done differently, but the goal is one - quick and easy localization. • width 10.0 cm and height 4.7 cm • font size of the area name - 10 Field for the map of the location of the flood threat area • 7,8 cm in width and 3,5 cm in height / the image is for illustration only and is not relevant to the area under investigation / Data Sources / Creation Method field - contains a brief description of the data, models and software used • width 15.8 cm and height 3.8 cm 30 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

• font size - 12 Scale field, Orientation, Map projection and Height system • width 9.4 cm and height 3.8 cm • font size: o for scale - 12 o for Map Projection and Height System - 10 Executor Logo Field, Contracting Authority Logo, and Release Date • width 5,8 cm and height 3,8 cm • font size - 10 When using a format other than A3, the sizes and fonts change proportionally. • Maps of areas with a risk of flooding 31 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

According to the requirements of the Floods Directive and the Waters Act, flood risk maps show the unfavorable consequences of floods for each of the probable periods for which flood risk maps are drawn, expressed by the following indicators: „1. approximate number of potentially affected residents; 2. type of economic activity in the eventually affected area; 3. installations under Annex 4 to Art. 117 of the Environmental Protection Act, which may cause additional pollution due to accident in case of flood and protected areas under Art. 6 of the Biodiversity Act, for which there is an opportunity to be affected; 4. other significant sources of pollution not specified in point 3.” Taking into account the requirements of the Directive and the WA, the maps refer only to individual parameters of the objects at risk - their availability (or \"exposure\") and the location of the threat. The risk as a complete and detailed one is not explicitly required. General scheme and working steps of a flood risk mapping methodology Table 6 Work Activity step 1. Determining the area of the flood risk map: Identify the area of significant potential risk identified by the EERF. The end range of the flood risk map is determined by the flood area range for a set repeat period, e.g. 1000th result of mapping the threat. 2. Map an approximate number of potentially affected residents: Determine the number of potentially affected residents. The main source of information for the number of inhabitants is the 17th census in Bulgaria - Census 2011. Detailed methods for calculating the affected population are given in the Methodology. 32 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

3. Mapping a type of economic activity in the eventually affected area: To identify the type of business activity in the affected area. The main source of information is the cadastral map and cadastral registers. In the absence of such an exception, the Land Parcel Identification System (as a last resort and the Recovered Property Card (for agricultural and forest areas) may be used. For areas lacking such land use data, this can be determined on the basis of orthophotomaps under certain conditions and assuming a low confidence. Detailed methods for calculating the economic activity concerned are given in the Methodology. 4. Mapping of installations under Annex 4 to Art. 117 of the Environmental Protection Law (EPL), and protected areas under Art. 6 of the Biodiversity Law (BdL) for which there is an opportunity to be affected: The relevant spatial coordinates of pollutants in the Register of the Ministry of Environment and Water (MEW), e.g. according to the EERF methodology, and are marked with an appropriate encoding symbol. 5. Mapping other significant sources of pollution: The corresponding spatial coordinates of other sources of pollution shall be determined and marked with an appropriate coding symbol. 6. Mapping other objects of interest: The corresponding spatial coordinates of the objects of interest are identified and marked with an appropriate encoding symbol. 7. Layout of flood risk map: The information layers for the different flood threat scenarios are combined with the GIS layers for the elements in the exposure. A risk map shall be drawn up in accordance with the guidance given in the Methodology. 8. Preparation of final GIS reporting files: The used and generated GIS files in the risk map are reformatted to the 33 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

appropriate format and geographic projection. Detailed methods for these operations are given in the Methodology. Design and structure of flood risk maps Construction of flood risk maps Flood risk maps are thematic or special maps whose content presents the risk of flooding for a particular territory. The primary purpose of these maps is to provide readers with systematized information on potentially affected elements of flood risk with a certain degree of security and to assist stakeholders in making decisions. When compiling risk maps, certain rules need to be met, including: • The range of the risk map must match the scope of the threat map. • The basis of the risk map can be updated information (available topographic maps, aero photograph or satellite image). This aims at updating the map base on which the thematic content will be visualized. • The scale of risk maps should allow identification of objects such as property boundaries and buildings, which in turn are a basic unit in identifying potentially endangered risk elements. It is recommended that flood risk maps be created at a scale of 1:10 000. • Each flood risk map must be drawn to the A3 – landscape-orientated. There will be cases where the ASPFR for which the map is drawn is of a larger scope and this does not allow the simultaneous observance of the size of the card sheet and, on the other hand, the scale. In such cases, it is recommended to create several risk maps covering the entire ASPFR. • Creating a flood risk map should be accompanied by a generalization of map data. Rules must be respected, including: thematic content should dominate the general geographic; there should be no overlapping of contingent signs and inscriptions. 34 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

• The font and letter size should be matched to the map scale to make the card readable. Compilation of the flood risk map should follow the pattern shown in the figure below. Figure 3. Model for mapping the flood risk The flood risk map includes seven key elements, including: • Cartographic image • Card title • Legend of thematic content; • Map slice; • Legend of general geographic content; • Mathematical basis; • Data on compilers and date of preparation. 35 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

The cartographic image (item 1 from Figure 3) is the most important part of each card. It can distinguish two components - general geographic and thematic. Thematic content is leading. It presents the basic idea of the risk map, namely the potentially endangered elements of risk, and should dominate the general geographic content. The latter, in turn, aims to help the reader gain a clear picture of the location and scope of the ASPFR. The network of parallels and meridians must be mapped. Card title (item 2 of Figure 3) is located in the upper right corner of the map. It must indicate the period of repetition and the corresponding probability of occurrence of the event. Legend of thematic content (Element 3 of the Figure 3) is located immediately below the title of the map. It shows the notional signs for all the risk elements that can be found on the map. They are divided into two main groups: • Elements of risk (item 3A from Figure 3) which includes the type of business activity, the number of inhabitants affected, the pollutant installations and the sites of the national ecological network; • Other elements of risk (item 3B from Figure 3) which includes objects from Critical Infrastructure (3B1) and Cultural Objects (3B2). All types of objects are included in the legend of thematic content, regardless of whether they are potentially affected in the specific ASPFR. What is under threat in the relevant predicted scenarios should be noted in the column “Qualitative Indicator”, located to the right of the contingency signs. The potential damage, which can be measured in area or number, must be recorded against each conditional sign in the cell. In the event that a particular risk element is not potentially affected, the cell opposite it is 36 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

left blank and stained in gray. The way to measure potential damages for the individual elements of risk is as follows: • type of business activity - area (decare), which is recorded against each type of economic activity. • number of people affected - number of people, which is recorded against its corresponding symbol. The remaining cells are left empty. • pollutant installations - number of objects to be recorded against each of the two categories. • sites of the national ecological network - number of sites and area (ha), which are recorded against each of the two categories. • critical Infrastructure - Number of objects to be recorded against each type of objects. • cultural objects - number of objects to be recorded against each of the two categories. All values in the “Qualitative Indicator” column in the thematic content legend reflects the potential damage to the entire ASPFR. Even where the area covers more than one settlement, the values against each metric refer to the entire ASPFR. Insertion map slice (element 4 of Figure Figure 3) is located in the lower right corner of the map. It lists the exact name of the ASPFR to which the risk map and its location refer. The latter can be done differently, but the goal is one - quick and easy localization. / the image is for illustration only and is not relevant to the area under investigation / 37 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

There will probably be few cases where the ASPFR area does not allow it to be represented on a sufficiently large scale, preferably 1:10 000, within just one A3 map sheet. Therefore, several maps must be made to cover all parts of the area. In these cases, it is advisable to map the slice in the map apart from the location of the ASPFR as a whole and the coverage of each card sheet. Legend of general geographic content (Element 5 of the Figure 3) is located at the bottom of the risk map. It includes conditional signs for major thematic groups, incl. settlements, transport network and hydrography. This is the minimum additional content to help good orientation. The Mathematical Base of the Card (Element 6 of the Figure 3) is given at the bottom left of the risk map. It includes the scale of the map (numeric, linear and scale for printing), arrow indicating the north, map projection information. An element of the mathematical foundation of the map is the network of parallels and meridians located on the mapping image. Compilers data and Drawing Date (item 7 of Figure 3) are given in the lower left corner of the risk map. The content of this element is relatively free. It may include information about the compilers, the organization for which the card is intended, the logos, the date of card drawing and another explanatory text. For each ASPFR, three flood risk maps must be prepared - one for repeat periods once every 20 years, 100 years and 1000 years Choosing methods and fonts to display map content Given the diversity of data presenting the potential flood risk, a combined approach is used for visualization. It includes a qualitative background for the representation of area objects and the means of conditional signs for the representation of one-dimensional objects. Here's a preview of the proposed conditional signs for visualization. The analysis will begin with those used for the thematic content. This section applies to the following signs: 38 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

• type of business activity; • number of affected inhabitants; • installations for pollutants; • sites of the national ecological network. To them are added the so-called other elements of risk to better inform the content of the card. They include: • Critical Infrastructure, incl. medical establishments, educational institutions, airports, ports, railway / bus stations, MoI institutions, administrations; • cultural objects, incl. sites of national importance and those of the UNESCO list. To describe the type of economic activity that could potentially be affected by a wave with certain security, a quality background was used. The table below lists the types of business activity and their corresponding colors for visualizing the risk map. Table 7 Color Color combination (RGB) № Categories of assets by vulnerability 255 255 0 1 Residential areas 2 Mixed residential areas 255 170 0 3 Communal infrastructure 4 Transport infrastructure 230 76 0 5 Technical infrastructure 6 Industry - manufacturing and storage 190 190 190 7 Places for sports and recreation 8 Green areas 232 190 255 160 32 240 144 238 144 34 139 34 Since the thematic content, and in particular the type of business activity, will be represented on a raster image (topographic maps, aerial photography or satellite imagery 39 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

- according to the availability of relevant data), dense background color would hide details of potentially flooded territory. Therefore, it is recommended that the transparency be set to 30% (up to 40%). Greater transparency is not recommended because in that case the colors will become hard to distinguish. In legend of the map (item 3A1 of Figure 3) conditional signs are displayed for all types of business regardless of whether the ASPFR is potentially affected. To the right of the column is the column \"Quantitative Indicator\", which should indicate the total area of the potentially affected type of economic activity in ha. If any of the species is not affected, the cell opposite it is left blank and grayed out (RGB - 225-225-225). To show the number of people affected, it is suggested to use a conditional sign that quantifies the number of people affected. In the legend of the map (item 3A2 of Figure 3) the scale for visualizing the number of people affected is presented. To the right of it, the total number of potentially affected residents for the entire ASPFR is recorded against the corresponding conditional sign. 40 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

The placement of the appropriate conditional sign must be on potentially affected territory, preferably residential or mixed, if any. The submission of information on the number of people affected also depends on the number of settlements included in the specific ASPFR. If it is larger than one, it is appropriate to set a separate conditional mark for each settlement. To present the pollutant installations, it is proposed to use a conditional sign distinguishing two major types of pollutants: • IPPC installations; • other pollutants. There are two ways of presenting the objects from the national ecological network - a conditional sign and a qualitative background. The reason is that objects in this category often occupy large areas. The spatial scope of the protected area is represented by the qualitative background and the name of the protected territory must be attached to the conditional sign. It is recommended that, if part of a protected area is potentially flooded, the conditional mark should be placed in the flooded area. Two main groups are included in the risk element \"Objects of the national ecological network\": • NATURA protected areas; • Protected areas under the Protected Areas Act. Beyond the mandatory elements of risk, risk maps can be enriched with information about other elements of risk. In the legend of the map (element 3B of Figure 3) they are presented under the main elements and are grouped as critical infrastructure (Element 3B1) and cultural objects (Element 3B2). The table below shows the contingency signs that are proposed to represent them on the risk map. Critical Infrastructure 1. Medical centre 2. Educational institution 3. Airport 41 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

4. Harbour 5. railroad / bus station 6. Ministry of Interior institution 7. Administration Cultural objects 1. Sites of national importance 2. UNESCO sites Flood risk maps also include general geographic content. It is visualized by symbolic signs depicting settlements, road and railway network and hydrographic network. A basic requirement for general geographic content is not to dominate the thematic but to complement it. The table below gives contingencies for visualization of general geographic content. Settlements capital 1. city 2. village 3. quarter 4. 5. cloister Transport network 1. highway and high-speed road 2. a republican road 3. municipal road 4. settlement street railway line 5. Hydrography linear water body 1. 42 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

2. area water body The font of all inscriptions in the flood risk maps should be the same. It is recommended to use Arial. The font size must be matched to the scale of the map. It is important which of the objects on the map to be inscribed. From the thematic content, an inscription with the name of the object should be against the conditional sign of the pollutant installations, the sites of the national ecological network, the critical infrastructure sites and the cultural sites if they are potentially affected. If there are concentrations of objects in some parts of the map and it is difficult to label them all, the map maker needs to decide how it’ll best to do it. Overlaps are not allowed. From the general geographic content, an inscription with the name must necessarily have the conditional sign of each settlement. Numbers inscription (according to international and / or Bulgarian numbering) must have highways, high-speed roads and roads from the national road network. Labels with a name must have rivers and surface water bodies such as lakes, seas. The inscriptions of the general geographic content objects are mandatory and do not depend on the coverage of the floodplain area with the corresponding security provided by the card. Scale of cards Flood risk maps should be drawn up in a scale to best represent the flood risk in both electronic and paper formats. The scale of flood risk maps is recommended to be 1:10 000 for the whole country. If the scope of the ASPFR allows, it may be 1: 5,000. The cartographic projection of the risk maps is recommended to be WGS 1984, UTM zone 34 or zone 35. This is determined by the fact that significant if not all of the incoming spatial data will be in that projection. On the other hand, this is also the projection used in the GIS Portals of Basin Directorates. The cartographic projection must necessarily be listed in the card legend (item 6 of the Figure 3). 43 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

3.3. FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PLANS (FRMP) Национални приоритети и цели за управление на риска от наводнения Implementation of the national flood risk management policy is carried out in accordance with nationally defined priorities and objectives. For each of the identified national priorities, specific targets are defined at national level. The identified national priorities relate to different aspects of flood risk management, namely: • Protection of human health - 4 specific national targets have been defined for this priority; • Greater protection of Critical Infrastructure and Business - with 2 specific national targets; • Enhance environmental protection - 4 specific national targets; • Improving the preparedness and responses of the population - 2 specific national targets; • Improving administrative capacity for flood risk management - 5 specific national targets; Annex A shows national priorities and their specific objectives. Program of Measures and National Catalog of Measures for FRMP The program of measures in the FRMP will be implemented during the period 2017 - 2021. The national catalog was developed to implement a single national approach to flood risk management in the four river basin management areas and includes a total of 154 risk mitigation measures floods. The approach to selecting FRMP measures for individual ASPFRs should be consistent with international practice, which follows the direction from the more general to the more specific, first to identify the common categories of measures that would be 44 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

most appropriate for each ASPFR, then to select from the National Catalog the specific measures corresponding to the established categories of measures. Following the preparation of threat and flood risk maps, the FRMP project, including the PoM, should be reviewed and refined according to the results of the maps. 3.4. OPERATIONAL EMERGENCY PLAN OF CHIPROVCI MUNICIPALITY, RBULGARIA Chiprovci Municipality is located in the western part of Montana District. It includes the lands at the foot of Chiprovtsa Mountain - the highest part of the Western Balkan Mountains. To the northwest, these lands are enclosed by the Lom River, south of Lopushanska Ogosta, and to the north by the Shiroka Mountain (Prebalkana), whose slopes rise not far from the Prevalski River bed. The total area of the municipality of Chiprovci is 286.8 km2, which is 7.89% of the territory of the Montana region and 0.26% of the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria. – Figure 4 – Satellite image on the territory of Chiprovci Municipality 45 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

The main waterways that pass through the Chiprovci municipality are the Ogosta and Prevalska rivers, which fill the Ogosta Dam - a strategically important source for the area. There are also short and small rivers (a total of 38 for the municipality of Chiprovci) and a number of gullies, which are filled with water only in the spring, when the snow is melting or higher quantities of torrential rains float. In close proximity to them, in the ravines and valleys, there are many sources that the population has long known and used. Legal Framework for Planning The flood protection plan on the territory of Chiprovci Municipality, Montana District has been developed in accordance with national and European requirements. The main documents governing its preparation are: • Water Act, as amended, SG. No. 55 of 3 July 2018 • Disaster Protection Act • Ordinance on Early Warning and Disclosure in Disasters • Ordinance on the conditions and the order for functioning of the national system for early warning and disclosure of the executive and disaster control bodies and for disclosure in case of air hazard • National Disaster Protection Program 2014-2018 Content of the flood protection plan on the territory of the municipality of Chiprovci The content of the plan is in accordance with local law. A justification is provided of the need for a flood protection plan and measures are taken to prevent or mitigate the risk. It also outlines the measures that can be taken in case of a flood to protect the population. The distribution of the duties and the officials responsible for the implementation of the envisaged measures, as well as the technical, medical and engineering support of the events and the provision of the public order are detailed. The order of declaring a state of emergency and the actions and measures to be taken in this case are specified. 46 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

The activities and measures in urgent emergency-repair works (UERW) are scheduled. The sources of financing for funding and resources needed to implement the flood protection plan are presented. Here are the ways in which different parts of the Uniform rescue system (URS) interact with each other in flood situations. The order for early warning and disclosure of the executive bodies, the constituent parts of the URS and the population in case of flooding on the territory of the municipality is detailed. There are also the available channels for connecting with the institutions and the population. Information on the teams and means of the components of the single life-saving system and the time of preparedness for response available to the municipality of Chiprovci is presented. Analysis of the content of the plan in terms of European practices The prepared flood protection plan of the municipality of Chiprovci meets the regulatory requirements of the Republic of Bulgaria. The plan mainly covers flood prevention and response activities. With regard to European good practices and strategies, the following flood risk management strategies, which are laid down in the Chiprovci municipality plan, can be defined. Table 8. Review of the relative importance of flood risk management strategies in the municipality of Chiprovci Municipality of Chiprovci 47 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme. Prevention Protection Decrease Preparation Restoration

1. Before the flood: • With respect to the prevention of flood risks, the measures in question are very few. It is recommended to carry out a preliminary flood risk assessment, which is intended to identify areas with a potential flood risk or a likely potential flood risk. So far, no such assessment has been made, or maps of flood-threatened areas and maps of flood risk areas, as the Chiprovci municipality does not fall into a region with a significant potential flood risk. This can be seen from the prepared maps of the flood- threatening areas and the flood risk maps for the Danube basin district. Annex B • Reducing the probability of flooding is also poorly affected in the Plan. It is recommended that in the future, after the Flood Risk Management Plan is underway, policies are in place to build flood protection infrastructure. • For future floods, another important recommendation is that, following the preparation of a flood risk management plan, flood risk mitigation measures, such as the construction of retention basins to retain water volumes, are sought. 2. During the flood: • With regard to flood-preparedness and response measures, the plan is well structured and meets European flood protection practices. 3. After the flood: • The main recommendation for the plan is to include municipal flood restoration policies that include reconstruction and recovery plans as well as public compensation or private insurance systems. In general, the Chiprovci flood protection plan is approaching good European practices, but in some parts it is less developed and there is scope for improvement and more detailed development. 48 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.

3.5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS For the plan thus drafted, it should be noted that it is mainly focused on flood preparation (response), with this indicator having the potential to significantly improve Organizational Information, Facility Preparation, Authorities and References, Emergency Responsible Roles, Communication Plan and Resources, Emergency Alert, Resource Call List, Staff Call Protocol, Response, Population Tracking System, Overvoltage Capacity Plan, Security / Safety Issues and evacuation, including trends in the cooperation level and accuracy of risk assessment. With regard to the other strategies, the plan does not have the required level of compliance with European practices. On the other hand, as has been noted above, it is not the case that emergency plans cover and integrate all kinds of flood risk strategies. On this basis, the following important recommendations should be made to improve the Chiprovci Municipality Emergency Plan, which should be part of the strategies and good European practices. 1. With regard to prevention, municipal plans for flood risk assessment and identification of risk areas should be developed. This task should be elaborated at the Municipality level by elaborating the respective Maps of the flood-threatening areas and Maps of flood risk areas. On the one hand, this activity will lead to a clear definition of the threatened territories and will provide a basis for elaborating and supplementing the existing plans. On the other hand, the information from these maps will be provided to the Basin Directorate Danube Region (BDDR) and will be reflected in the next FRMP for the Ogosta river valey. 2. Secondly, additional means of protecting the population should be provided through the construction of protective dikes, early warning systems, etc. 3. The Emergency Plan should pay particular attention to the means of restoring and eradicating the effects of floods. 49 The project is co-funded by EU through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria–Serbia Programme This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union through the Interreg-IPA CBC Bulgaria-Serbia Programme, CCI No 2014TC16I5CB007, 2014-2020. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Chiprovtsi, Alternative and Development – CHAR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the Managing Authority of the Programme.