ABSTRACT:

Geospatial tools and visualization is needed to develop a data and model integration pipeline for assessing landslide hazards.  This project is one component of multi-hazard (earthquake, flood, tsunami) assessment in watersheds spanning mountain peaks to coastal shores.  A common challenge in interpreting and validating distributed models is in comparing these data to direct observations on the ground. Modeling data of landslides for regional planning intentionally cover large regions and many landslides, incorporating different temporal and spatial sampling frequency and stochastic processes than observations derived from landslide inventories developed in the field. This kind of analysis requires geospatial tools to enable visualization, assessment of spatial statistics and extrapolation of spatial data linked to hierarchical relationships, such as downstream hydrologic impacts.  
Landslide geohazards can be identified through numerous methods, which are generally grouped into quantitative (e.g., Hammond et al. 1992; Wu and Sidle 1995) and qualitative (e.g., Gupta and Joshi 1990; Carrara et al. 1991; Lee et al. 2007) approaches. Mechanistic process-based models based on limited equilibrium analysis can quantify the roles of topography, soils, vegetation, and hydrology (when coupled with a hydrologic model) in landsliding in quantitative forms (Montgomery and Dietrich 1994; Miller 1995; Pack et al. 1998).  Processed-based models are good for predicting the initiation of landslides even where landslide inventories are lacking, but missed predictions likely stem from parameter uncertainty and unrepresented processes in model structure implicitly captured in qualitative approaches. A common qualitative approach develops landslide susceptibility based on experts rating multiple landscape attributes.  These approaches provide general indices rather than quantified probabilities of relative landslide susceptibility applicable to the study location and cannot represent causal factors or triggering conditions that change in time (van Western et al. 2006). Both approaches rarely provide a probabilistic hazard in space and time, requisite for landslide risk assessments beneficial for planning and decision making (Smith 2013).
This project will start the groundwork to integrate numerical modeling developed by University of Washington  with qualitative assessments of landslide susceptibility performed by Washington Department of Natural Resources.

ABSTRACT:

Input data for trial run of landslide probability component of landlab

ABSTRACT:

Chelan county watershed

ABSTRACT:

Example data for TauDEM

ABSTRACT:

Taudem is wonderful. This example is for the Sauk watershed.

ABSTRACT:

Taudem is awesome!

ABSTRACT:

Data and scripts used to prepare forcing data for PREEVENTS project

ABSTRACT:

Data for PNNL WRF data extraction

ABSTRACT:

This folder contains files for each grid point from the PNNL WRF 2018 gridded meteorology dataset that is within the Sauk watershed. The PNNL WRF 2018 precipitation is aggregated as 1 hr mean (i.e. each hour is mean hourly precipitation rate). No further aggregation was done to precipitation or any other of the variables. Each file is formatted as forcing data for DHSVM. Variables wind and relative humidty are derived from the PNNL WRF 2018 data.

ABSTRACT:

This folder contains files for each grid point from the PNNL WRF 2018 gridded meteorology dataset that is within the Sauk watershed. Precipitation is aggregated to 24 hr mean (i.e. each hour is the mean 24 hour precipitation rate). No aggregation was done to any other of the variables. Each file is formatted as forcing data for DHSVM. Variables wind and relative humidty are derived from the PNNL WRF 2018 data.

ABSTRACT:

This hydroshare resource contains data needed to reproduce results in Keck et al., 2021, Bedload response to precipitation variability across a mountainous channel network.

ABSTRACT:

This resource contains the DEM, regolith depth map, DEM-of-Difference and the location polygon of the landslide source area of each field site used to evaluate calibrated MassWastingRunout model performance. MassWastingRunout (MWR), is coded in Python and implemented as a component for the package Landlab. MWR combines the functionality of simple runout algorithms used in landscape evolution and watershed sediment yield models with the predictive details typical of runout models used for landslide inundation hazard mapping. An initial Digital Elevation Model (DEM), a regolith depth map, and the location polygon of the landslide source area are the only inputs required to run MWR to model the entire runout process. Runout relies on the principle of mass conservation and a set of topographic rules and empirical formulas that govern erosion and deposition.

ABSTRACT:

Mapped landslides used to evaluate modeled landslide hazard location in Keck et al. 2025, submitted to WRR on 20250125.

Polygons represent the source areas of all active, shallow-pore-water-driven landslides in the model domain. Shallow landslides were mapped from repeat satellite imagery (1998, 2006, 2013 and 2016) draped over a 30-meter DEM in Google Earth (Google Earth, 2023). The image years that were reliably clear enough to make out details like boulders, scarp edges and changes in vegetation and bare areas included 2013 and 2016 images. Image years 1998 and 2006 were not as clear but were good enough to make out changes in vegetation and bare areas.
A landslide was considered active if: (1) it formed or enlarged between photos or; (2) it appeared recent (denuded, and void of any vegetation) and could be traced to a colluvial fan or alluvial fan that exhibited evidence of new deposition. New deposition was identified by changes in color and composition of the colluvial/alluvial deposit between photos. A landslide was considered shallow-pore-water-driven if it formed in convergent topography or slopes where a slight increase in pore water pressure might trigger failure (e.g., slopes exceeding the friction angle of the regolith). Deep seated landslides, which were interpreted as all landslides whose geometry appeared to form independent of the surface topography, and rock fall, which were interpretated as topple like failures and formed deposits of a few boulders, were not mapped.