DAMOCLES  - EVG1-CT-1999-00007

START-UP MEETING

UNIVERSITY OF MILAN

DEPARTMENT OF EART SCIENCES

Milano

4-5 April 2000

MINUTES

PRESENT

James Bathurst (Coordinator) (Newcastle)

Giovanni Crosta (Milan-Bicocca)

Federico Agliardi (Milan-Bicocca) (part of meeting)

Paolo Frattini (Milan-Bicocca) (part of meeting)

Fausto Guzzetti (CNR-IRPI Perugia)

Alberto Cararra (Bologna) (Technical discussions only)

Mario Lenzi (Padova)

Jose-Maria Garcia-Ruiz (CSIC IPE Zaragoza)

Carlos Marti (CSIC IPE Zaragoza)

Santiago Rios (ITGE Zaragoza)

1 - TABLED DOCUMENTS

a) EC Contract and Annexes I (work description), II and III

b) Preliminary version of Consortium Agreement for Principal Contractors

2 - AGENDA

Tuesday 4 April

9.30-9.50 Welcome (Giovanni Crosta & James Bathurst)

9.50-10.10 Project Overview (James Bathurst)

10.10-13.10 Description of Individual Work Packages

10.10-10.40 WP1 CSIC/ITGE Zaragoza (Carlos Marti & Santiago Rios)

10.40-11.10 WP2 U Milan-Bicocca (Giovanni Crosta & Fausto Guzzetti)

11.40-12.10 WP3 U Padova (Mario Lenzi)

12.10-12.40 WP4 U Newcastle (James Bathurst)

12.40-13.10 WP5 U Newcastle (James Bathurst & Fausto Guzzetti)

14.30-17.30 Discussion of Work Package Links

14.30-15.00 WP1 inputs to WP3 and WP4

15.00-16.00 WP3 and WP4 inputs to WP2

16.30-17.00 WP1, WP2, WP3, WP4 inputs to WP5

17.00-17.30 Integration of end-users into the project

Wednesday 5 April

9.00-11.00 Contractual Matters

- EC contract/requirements

- Consortium Agreement

- Payments

- Technology Implementation Plan (TIP)

- Quality Assurance

- Publications

- 6-month report

- Date of next meetings

- Formal end of start-up meeting

3 - MAIN ACTIONS

1. Check the consortium agreement and send comments to the coordinato by 31 May.

2. Bullet-point progress reports are to be circulated by email a 2-month intervals. The first should be circulated by Friday 2 June.

3. The partners developing or using models should circulate a list of the model requirements, including the desired quality of the data and how the data should be collected. The partners collecting data should take these requirements into account.

4. All partners to send details to Fausto Guzzetti for the web site.

Fausto will circulate requirements but these will include:

•  web addresses of the partner institutions for linking with the DAMOCLES web site

• one-page descriptions of the study areas

• one-page descriptions of the models

• information on the DAMOCLES project from the proposal and final contract document (to be sent by James Bathurst)

• minutes of the progress meetings.

5. All partners to prepare work timetables for the first 12 months of the project (showing actions, deliverables, etc against month dates). The timetables should be brought to Nice or otherwise circulated by 2 May.

• James Bathurst, Giovanni Crosta and Mario Lenzi to develop a flow chart showing how their models are linked.

• The next progress meeting will be in Zaragoza on 25, 26 and 27 October. Full progress reports should be circulated two weeks earlier.

4 - WELCOME

James Bathurst welcomed the participants to the meeting. He thanked the partners for their contributions to the successful proposal and stressed that the DAMOCLES project would be a team effort. He also thanked Giovanni Crosta for making the necessary arrangements for the meeting to take place in Milan.

5 - OVERVIEW

James gave an overview of the project based on the proposal and contract documents. The start date was 1 March 2000 and the finish date will therefore be 28 February 2003. The project is composed of five  workpackages but just as important are the links and exchanges between them: the project should therefore be greater than the sum of its parts. James emphasized that, in addition to completing the research tasks of particular interest to each partner, the project must provide its specified deliverables and should deliver an overall product that meets EU needs.

6 - DESCRIPTION OF INDIVIDUAL WORKPACKAGES

6.1 - WP1 CSIC IPE/ITGE ZARAGOZA

Jose-Maria Garcia-Ruiz reviewed the IPE contribution. He also described the principal field area, which is the Pyrenees north of Zaragoza, and presented a number of geomorphological, maximum daily rainfall and other maps. These should eventually go on the project web site. The field area contains two small experimental catchments which can be used to relate debris flow occurrence to sediment yield. There are also some reservoirs which have been surveyed for sediment yield data. Rainfall with a thirty-year return period is required to trigger abundant debris flows, although lesser rainfall can still trigger flows. It was established in discussion that debris flow characteristics are similar between the Alps and the Pyrenees. The difficulty of carrying out statistical analysis with limited data on debris flow occurrence was noted. (A general meeting theme was of the need to account for uncertainty in data analysis and model output.) It was suggested that EU policies have led to increased debris flow occurrence. This link may therefore be a important project research topic. Santiago Rios indicated that ITGE was interested in the Ebro valley and

described the project field area, to the east of IPE's area. ITGE will

support IPE's work with information on debris flow deposits.

DAMOCLES has two field areas in the Pyrenees, containing three principal

basins.

6.2 - WP2 UNIVERSITY OF MILAN-BICOCCA

Giovanni Crosta, speaking also for Fausto Guzzetti and Alberto Cararra, described the workpackage. Debris flows and rockfalls are both important and will be studied in the project. However, there is a range of debris flows and they need to decide which ones to model. The principal field areas are Lecco and Seriana in the preAlps and Valcamonica in the Alps. Giovanni presented maps of the areas, including hazard maps. The initial database for the work already exists. The hazard assessment GIS to be produced will be PC-based and will be portable between operating systems. It will be based on data and maps available at the 1:10,000 scale but the final product will apply at the 1:25,000 scale. Application areas must be large enough to provide a basis for statistical analysis, typically more than 200 km². The discussion highlighted the need to understand the requirements of the various project models, including data evaluation, and the way in which the models can be used in a GIS environment.

6.3 - WP3 UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA

Mario Lenzi indicated that end-user interest in torrent control was the reason for developing the debris flow model. (The model specification should therefore involve the end-users.) It will be quantitative but must not be complex or data-hungry. It will simulate the debris flow propagation but not the triggering. It therefore needs a time-varying input of water and sediment. The model will have two components : channel routing for the final reach of the main stream and fan deposition. Two basins will be used for relevant data collection, of area 2.4 and 7 km². A form has been devised to standardize data derived from different sources.

6.4 - WP4 UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE

James Bathurst described the SHETRAN landslide sediment yield model and its intended use. The model is applicable at the catchment scale and is intended to give the sediment yield arising from shallow landslides. The Mario nt size="2" color="#000080">model contains a number of simple rules for determining

a) the volume of material in the landslide, 

b) if landslides deposit their sediment at the site of the failure or if they involve downslope transport in the form of a debris flow, and 

c) the runout distance of any debris flow. Information from WP1 will help to check and refine these rules.

The model will be used to simulate the impact of different land management scenarios and climate scenarios on landslide occurrence and the catchment sediment yield, of importance for example to reservoir sedimentation. Two catchments will be simulated, one in the Alps and one in the Pyrenees: an early task is therefore to select suitable sites.

6.5 - WP5 UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE

Discussion was limited to the web site, which is covered in Contractual Matters.

7 - WORKPACKAGE LINKS

7.1 - WP1 INPUTS TO WP3 AND WP4

WP1 will provide data and process relationships which will improve the WP3 and WP4 model developments and applications. Inputs to WP3 are:

- detailed fan description (1-2 m resolution)

- time-varying sedigraph as input to the debris flow model

- grain size and geotechnical characteristics of debris flow

- topography (eg longitudinal profile and channel cross sections of the end reach of the main stream).

The Padova debris flow model should be applied at a site in the Pyrenees towards the end of the project (eg for the Zaragoza workshop). The Padova and Zaragoza teams should therefore liaise over a suitable site. WP4 requires that the debris flow rules in the SHETRAN model should be checked and refined as specified in Section 6.4. The Newcastle and Zaragoza teams should liaise over the necessary work. While WP1 is based mainly on the Pyrenees sites, data should also be used from the two Alpine areas as much as possible. The partners developing or using models should circulate a list of the model requirements, including the desired quality of the data and how the data should be collected. The partners collecting data should take these requirements into account.

7.2 - WP3 AND WP4 INPUTS TO WP2

This link is central to the DAMOCLES project and provoked a long and

stimulating discussion. The principal conclusions were:

a) The WP2 regional GIS discretizes space using geomorphological units (eg subcatchments of varying size). It calibrates recorded channel debris flows against largely time-independent parameters such as land-use and geology to provide a qualitative index for likelihood of debris flow occurrence in each geomorphological unit. Application of the GIS provides a spatially distributed map of debris flow probability across the entire region. The recorded debris flows may refer to different periods of time or to a single event. For example a map for the Leccho region was displayed which is based on debris flows surveyed for a single event.m Different models can be developed for rockfalls, debris flows and landslides. The recorded debris flows can also be presented in a separate inventory map. Because of its dependence on the use of recorded debris flow data, the GIS model is essentially based on past or historic conditions. If land use or climate change in the future, the calibratedì functions may no longer apply. The SHETRAN landslide model (WP4) cannot be

applied at such large (regional scales) but it can help to enhance the GIS model by providing landslide scenarios for altered land use and climate conditions. It can do this by providing landslide and debris flow distributions for the possible future conditions: these distributions (and any altered land use conditions) are then the "virtual ground truth" which form the input for calibration of the GIS for the new conditions. As the GIS model is being developed for the test areas near Milan, the SHETRAN Alpine application catchment should also be in this area, to allow maximum integration of WP2 and WP4. The Newcastle and Milan teams should therefore liaise over a suitable site.

b) The Zaragoza team are also producing a GIS model, but based on pixel discretizations. The two GIS techniques will be compared, probably for an area in Lombardy.

c) The Padova WP3 debris flow model can be used to investigate in detail the hazard at a site identified from the GIS analysis as requiring attention (eg where it is planned to build a road or new infrastucture). For this the GIS analysis must indicate whether or not there is a debris flow fan. The Padova model could then be used to study, for example, the effect of check dams for torrent control or to indicate if the fan is a hazard area. The Padova model can be used for planning purposes, for a quantitative evaluation of sediment deposition on the fan (spatially distributed and as a function of any construction), for studies where debris flows have an economic implication.

d) End-users at the regional scale may not be the same, or may not have the same interests, as those at the local scale. End-users believe in models which fit their background knowledge, eg which simulate a landslide at a site where a landslide has been observed to occur. They may not be interested in the underlying hydrology and other processes. It will be important to stress the model complementarity between WP2, WP3 and WP4 to the relevant end-users.

e) James, Giovanni and Mario will develop a flow chart which shows how the various models are linked and how they complement each other. In due course this can go on the web site.

7.3 - WP1, WP2, WP3, WP4 INPUTS TO WP5

Discussion was limited to the web site, which is covered in Contractual Matters.

7.4 - INTEGRATION OF END-USERS INTO THE PROJECT

The following points arose.

a) Santiago Rios, speaking as an end-user, indicated that:

- he needs to know the risk at the regional scale

- he is interested in all the types of models in the project

- the models need to be relatively simple to use

- the end-users need to be integrated into the philosophy of the project.

b) The end-users should be involved from the beginning of the project and should have some task, such as providing data.

c) End-users want a map or results, but not the details of how these were obtained.

d) End-users are driven by:

- a need to solve a particular problem, or

- legislation, eg they must provide a risk map at a certain scale.

e) It is likely to be consultants who actually use the models, under contract to the end-users, rather than the end-users themselves. In the end-user training courses it will therefore be as important to transfer knowledge of how to use the results as to give out the models. Possibly some relevant consultants should be invited to the end-of-project workshops and training courses. Alternatively an outcome of the project could be an annual short course, run for perhaps five years. (This could be an important component of the project Technology Implementation Plan.) (The coordinator held meetings with the Italian end-users and their project partners immediately after the start-up meeting to ensure their full integration.)

8 - CONTRACTUAL MATTERS

8.1 - WEB SITE

The site will be used for internal (private project) and external

(public) dissemination. The site will contain:

- partner contact details, including links to partner web sites

- end-user contact details

- all project reports, including the contract document annex I and appropriate publications

- minutes of project meetings (after EC approval)

- one-page description of each study area

- one-page description of each model.

Material for the site should be formally approved by the partners and the coordinator.

The site should be active after 6 months (by 31 August). Fausto Guzzetti will circulate a request for the necessary information in due course.

8.2 - EU CONTRACT/REQUIREMENTS

We reviewed the contract. There were no outstanding problems but the following points were noted:

a) Article 16. The Technology Implementation Plan must be delivered two months after the project end. We will discuss this at the next progress meeting.

b) Article 18. A form of words acknowledging EC support but absolving the EC of responsibility for the web site content should be prepared for the web site. Fausto Guzzetti will check the USGS web site for ideas.

c) Partners should keep a detailed file of expenditure to support their claims and to help any audits by the EC.

d) Subcontracts must be fully documented and checked.

8.3 - CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT

We went through the draft Consortium Agreement which has been drawn up by the University of Newcastle. There was some discussion about the information and software which will go into the public domain at the end of the project. Section 8.6 also states that defaulting partners will suffer financial penalties. However, all partners need to read the Agreement carefully and check it with their organizations. All partners should send their comments to the coordinator by the end of May.

8.4 - PAYMENTS

The initial advance from the EC should be paid to the coordinator by the end of April. The coordinator should distribute the advance between the partners by the end of May.

8.5 - TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

This will be discussed at the next progress meeting.

8.6 - QUALITY ASSURANCE

A document on quality assurance procedures for hydrological instrumentation, monitoring and data management is being prepared at the University of Newcastle for a large field research programme. It should be relevant to DAMOCLES and copies will therefore be distributed to the partners in due course. The purpose of the QA system is to ensure that the project is planned and executed in a clear and transparent way and that there is a documented audit trail supporting all data produced during the project. We should adopt a common approach to collection of new data, to ensure compatibility between partners and to meet the needs of the models. For existing datasets it should be specified how they were collected and interpreted.

8.7 - PUBLICATIONS

There must be a fair representation of relevant parties in the authorship of papers arising from the project. For example, if a modelling group wish to write a paper describing simulations based on data collected by another group, they should include a representative of the data collection group in the authorship. Similarly, assistant contractors, subcontractors and end-users should be represented as appropriate.

Mario eight: 100%; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0" align="left">8.8 - REPORTING