DAMOCLES  - EVG1-CT-1999-00007

SECOND PROGRESS MEETING

UNIVERSITA' DI PADOVA

DIPARTIMENTO TERRITORIO E SISTEMI AGRO-FORESTALI

9 - 11 MAY 2001

MINUTES

PRESENT

James Bathurst (Coordinator) (U Newcastle)
Ahmed El-Hames (U Newcastle)
Mario Lenzi (U Padova)
Carlo Gregoretti (U Padova)
Vincenzo D'Agostino (U Padova)
Giovanni Crosta (U Milan-Bicocca)
Paolo Frattini (U Milan-Bicocca)
Jose Maria Garcia-Ruiz (CSIC-IPE Zaragoza)
Carlos Marti (CSIC-IPE Zaragoza)
Adrian Lorente (CSIC-IPE Zaragoza)
Santiago Rios (IGME Zaragoza)
Enrique Acosta (IGME Zaragoza)

APOLOGIES

Fausto Guzzetti (CNR-IRPI Perugia)

1 - TABLED DOCUMENTS

a) Minutes of First Progress Meeting (25-27 October 2001)
b) Contractor Year 1 Progress Reports
c) Contractor Update Progress Reports

2 - AGENDA

Wednesday 9 May

9.00- 9.15 Welcome (Mario Lenzi & James Bathurst)
9.15- 9.30 Project Overview and First Annual Report (James Bathurst)
9.30- 9.45 Review of Actions from Previous Meeting
9.45-15.00 PROGRESS IN INDIVIDUAL WORK PACKAGES
9.45-10.20 WP1 CSIC/IGME Zaragoza (Jose Maria Garcia-Ruiz & Santiago Rios)
10.20-10.55 WP2 U Milan-Bicocca (Giovanni Crosta & Paolo Frattini)

11.00-11.30 COFFEE

11.30-12.05 WP3 U Padova (Mario Lenzi, Vincenzo D'Agostino & Carlo Gregoretti)
12.05-12.40 WP4 U Newcastle (James Bathurst & Ahmed El-Hames)

13.00-14.30 LUNCH

14.30-15.00 WP5 U Newcastle (James Bathurst)
15.00-10.00 DISCUSSION OF WORK PACKAGE LINKS
15.00-16.00 WP1 inputs to WP3 and WP4
16.00-17.00 WP3 and WP4 inputs to WP2

Thursday 10 May

9.00-10.00 WP1, WP2, WP3, WP4 inputs to WP5 and training programme
10.00-10.30 Scientific Progress Meeting and FP6

10.30-11.00 COFFEE

11.00-13.00 CONTRACTUAL MATTERS

- Consortium Agreement
- Year 1 Cost Statements
- Technology Implementation Plan (TIP)
- Reporting
- Publications & Conferences
- Check Table of Partner Information
- Date of next meetings
- Formal end of progress meeting

Friday 11 May

All day Field visit

3 - MAIN ACTIONS

1. U Newcastle, U Milan-Bicocca and U Padova to circulate a list of model data requirements.

2. U Newcastle, U Milan-Bicocca and U Padova to send one-page descriptions of their models to Fausto Guzzetti for the web site.

3. U Padova and CSIC-IPE to confirm a test site for the U Padova model in the Pyrenees.

4. CSIC-IPE (Jose Maria) and U Bologna (Alberto) to agree a common approach to discriminant analysis.

5. CSIC-IPE (Jose Maria) and U Bologna (Alberto) to agree on a comparison of their methods for representing spatial variability for hazard assessment.

6. All partners to confirm that they are recording staff time on timesheets in case of EC audit.

7. CSIC-IPE, IGME and U Milan-Bicocca to use Mario's table for debris flow description.

8. Jose Maria to provide preliminary debris flow relationships by 11 June (WP1 milestone).

9. Jose Maria to prepare a report on the debris flow relationships developed for the focus areas in the Pyrenees and Alps for November 2001 (WP1 milestone and part of deliverable).

10. Mario and Giovanni to send their debris flow relationships to Jose Maria and to liaise with him over production of the report.

11. Giovanni to produce a report on granular flow models, in collaboration with Mario (WP2 milestone and deliverable).

12. Fausto, Mario and Giovanni to work on a web demonstration linking the WP2 and WP3 models.

13. Mario and Giovanni to liaise on the training courses for September 2002 and to bring a firm proposal to the next progress meeting.

14. James to check with EC if we can use our budget to run workshops.

15. All partners to alert potential participants of the 2002 workshops.

16. James to check with the EC if we can top slice our funds to pay the travel of two experts to review our work.

17. All partners to suggest names of experts as soon as possible.

18. James to send original cost proposal documents to the partners.

19. All partners to send their TIP contributions by 31 July.

20. Partners should send two hard copies of each publication to James for forwarding to the EC.

21. Fausto to include conference websites on our website.

 

4 - WELCOME

James Bathurst welcomed the participants to the meeting and thanked
Mario Lenzi and his team for making the necessary arrangements for the
meeting to take place in Padova. Mario Lenzi welcomed the participants to
Padova and gave details of some cultural visits within this historic city,
to be arranged according to participant interest.

5 - PROJECT OVERVIEW AND FIRST ANNUAL REPORT

James thanked the partners for their Year 1 reports and briefly reviewed the excellent progress which has been made in the first year. (This is summarised in the Year 1 Management Report.) Up to now, the partners have been able to develop their research without feeling under too much pressure from the deadlines for deliverables. The only deliverable/milestone in Year 1 concerned the web site, which was set up on schedule. However, Year 2 sees a number of deadlines for the exchange of data between workpackages and it is important that these are met. It is also time to begin developing ideas for dissemination of results and the training programmes of Year 3. Important discussion points for the meeting were therefore workpackage links and deliverables, the training programme and a progress meeting with an emphasis on scientific presentations. Important contractual matters were the Year 1 Cost Statements and the Technology Implementation Plan.

6 - REVIEW OF ACTIONS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING

1. U Newcastle, U Milan-Bicocca and U Padova to circulate a list of model data requirements. This action remains to be completed.

2. All partners to send one-page descriptions of study areas and models to Fausto Guzzetti for the web site. This action is partly completed but the modelling groups need to send details of their models.

3. U Padova and CSIC-IPE to select a test site for the U Padova model in the Pyrenees. This action is in progress.

4. U Newcastle to send details of current rule-based debris flow model to CSIC-IPE to help in developing new relationships. This action has been completed.

5. U Padova's table for debris flow description to be used by all partners. Partners should continue using the table.

6. CSIC-IPE and U Bologna to agree a common approach to discriminant analysis. This action remains to be completed.

7. U Newcastle and CSIC-IPE to select a test area for the U Newcastle model in the Pyrenees. The Ijuez catchment has been selected.

8. U Newcastle and U Milan-Bicocca to agree on Valsassina as test area for U Newcastle model. This has been agreed and a joint field visit is to take place after the progress meeting.

9. CSIC-IPE and U Bologna to agree on a comparison of their methods for representing spatial variability for hazard assessment. This action has still to be completed.

10. Partners with subcontractors to meet subcontractors at six-month intervals. Generally the partners are in frequent contact with their subcontractors.

11. Coordinator to circulate a form for recording staff time inputs. A form can be obtained from the University of Newcastle website. Partners should confirm that they are recording staff time.

12. All partners to download Technology Implementation Plan Data Sheets from the cordis web site and review requirements. The TIP is discussed under Contractual Matters.

13. CSIC-IPE to circulate Figure 2 from the Zaragoza meeting progress report. This action is now out of date.

14. Coordinator to circulate instructions on writing annual reports and submitting financial statements. This action has been completed and the Year 1 report has been submitted to the EC.

15. U Milan-Bicocca and CNR-IRPI to discuss convening a session at the 2002 meeting of the European Geophysical Society. This has been superseded by a number of new possibilities, discussed under Contractual Matters.

7 - PROGRESS IN INDIVIDUAL WORKPACKAGES

Reports were presented by all the partners, describing progress in each of the five workpackages. Full details are in the submitted written Year 1 reports and are not therefore repeated here. A number of discussion points are treated in the next section.

8 -  WORKPACKAGE LINKS

8.1 WP1 Inputs to WP3 and WP4

 

a) The Padova debris flow model (WP3) is to be run for a site in the Pyrenees focus area by the end of the project. Mario Lenzi and Santiago Rios continue to liaise over site selection.

 

b) The rule-based description of debris flow behaviour in the Newcastle landslide erosion model (SHETRAN) (WP4) is to be refined using functional relationships derived from field data. In discussion the following criteria and relationships were identified as needing checking or altering:

• what determines whether a soil slip becomes a debris flow or not? (A function of soil type and rate of soil drainage);

• the current rule that debris flow deposition takes place once the hillslope gradient falls below 10 degrees may be appropriate for channels (confined debris flows) but a figure of 20 degrees may be more appropriate for planar slopes (unconfined flows);

•  what relationships can be used to calculate debris flow runout distance in the focus areas?

• what are the characteristic landslide scar dimensions in the focus areas?

• typically how much material is deposited by a debris flow (information needed also for the WP3 model)?

We also discussed the difference between confined debris flows (channel width/depth ratio < 5), which occur as a result of channel bed failure, and unconfined debris flows, which occur as a result of a planar landslide. Bank collapse, in-channel sources and channel head source areas were noted as important contributions to sediment supply.

c) Data on debris flows are being collected by several partners at various sites in the Pyrenees and Italian Alps. Partners should continue

• CSIC-IPE, ITGE and U Milan-Bicocca to use Mario's table for debris flow description;

• Jose-Maria and Alberto Cararra to agree a common approach to discriminant analysis of the conditions favouring landslide occurrence;

• Mario -bottom: 0" align="left">data files should indicate how the data were collected or measured (eg by using a DTM of given resolution, field technique....).

d) According to the project "Description of Work", the following deliverables/milestones are due now or later this year:

• May 2001. WP1 preliminary debris flow relationships for WP3 and WP4. Jose Maria will provide the preliminary relationships for WP4 by 11 June (to be discussed during the Newcastle team's field visit to the Ijuez catchment);

• November 2001. WP1 final debris flow relationships for WP3 and WP4. Jose Maria will prepare a report on the relationships developed for the focus areas in the Pyrenees and Alps. This will provide the necessary relationships for WP3 and WP4. The report will also compare the differences between the Pyrenees (planar slope debris flows), Lombardy pre-Alps (channel debris flows and scree flows) and Bolzano Alps (channel debris flows). Mario Lenzi and Giovanni Crosta will send their debris flow relationships to Jose Maria and liaise with him over production of the report.

• August 2001. WP2 recommendations on granular flow model, for WP3. A comparison of models is to be documented as background for WP3. This will include the model actually used in WP3. Giovanni to produce the report in collaboration with Mario.

8.2 WP3 and WP4 Inputs to WP2

a) The principal link between the WP2 and WP3 models is likely to be as follows. The GIS hazard assessment model (WP2) will indicate areas that are potentially susceptible to failure in a region. The Padova debris flow model (WP3) can then be used to look at a particular area in more detail. It was proposed that a demonstration of this link should be put on the website as follows:

Stage 1 : begin with the WP2 hazard assessment map for the Lecco region.
Stage 2 : click on a highlighted subcatchment considered to have a high probability of failure. This will open a detailed site map (actually the Rio Lenzi).
Stage 3 : review the databox with data for the Rio Lenzi and choose from two options for a debris flow hydrograph.
Stage 4 : run the WP3 model for the Rio Lenzi and obtain the fan hazard map.

There will not actually be any simulation in this demonstration. We will prepare all the results beforehand and simply make them appear at each stage. Fausto, Mario and Giovanni to work on this demonstration as the models become available.

 

b) A possible feedback from WP3 to WP2 is as follows. A WP2 activity is to modify the hazard map to include more emphasis on the fan area, eg how contributing areas influence the hazard. The WP3 model could therefore be run to provide information on specific alluvial fans where there is a poor historical record. By defining the areas of high hazard, it might be able to provide an extra relationship between fan hazard and the factors determining this hazard. Alternatively it could help to discriminate between active and less active fans.

 

c) One link between WP2 and WP4 is to run the SHETRAN landslide model with scenarios for future climate and land use to produce a new map of debris flows for future conditions, then to recreate the hazard assessment model for the future conditions using the land use scenario and the SHETRAN simulated debris flows. This implies that the hazard assessment model is calibrated only for the area simulated by SHETRAN (eg Valsassina). However, the current WP2 model is calibrated for the whole of the Lecco province, not a subset of data. This calibration will therefore have to be repeated using only Valsassina data.

 

d) The SHETRAN landslide model will be validated for Valsassina for the June 1997 event and for periods of decades between aerial photographic surveys of landslide activity.

 

8.3 WP1, WP2, WP3, WP4 Inputs to WP5 and Training Programme

1.  A two-day training course on the WP3 Padova model will be held during 9-13 September 2002 by the Padova team. There will be ten trainees: two each from the Lombardy Regional Geological Survey, ARPAV and ASSM, one or two from IGME/IPE in Spain and two or three other end-users still to be identified. Example applications will be run for the test sites in Bolzano and the Pyrenees

2. two-day training course on the WP2 discriminant analysis/hazard mapping will be held by the Milan-Bicocca team. This will involve similar trainees, including one from IGME/IPE. To reduce overall travel costs for participants it is proposed that this should be held during the same week as the WP3 course. (The Padova end-users and the Spanish participants have confirmed this.)

3. Mario and Giovanni to liaise on thse courses and bring a firm proposal to the next progress meeting.

4.  A one-day workshop/seminar will be attached to each of the last two progress meetings: Zaragoza in the first half of May 2002 and Milan in late November/early December 2002. These will provide an opportunity to transfer the project results to the wider community. The programmes could include a general overview of local problems from the end-users, DAMOCLES presentations and perhaps some alternative views from related projects. The Zaragoza meeting could include participants from France as well as Spain; the Milan meeting could include participants from other Alpine countries as well as Italy.
   
   We need to decide what language the workshops will be held in.
   
   James to check with EC if we can use part of our budget for organizing and running workshops, eg room hire, coffee breaks, photocopying.
   
   ALL PARTNERS to start alerting potential participants, especially in Spain, so that people can put dates in diaries.