Skip to article frontmatterSkip to article content
Site not loading correctly?

This may be due to an incorrect BASE_URL configuration. See the MyST Documentation for reference.

Data Inventory

How to read this inventory

Hazard legend (the Serves column): ⛰️ landslides (shallow / deep-seated) · 🔥 post-fire debris flows · 🏚️ liquefaction & ground failure · 🌊 floods.

Data are grouped by provenance tier, because that determines how they should be trusted, stored, and calibrated:

  1. Raw / observed inputs — imported from an external archive and treated as a fixed input, not a GAIA model output. Calibration holds these fixed. Note that “raw to us” ≠ “a direct observation”: some ingested products (SOLUS, POLARIS, proxy Vs30V_{s30}) are themselves statistically / ML-derived externally (marked 📈 in §1) and carry prediction uncertainty that must be propagated, not silently dropped.

  2. Derived variables — computed from raw inputs, either deterministically (a documented equation or rule) or statistically (a fitted / ML relationship that carries its own uncertainty). Not observed, but reproducible given the input stack, rules, and config.

  3. Modelled variables & outputs — produced by the model components during a run. These carry model assumptions and uncertainty.

Every value the inventory serves is therefore one of three things, and each entry says which: a direct observation, a deterministic derivation (rule/equation recorded), or a statistical / ML estimate (method + uncertainty recorded). Orthogonally, a handful of numeric parameters are 🎛️ calibration levers — free knobs tuned to targets (§6), neither observed nor fixed by a physical rule. Being a calibration number is legitimate; it just has to be visible and never mistaken for data. These are marked 🎛️ wherever they appear below.

Origin classifies the archive by source classFederal agency, State, Academic, Private sector, Intl, or GAIA-Modeled — the axis that matters for trust and archival policy (not merely public-vs-private). Native support records the true footprint a value represents, while Posting resolution records the grid it is delivered on; keeping the two apart is what stops a downscaled 9 km pixel from being mistaken for a native 10 m one (the footprint-leakage problem). Temporal resolution is how often the value updates. Limitations captures the caveat a downstream modeler needs before using the layer — including access keys, licenses, and withheld locations (summarized in §7).

The primary targets the pipelines exist to produce are landslide__probability_of_failure (PfP_f ⛰️ 🔥) and the probability / extent of liquefaction P(liq)P(\text{liq}) with its manifestation severity (LPI / LSN 🏚️).

1. Raw / observed inputs (external products)

Fetched from external archives and prepared onto the working grid — the fixed foundation of the models and of calibration.

Layer / productServesSource · archive (API / website)OriginNative supportPosting resolution · CRSTemporal resolutionUnitsKey limitations
DEMtopographic__elevation, slope, drainage_area, topographic__specific_contributing_area⛰️ 🔥 🏚️ 🌊USGS 3DEP via OpenTopography (opentopography.org, USGS 3DEP)Federal (USGS 3DEP)1 m lidar where flown, else ~10 m~10 m (1/3 arc-sec); CRS variesStatic (re-flown irregularly)mVertical accuracy & vintage vary; voids; .asc stacks do not embed CRS; OpenTopography API needs a free key
Soil texture & propertiesclay/sand/silt__total, pH, dry__bulk_density, CEC, soil depth⛰️ 🔥 🏚️USDA SOLUS100 (100 m); public GCS solus100pub; STAC solus-stacFederal (USDA) · ML-derived 📈ML estimate; effective support coarser than grid (SSURGO-scale training)100 m · EPSG:5070; depths 0,5,15,30,60,100,150 cmStatic (ML estimate)%, pH, g cm⁻³, cmol(+)/kg, cmML-predicted with uncertainty bands (l/h); CONUS-only; vocabulary differs from POLARIS
Soil hydraulic / strength priors (alt.)⛰️ 🏚️POLARIS 30 m (hydrology.cee.duke.edu/POLARIS); used by landslide-digital-twinAcademic (Duke) · ML-derived 📈Downscaled from SSURGO (coarser than grid)30 m; same depth scheme; p5/p50/p95Static (statistical)variesDownscaled SSURGO; different vocabulary, depths, stats & units from SOLUS — conversion table required
Shear-wave velocityVs30V_{s30}, Vs(z)V_s(z)🏚️ ⛰️parametric CONUS VsV_s Sanger & Maurer, 2025; USGS National Crustal Model; slope/geology proxy Vs30V_{s30}Federal / Academic (USGS NCM; Sanger 2025) · statistical 📈Proxy ~250–1000 m; parametric at siteParametric / gridded proxyStatic (→ dynamic via seismic)m s⁻¹Proxy Vs30V_{s30} has large scatter; rigidity is high-influence for liquefaction
Surficial geology / soil type🏚️ ⛰️state geologic surveys; USGSFederal / State (USGS; state surveys)Map scale 1:24k–1:100kVector (1:24k–1:100k)StaticcategoricalMap-scale generalization; susceptibility class boundaries uncertain
Landcovervegetation__plant_functional_type⛰️ 🔥USGS/MRLC NLCD (mrlc.gov)Federal (USGS/MRLC)30 m30 m~2–3 yr epochscategoricalClass generalization; epoch lag; needs class→PFT lookup
Burn severityburn__severity🔥MTBS dNBR/RdNBR (mtbs.gov)Federal (USGS/USFS MTBS)30 m30 mPer-fire / annual since 1984severity indexOnly large fires mapped; dNBR depends on image timing; post-fire only
Observed precipitation & temperature → daily forcing⛰️ 🔥 🌊 🏚️PRISM Climate Group (prism.oregonstate.edu); STAC prism-stac; staged via gaia-cliAcademic (PRISM / Oregon State)Gauge-interpolated; effective coarser in complex terrain4 km (800 m licensed)Dailymm day⁻¹; °CCoarse for steep terrain; gauge-sparse interpolation error; 800 m AN81 license-restricted (4 km free)
Forecast precipitationtp / APCP_surface⛰️ 🔥 🌊 🏚️NVIDIA Earth2Studio (github.com/NVIDIA/earth2studio)Private (NVIDIA)Model grid 0.25° global; StormCast 3 km0.25° / 3 kmForecast: init / leadm or kg m⁻² (accum.)Precip is the least-skillful field; accumulation conventions differ; needs downscaling; model weight licenses vary
Water-table depthdwtd_{wt}🏚️ ⛰️ 🌊Pillar 1 Soil Reanalysis; groundwater modeling; modeled WTD (Zhu GLM)Modeled (GAIA)Coarse priorsTens of m targetDynamic (seasonal, sea-level)mSaturation is a binary gate for liquefaction; coarse priors smear hazard
Soil-moisture target (calibration)⛰️ 🏚️NASA SMAP L4 SPL4SMGP via NSIDC (nsidc.org/data/spl4smgp)Federal (NASA)L-band radiometer ~36 km, model-assimilated; senses ~top 5 cm~9 km · EASE-23-hourlym³ m⁻³Coarse footprint; model-assimilated; senses only ~top 5 cm; NASA Earthdata login required
Snow-water-equivalent target (calibration)⛰️ 🌊ECMWF ERA5 / ERA5-Land via CDS (cds.climate.copernicus.eu)Intl (ECMWF Copernicus)Reanalysis ~31 km (ERA5) / ~9 km (ERA5-Land)ERA5 ~31 km; ERA5-Land ~9 kmHourlym w.e.Reanalysis SWE biased in complex terrain; CDS account + license required
In-situ met stations⛰️ 🔥 🌊 🏚️Synoptic Data (synopticdata.com)Private (Synoptic Data)PointPointSub-hourlyvariesHeterogeneous networks; uneven density; gaps; API token (free academic)
Ground motion (event) → PGA, PGV, MMI🏚️ ⛰️USGS ShakeMap (earthquake.usgs.gov/data/shakemap)Federal (USGS)Event gridEvent gridPer-eventg, cm s⁻¹ShakeMap & GMM epistemic uncertainty; the demand input (future seismic trigger for ⛰️)
Seismic hazard (probabilistic) → hazard curves λ(IM)\lambda(IM)🏚️USGS NSHM Petersen et al., 2024 via gaia-nhsm-deaggFederal (USGS)Site / griddedSite / griddedStatic (model epoch)rate vs IMFixed reference-rock site term (§7); model-epoch dependence
Attenuationκ0\kappa_0🏚️high-frequency spectral decay Anderson & Hough, 1984; GAIA seismic / DASAcademic / GAIA networkPer site/stationPer site/stationStatic (→ dynamic)sBand/method-dependent; seasonal variability Händel et al., 2025; not yet wired
Geotechnical case histories (calibration)🏚️CPT/SPT liquefaction databases Ballegooy et al., 2014Academic / curatedPointPointEvent-basedvariesGeographic bias; the surrogate’s training/validation base
Hazard inventories / maps → validation labels⛰️ 🏚️USGS / WA DNR landslide inventories (usgs.gov, dnr.wa.gov); post-EQ liquefaction reconnaissance (e.g. 2001 Nisqually)Federal / State (USGS; WA DNR)VectorVectorEvent / historicalpresence / severityCompleteness & recency bias; used only to score, never as input; some locations withheld

2. Derived variables (deterministic & statistical transformations)

Computed from the raw stack — not observed, but reproducible given the inputs, rules, and config. Each derivation is one of two kinds: deterministic (a documented equation or rule; §2.1–2.2) or statistical / ML (a fitted relationship that carries its own uncertainty; §2.3). Free constants tuned to targets rather than measured or physically fixed are flagged 🎛️ (the calibration levers of §6). All rows in §2.1–2.2 are deterministic unless a 🎛️ marks a calibration constant embedded in the rule.

2.1 Hydrology & terrain ⛰️ 🔥 🌊

Derived variableComputed fromUnits / dimsEquation or ruleWhy it matters
drainage_areaDEM + boundaries + Landlab FlowAccumulatorflow routingupslope area & routing diagnostic
topographic__slopeDEMgradientsteepest slope → required fieldrequired by LandslideProbability; gradient vs degrees must be explicit
topographic__specific_contributing_areadrainage_area, grid.dxma=Ad/Δxa = A_d/\Delta xhydrologic term in relative wetness
soil__transmissivityKsatK_{sat}, soil thicknessm² day⁻¹T=KsatT=K_{sat}\cdot 🎛️2.5hs2.5\cdot h_s, floor 0.01 (plus 🎛️ksat_factor on KsatK_{sat})🎛️ 2.5 anisotropy factor & ksat_factor are calibration levers
vegetation__live_leaf_area_index, cover_fractionPFT lookup; LAI🎛️grass 1.5 / shrub 2.0 / tree 4.0; cover = LAI/4controls PET & vegetation response; 🎛️ PFT→LAI lookup constants
*_saturation (initial, field-capacity, wilting)SMAP θ0\theta_0 / soil props, porosityS=θ/nS=\theta/n (clipped)initial state & drainage/stress thresholds — shift the whole event response
snow_fraction, rain_depth, snow_depth, swe, water_inputprecip, Tmin/Tmax, meltmm, [time,n]linear rain–snow partition; 🎛️degree-day melt factor; SWEt=SWEt1+snowmeltSWE_t=SWE_{t-1}+\text{snow}-\text{melt}splits storm water; snow storage (🎛️ melt factor calibrated vs ERA5 SWE)
mean/max_recharge, routed_recharge_max, groundwater__recharge_mean/stddaily recharge + routingmm day⁻¹temporal stat; discharge/area; 🎛️std=0.1×meandirect input to LandslideProbability recharge sampling

2.2 Liquefaction 🏚️

Derived variableComputed fromUnitsRuleWhy it matters
Total / effective stress σv0\sigma_{v0}, σv0\sigma'_{v0}overburden + water table dwtd_{wt}kPaσv0=σv0u\sigma'_{v0}=\sigma_{v0}-ucouples hydrology into CSR & CRR
Stress-corrected velocity Vs1V_{s1}VsV_s, σv0\sigma'_{v0}m s⁻¹Vs1=Vs(Pa/σv0)0.25V_{s1}=V_s\,(P_a/\sigma'_{v0})^{0.25}overburden-normalized rigidity for CRR Andrus & Stokoe, 2000
Cyclic stress ratio CSR\mathrm{CSR}, MSF, KσK_\sigmaamaxa_{max}, stresses, rdr_d, MMsee Liquefaction Model §2seismic demand, normalized to a reference
CTI / distance-to-waterDEM; hydrographyGIS derivationsgeospatial GLM saturation proxies Zhu et al., 2015

2.3 Statistical / ML-derived layers 📈

These are not deterministic rules — they are fitted / machine-learned relationships, so they carry prediction uncertainty that must travel with the value. Several are ingested as §1 “inputs” even though they are model estimates, not observations (§2.4 traces one back to raw).

Layer / productMethodFitted fromUncertainty it carries
SOLUS100 soil propertiesrandom-forest digital soil mapping Nauman et al., 2024hybrid legacy training sets (gNATSGO/SSURGO map-unit means, component-level disaggregation points, NCSS/KSSL lab pedons) regressed on gridded covariates — DEM terrain derivatives (slope, curvature, MRVBF, SAGA wetness index, topographic-position index) and PRISM climate normals + bioclimatic indiceslow/high 95% prediction-interval bands (l/h)
POLARIS soil propertiesstatistical downscaling of SSURGO Chaney et al., 2019SSURGO polygons + environmental covariatesp5 / p50 / p95 quantiles
Proxy Vs30V_{s30}slope– and geology–Vs30V_{s30} regression; parametric CONUS VsV_s Sanger & Maurer, 2025measured Vs30V_{s30} vs topographic slope / surface geologylarge residual scatter — report σ

The geospatial liquefaction surrogate (§3, §5) and the modeled water table (Zhu GLM, §1) are likewise statistical; their uncertainty is documented on the model pages.

2.4 Worked example — tracing SOLUS back to raw

SOLUS is the template for every ingested statistical product: state what it was fitted from, what its native support really is, and what uncertainty it carries, so a downstream modeler can trace any value back to observations.

Apply the same five-line trace to POLARIS, proxy Vs30V_{s30}, and surficial geology before mixing them into a model.

3. Modelled variables & outputs

The digital twins exist to produce a fixed, named set of outputs — the canonical output vocabulary below. Everything else in this section is an intermediate or diagnostic that feeds one of them. The canonical name is the Landlab field__name (first column); the PascalCase label is a display alias. Two outputs still carry an input/output dual-role caveat (the earlier name collision is resolved by the convention note below).

Canonical field name (subject__quantity)Display label · symbolProducing modelUnits · dimsNotes
landslide__probability_of_failureLandslideProbability · PfP_fLandlab LandslideProbability component0–1 · [n] or [y,x]Pr(FS1)\Pr(FS\le1) — the field the component writes (distinct from the component name)
liquefaction__potential_index † (+ liquefaction__severity_number † LSN)LiquefactionPotentialIndex · LPI/LSNmanifestation model Iwasaki et al., 1978Ballegooy et al., 2014indexsurface-failure severity
liquefaction__probability † (+ liquefaction__areal_extent †)GroundFailure · P(liq)P(\text{liq})GLM surrogate Sanger et al., 20250–1 / extent · [y,x]probability & extent of liquefaction manifestation
soil_moisture__saturation_fractionSoilMoistureSoilMoisture + PETm³ m⁻³ / fraction · [time,n]also the SMAP calibration comparison
water_table__depthGroundWaterLevel · dwtd_{wt}Pillar 1 reanalysis / groundwaterm · [time,…]⚠️ dual role — an output of the reanalysis but an input to the hazard models
soil__shear_wave_velocity † (+ soil__shear_modulusμ\mu)SoilRigidity · VsV_s, Vs1V_{s1}VsV_s profiles → derived; seismicm s⁻¹ or Pa⚠️ dual role — static VsV_s is an input, but time-varying Vs(t)V_s(t) / κ0(t)\kappa_0(t) is a reanalysis output (§7)

Naming convention (decided). The field__name vocabulary is canonical — every output ships under a Landlab-style subject__quantity name in code, STAC, and Zarr; PascalCase names are display aliases only (docs, dashboards, product copy), never keys. This resolves the earlier collision: the model component keeps the class name LandslideProbability, while the output field it writes is landslide__probability_of_failure — a component and its field are never the same token. Names marked are proposed (not yet emitted in code) and should be ratified before first use; the unmarked fields already exist. Uncertainty for each output is documented on its model page (Monte-Carlo PfP_f, GLM surrogate intervals, etc.).

Detailed producing-model breakdown (intermediates and diagnostics included):

OutputServesProducing modelUnits / dimsMeaning
soil_moisture__saturation_fraction, …root_zone_leakage, surface__runoff/ET⛰️ 🔥 🌊SoilMoisture + PET[time, n_cells]hydrologic state; recharge source; SMAP comparison
soil__mean_relative_wetness, …probability_of_saturation⛰️ 🔥LandslideProbability0–1wetness / saturation-risk diagnostics
landslide__probability_of_failure⛰️ 🔥LandslideProbability0–1, [n] or rasterized [y,x]Pr(FS1)\Pr(FS\le1) — primary current landslide target; time/forecast cubes are future extension paths
P(liq)P(\text{liq}) + areal extent🏚️GLM surrogate Sanger et al., 20250–1, [y,x]probability / extent of liquefaction — primary liquefaction target
LPI / LSN🏚️manifestation model Iwasaki et al., 1978Ballegooy et al., 2014indexsurface severity / damage
Return-period liquefaction hazard🏚️unconditional integration over NSHMrate / 50-yr prob.λliq\lambda_{liq} planning baseline

4. Data-prep pipelines

4.1 Landslide (Landlab) ⛰️ 🔥

A. domain     AOI → watershed / HUC polygon; target CRS + resolution; hydrologically coherent domain; watershed outlet preferred
B. acquire    DEM · SOLUS100|POLARIS soil · NLCD landcover (+ MTBS burn severity — post-fire only)
C. harmonize  reproject + resample to ONE grid contract; nodata; manifest
D. derive     slope, specific contributing area (FlowAccumulator on the CLOSED watershed);
              import or harmonize φ and cohesion rasters; Ksat → transmissivity; landcover → PFT → LAI; Ksat → transmissivity; landcover → PFT → LAI
E. PRISM (hindcast/current workflow) | Earth2Studio tp/APCP (future forecast path) → mm/day → snow → balance → recharge
F. soil state deep-seated: import water-table h(x,t) + S_w from Pillar 1; init S0 from SMAP
G. validate   input contract: shape · CRS · transform · nodata · units · required fields
H. publish    COG / Zarr on s3://cresst + STAC items with source·measurement·res·uncertainty

Close the hydrology first (clip to a watershed with a single outlet — see Landslide Model §5); do not prepare on arbitrary tiles. Inputs are still read from hardcoded local paths in the active notebook; de-personalizing and sourcing from STAC (solus-stac, prism-stac, gaia-cli stage) is the migration in the Integration Guide §3.

4.2 Liquefaction (GLM) 🏚️

A. domain     AOI / region; target CRS + resolution (high-res even for static layers)
B. acquire    Vs30/Vs profiles · water table (Pillar 1) · geology · ShakeMap | NSHM ground motion
C. harmonize  reproject + resample to one grid contract; manifest + provenance
D. derive     effective stress σ'v (from water table) · Vs1 · CSR · saturation proxies
E. condition  conditional GLM P(liq|IM)  →  (unconditional: integrate over NSHM;
                                             event: apply ShakeMap IM field)
F. dynamic    couple groundwater (sea-level / seasonal) + time-varying Vs/κ0 (§7 open question)
G. validate   input contract: shape · CRS · units · required fields
H. publish    COG / Zarr on s3://cresst + STAC items

The high-resolution requirement (even for static Vs30V_{s30}, geology, water table) is central: liquefaction is controlled by meter-scale contrasts, so coarse inputs systematically smear hazard.

5. Models behind the products

Each derived/modelled product is generated by a model component. Full physics and solved-vs-assumed breakdowns are on the model pages (Landslide Model, Liquefaction Model).

6. Calibration targets

Observable targetServesBest constrainsPriority
SMAP daily soil moisture⛰️ 🏚️initial saturation, ksat_factor, root-zone depthsHigh
ERA5 SWE⛰️ 🌊snow partition & melt parametersHigh (winter)
Mapped landslide initiation⛰️recharge scenario, cohesion, strength, transmissivityHighest (landslide)
Geotech case histories / observed liquefaction maps🏚️GLM surrogate, manifestation fragility, VsV_s / water-table inputsHighest (liquefaction)
Runoff / streamflow (if available)⛰️ 🌊hydrologic partitioning, recharge realismHigh when available

number_of_iterations (landslide Monte Carlo) is a convergence knob, not a calibration parameter.

7. Known gaps, risks & sensitivities

References
  1. Sanger, M. D., & Maurer, B. W. (2025). Parametric modeling of shear wave velocity profiles for the conterminous U.S. 10.48550/arXiv.2510.00372
  2. Petersen, M. D., Shumway, A. M., Powers, P. M., Field, E. H., Moschetti, M. P., Jaiswal, K. S., & others. (2024). The 2023 US 50-State National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview and implications. Earthquake Spectra, 40(1), 5–88. 10.1177/87552930231215428
  3. Anderson, J. G., & Hough, S. E. (1984). A model for the shape of the Fourier amplitude spectrum of acceleration at high frequencies. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 74(5), 1969–1993.
  4. Händel, A., Pilz, M., Malatesta, L. C., Litwin, D., & Cotton, F. (2025). Detecting seasonal differences in high-frequency site response using kappa-zero. Seismica, 4(1). 10.26443/seismica.v4i1.1425
  5. van Ballegooy, S., Malan, P., Lacrosse, V., Jacka, M. E., Cubrinovski, M., Bray, J. D., O’Rourke, T. D., Crawford, S. A., & Cowan, H. (2014). Assessment of Liquefaction-Induced Land Damage for Residential Christchurch. Earthquake Spectra, 30(1), 31–55. 10.1193/031813EQS070M
  6. Andrus, R. D., & Stokoe, K. H. (2000). Liquefaction Resistance of Soils from Shear-Wave Velocity. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 126(11), 1015–1025. 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:11(1015)
  7. Zhu, J., Daley, D., Baise, L. G., Thompson, E. M., Wald, D. J., & Knudsen, K. L. (2015). A Geospatial Liquefaction Model for Rapid Response and Loss Estimation. Earthquake Spectra, 31(3), 1813–1837. 10.1193/121912EQS353M
  8. Nauman, T. W., Kienast-Brown, S., Roecker, S. M., Brungard, C., White, D., Philippe, J., & Thompson, J. A. (2024). Soil landscapes of the United States (SOLUS): Developing predictive soil property maps of the conterminous United States using hybrid training sets. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 88(6), 2046–2065. 10.1002/saj2.20769
  9. Chaney, N. W., Minasny, B., Herman, J. D., Nauman, T. W., & others. (2019). POLARIS Soil Properties: 30-m Probabilistic Maps of Soil Properties Over the Contiguous United States. Water Resources Research, 55(4), 2916–2938. 10.1029/2018WR022797
  10. Iwasaki, T., Tatsuoka, F., Tokida, K., & Yasuda, S. (1978). A Practical Method for Assessing Soil Liquefaction Potential Based on Case Studies at Various Sites in Japan. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Microzonation for Safer Construction, 2, 885–896.
  11. Sanger, M. D., Geyin, M., & Maurer, B. W. (2025). Mechanics-Informed Machine Learning for Geospatial Modeling of Soil Liquefaction: Global and National Surrogate Models for Simulation and Near-Real-Time Response. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 151(11), 04025126. 10.1061/JGGEFK.GTENG-13737
  12. Strauch, R., Istanbulluoglu, E., Nudurupati, S. S., Bandaragoda, C., Gasparini, N. M., & Tucker, G. E. (2018). A hydroclimatological approach to predicting regional landslide probability using Landlab. Earth Surface Dynamics, 6, 49–75. 10.5194/esurf-6-49-2018
  13. Beven, K. J., & Kirkby, M. J. (1979). A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology. Hydrological Sciences Bulletin, 24(1), 43–69. 10.1080/02626667909491834
  14. Montgomery, D. R., & Dietrich, W. E. (1994). A physically based model for the topographic control on shallow landsliding. Water Resources Research, 30(4), 1153–1171. 10.1029/93WR02979
  15. Zhu, J., Baise, L. G., & Thompson, E. M. (2017). An Updated Geospatial Liquefaction Model for Global Application. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 107(3), 1365–1385. 10.1785/0120160198