NATIONAL OCEANIC AND

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Office of Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Research

NOAA Technical Memorandum OAR PMEL-147

MODELING TSUNAMI INUNDATION FOR HAZARD MAPPING 

AT EVERETT, WASHINGTON, FROM THE SEATTLE FAULT

C. Chamberlin

D. Arcas

Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory

Seattle, WA

August 2015

doi:10.7289/V59Z92V0

MODELING TSUNAMI INUNDATION FOR HAZARD MAPPING 

AT EVERETT, WASHINGTON, FROM THE SEATTLE FAULT

C. Chamberlin1

 and D. Arcas2,3

1 The Climate Corporation, Seattle, WA 

2 Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Ocean (JISAO), 

University of Washington, Seattle, WA

3 NOAA Center for Tsunami Research (NCTR) /

Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL), Seattle, WA

NOAA Technical Memorandum OAR PMEL-147

Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory

August 2015

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Penny Pritzker

Secretary

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Kathryn Sullivan

Under Secretary for Oceans

and Atmosphere/Administrator

Office of Oceanic and

Atmospheric Research

Craig McLean 

Assistant Administrator

doi:10.7289/V59Z92V0
NOTICE from NOAA

Mention of a commercial company or product does not constitute an endorsement by NOAA/

OAR. Use of information from this publication concerning proprietary products or the tests of 

such products for publicity or advertising purposes is not authorized. Any opinions, findings, 

and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and 

do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Also available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

(http://www.ntis.gov)

Contribution No. 3625 from NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory

Contribution No. 1833 from Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean (JISAO)
Contents

List of Figures v

List of Tables v

1. Introduction 1

2. Study Area 1

3. Tsunami Event History 3

4. Tsunami Source Scenarios 5

4.1 Scenario A: Seattle Fault Mw 7.3 5

4.2 Scenario B: Seattle Fault Mw 6.7 5

5. Tsunami Model Development 7

5.1 Digital elevation model development 7

5.2 Tsunami model setup 8

6. Modeling Results 11

6.1 Scenario A: Seattle Fault Mw 7.3 11

6.2 Scenario B: Seattle Fault Mw 6.7 12

7. Conclusion 15

8. Acknowledgments 15

9. References 17

Tsunami Hazard mapping aT EvErETT, WasHingTon iii 

List of Figures

1 Overview of the Everett study area, showing the relative location of the 

fault used in the tsunami source scenarios. 2

2 Vertical seismic displacement for (a) Scenario A, Seattle Fault Mw 7.3, and 

(b) Scenario B, Seattle Fault Mw 6.7. 6

3 The MOST model runs on three nested bathymetric grids: A, B, and C. 9

4 Maximum tsunami wave amplitudes in the Everett area for Scenarios A 

and B. 12

5 Maximum current speeds in the Everett area for Scenarios A and B. 12

6 Wave amplitude time series at five locations in the model domain for 

Scenarios A and B. 13

List of Tables

1 Scenario A seismic fault parameters for a Seattle Fault Mw 7.3 earthquake, 

after Titov et al. (2003). 6

2 Scenario B seismic fault parameters for a Seattle Fault Mw 6.7 earthquake, 

derived from earthquake scenario used by EERI (Stewart, 2005). 6

3 Bathymetric grid details. 10

Tsunami Hazard mapping aT EvErETT, WasHingTon v 

Modeling tsunami inundation for hazard mapping 

at Everett, Washington, from the Seattle Fault

C. Chamberlin1 and D. Arcas2,3

1. Introduction

This report describes the process and results of tsunami inundation modeling for 

the city of Everett, Washington. The purpose of the present modeling work is to 

produce data for use in the development of tsunami inundation maps, as part of 

a tsunami mapping project funded by the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation 

Program. Puget Sound is known to be at risk for local tsunami events (González 

et al., 2003), and previous studies conducted by the NOAA Center for Tsunami 

Research (NCTR) have modeled the potential effects of tsunamis on the nearby 

cities of Seattle (Titov et al., 2003) and Tacoma (Venturato et al., 2007). The source 

scenarios investigated are two potentially tsunamigenic seismic events on the 

Seattle Fault, including one scenario previously modeled for Seattle and Tacoma.

2. Study Area

The study area incorporates the city of Everett, Washington, and the surrounding 

waterways including Possession Sound and the lower Snohomish River (Fig. 1). 

The Everett waterfront is the site of Naval Station Everett, which was constructed 

in the 1980s and is homeport to seven United States Navy vessels. Other major 

features of the waterfront include a major recreational and commercial marina 

operated by the Port of Everett, and a pulp mill owned by Kimberly-Clark Corporation that operated until 2012.

Jetty Island is located close to the Everett waterfront, separated from the mainland by the dredged channel of the lower Snohomish River. Low-lying Jetty Island 

is a minimally developed Everett city park; during summer months a passenger 

ferry operates to the island. 

1 The Climate Corporation, Seattle, WA

2 Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Ocean (JISAO), University of Washington, Seattle, WA

3 NOAA Center for Tsunami Research (NCTR)/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL), Seattle, WA

Tsunami Hazard Mapping at Everett, Washington 1 
While it has several important waterfront features, the majority of the city of 

Everett, including the downtown commercial district, is built on higher ground, 

20–40 m above sea level. North and east of the city is the low-lying Snohomish 

River delta region. This area is threaded by several sloughs in addition to the main 

river channel; much of the area is very close to mean high water and protected 

from inundation by levees. The delta is crossed by bridges and raised causeways of 

three major highways: State Route 529, Interstate 5, and US Highway 2. 

1

Snohomish R.

Everett

5

4 3

2

5

2

2

0 2 km

0 10 km

Everett

Seattle

Seattle Fault

Possession Sound

Figure 1: Overview of the Everett study area, showing the relative location of 

the fault used in the tsunami source scenarios. Numbered points are locations 

of time series plotted in Fig. 6.

2 Chamberlin and Arcas
3. Tsunami Event History

There have been no recorded tsunamis near Everett, Washington, since the establishment of the modern city, but there is evidence of previous tsunami impacts in 

the area (González et al., 2003). Surveys of exposed banks in the Snohomish River 

delta by Bourgeois and Johnson (2001) found sand deposits attributed to inundation of the region by tsunami. The clearest deposits appear to have been produced 

by an earthquake and tsunami which occurred in roughly AD 900 (Atwater and 

Moore, 1992). Other deposits identified by Bourgeois and Johnson (2001) may indicate up to two additional older tsunamis, and surveys have also found evidence 

of localized seismic liquefaction. The AD 900 tsunami is also believed to have 

produced sand deposits at Cultus Bay, on the south end of Whidbey Island, 16 km 

southwest of Everett (Atwater and Moore, 1992).

Landslides, both subaerial slides originating on upland slopes, and underwater 

landslides occurring on the Snohomish River delta deposits, may also pose a risk 

to the Everett area (González et al., 2003). Native American oral tradition records 

the collapse of Camano Head, 13 km northwest of the Everett waterfront, in the 

early nineteenth century. According to the account, the landslide caused a large 

wave on Gedney (Hat) Island, killing several people, and may have caused limited 

flooding of a village near the mouth of the Snohomish River, close to the modern 

city of Everett (Shipman, 2001). The source scenarios discussed in this report are, 

however, all associated with seismic fault ruptures.

Tsunami Hazard Mapping at Everett, Washington 3 

4. Tsunami Source Scenarios

This study investigated two seismic source scenarios along the same fault zone. 

Scenarios A and B are variations on an earthquake along the Seattle Fault, which 

crosses Puget Sound between Seattle and Bainbridge Island, Washington. The 

resulting vertical ground deformations for each scenario are shown in Fig. 2.

4.1 Scenario A: Seattle Fault Mw 7.3

This scenario is identical to the Seattle Fault scenario defined by Titov et al. 

(2003), and also previously used for modeling inundation in Tacoma (Venturato 

et al., 2007). This scenario was designed to be a maximum credible event, within 

the constraints of the vertical deformation caused by the AD 900 earthquake along 

the Seattle Fault (Bucknam et al., 1992). It is described by six fault segments of 

varying length and strike, with slip ranging from 1 to 12 m (Table 1).

4.2Scenario B: Seattle Fault Mw 6.7

This scenario, also along the Seattle Fault, is a modified version of the earthquake 

scenario used by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) and 

Washington Emergency Management Division for recent seismic hazard assessment studies (Venturato et al., 2007). This scenario represents a less severe, but 

more likely event than Scenario A; a Seattle Fault earthquake of Mw 6.5 or greater 

is forecast to have a 5% chance of recurring over a 50-year period (Stewart, 2005).

The scenario earthquake used in the EERI studies used a 24 km fault centered 

under the cities of Seattle and Bellevue, and thus has little vertical deformation 

under the water of Puget Sound. For the present study, the scenario was therefore 

modified by shifting the event west along the Seattle Fault, such that the fault 

begins at the western end of the original EERI fault, and continues west 24 km 

under central Puget Sound. This scenario uses a simplified fault model with a 

constant depth and dip angle, and uniform 2.8 m slip throughout (Table 2).

Tsunami Hazard Mapping at Everett, Washington 5 
(a) (b)

-2 – -1 m 

-1 – 0 m

0 – 0.5 m 

0.5 – 1 m 

1 – 3 m

3 – 5 m

5 – 9 m

Fault 

Segment

Width 

(km)

Length 

(km)

Strike 

(deg.)

Dip 

(deg.)

Slip 

(m)

A1 35.0 15.2 87.9 60.0 1.0

A2 35.0 6.3 86.6 60.0 1.0

A3 35.0 8.9 96.0 60.0 12.0

A4 35.0 3.2 128.8 60.0 11.0

A5 35.0 11.5 99.3 60.0 4.0

A6 35.0 14.9 81.0 60.0 1.0

Table 1: Scenario A seismic fault parameters for a Seattle Fault Mw 7.3 earthquake, 

after Titov et al. (2003).

Fault 

Segment

Width 

(km)

Length 

(km)

Strike 

(deg.)

Dip 

(deg.)

Slip 

(m)

B1 35.0 6.3 86.6 45.0 2.8

B2 35.0 8.9 96.0 45.0 2.8

B3 35.0 3.2 128.8 45.0 2.8

B4 35.0 5.8 99.3 45.0 2.8

Table 2: Scenario B seismic fault parameters for a Seattle Fault Mw 6.7 earthquake, 

derived from earthquake scenario used by EERI (Stewart, 2005).

Figure 2: Vertical seismic displacement for (a) Scenario A: Seattle Fault Mw 7.3 

(Titov et al., 2003); and (b) Scenario B: Seattle Fault Mw 6.7 (Stewart, 2005).

6 Chamberlin and Arcas
5. Tsunami Model Development

Tsunami wave dynamics for the hazard assessment were modeled with the MOST 

model, a finite-difference numerical tsunami model (Titov and Synolakis, 1998). In 

addition to the initial source deformations described above, the model takes as its 

major input a series of structured grids describing the bathymetry and topography 

of the study area.

5.1 Digital elevation model development

Bathymetry and topography for the inundation model was derived from an existing 

digital elevation model (DEM) of Puget Sound (Finlayson, 2005), with modifications to incorporate recently collected data. The base DEM was derived from 

multiple data sources, including topographic and bathymetric LIDAR, multibeam 

bathymetry, single beam hydrographic surveys, and surveyed USGS topography.

The Finlayson source DEM, as well as the other survey data described below, 

were converted to a local mean high water (MHW) vertical datum. The vertical 

offset between MHW and the original datums used for the source datasets, North 

American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) and Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), 

varies substantially throughout Puget Sound. Surfaces defining the datum offsets 

were created from the grids used by the VDatum tool for Puget Sound (Hess and 

White, 2004). VDatum is designed to perform vertical transformations only over 

water; to produce an estimated offset from NAVD88 to adjust topographic datasets, 

land-grid cells were linearly extrapolated from the adjoining water-grid cells. The 

vertical offset between MLLW and MHW ranges from 2.25 to 4.13 m in the Puget 

Sound area; the offset between NAVD88 and MHW ranges from -1.96 to -2.96 m.

The Finlayson source DEM was modified in the Possession Sound and Snohomish 

River delta areas to add additional data sources and improve resolution of the 

harbor area. Survey data received from the US Army Corps of Engineers, and 

parts of NOAA hydrographic surveys H08174 (1955) and H10662 (1996), which 

were apparently not incorporated into the Finlayson grid, were included. Inclusion 

of these surveys was essential to properly resolve the bathymetry of the Snohomish 

River and northern Steamboat Slough areas.

Most of the waterways of the Snohomish River delta area are unsurveyed, so 

depths are estimated for these areas. These unsurveyed areas include:

• Snohomish River main channel upstream of the confluence of the southern 

end of Steamboat Slough, approximately 1.25 km below the US Highway 2 

bridge;

• Union Slough upstream of the BNSF railroad bridge;

• Steamboat Slough upstream of the BNSF railroad bridge;

• Ebey Slough.

Tsunami Hazard Mapping at Everett, Washington 7 
Depth values estimated by extrapolation from nearby surveys were available, 

with generally deeper values applied to larger waterways. Because of the probable 

error in the estimated depths, modeled wave dynamics for these waterways are 

rough estimates only.

An additional Snohomish County LIDAR survey, completed in 2005 and available as a 2 m resolution grid, provided substantially improved topographic resolution for the essential central Everett area.

Further modifications were applied to topography values in the Snohomish 

delta area to provide reasonable estimates of inundation in that region. Extensive 

portions of the delta are below mean high water (zero) datum, but protected from 

inundation by levees. The MOST model assumes that any grid cells below the zero 

datum are underwater at the beginning of the model run, and thus cannot produce 

a flooding forecast for those cells. To work around this limitation, elevation values 

below zero that are dry (based on inspection of satellite photography and USGS 

topographic maps) were brought up to be slightly above zero. In addition, where 

the levees protecting these areas are too narrow to be properly represented in the 

model grid, the grid was modified to add artificially widened levee structures, 

with minimum elevation values estimated from the original Snohomish County 

LIDAR dataset.

Because tsunami waves can propagate under structures built on pilings over 

water, several piers in the Mukilteo, Clinton, and Everett harbor areas were 

clipped from the Finlayson grid, and depth values instead interpolated from adjacent bathymetry. These structures not represented in the bathymetry grid include 

the two large fixed piers used by Naval Station Everett for mooring naval vessels.

Survey points and grid node values from the edges of the gridded regions were 

combined into a tight spline surface and sampled to a 10-meter grid using the 

MBSystem software (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/MB-System/ accessed 

19 March 2015). The gridded LIDAR data and clipped Finlayson grid were overlaid on top of this intermediate grid to create the final high-resolution source grid.

The two source grids—a 1/3-arc-sec grid covering Everett and a 1-arc-sec grid 

covering all of Puget Sound—provide the base data for creating model grids.

5.2 Tsunami model setup

The MOST model runs with three nested bathymetry grids, called A (large extent, 

low resolution), B, and C (small extent, high resolution). For this study, the A-grid 

extent was set to cover Puget Sound from near Tacoma north to Admiralty Inlet, 

including all of the region with a vertical deformation over 0.5 m, in all three 

scenarios. The B grid covers southern Whidbey Island and the adjoining areas of 

Puget Sound and Possession Sound. The C grid covers the city of Everett, Possession Sound, and the Snohomish River delta (Fig. 3; Table 3).

8 Chamberlin and Arcas
Figure 3: The MOST model runs on three nested bathymetric grids: 

A, B, and C. See Table 3 for grid resolution and extent details.

A

B

C

Tsunami Hazard Mapping at Everett, Washington 9 
The present study uses the same revision of the MOST model currently in use 

in NOAA’s real-time tsunami forecast system (Tang et al., 2008; Wei et al., 2008), 

with minor modifications to incorporate the initial deformation specifications 

described above instead of the database-backed propagation model used by the 

operational system. This operational version of the model, internally called MOST 

version 2, implements one-way coupling between the nested grids; amplitudes and 

velocities in the lower-resolution grids are used as boundary conditions in the 

higher-resolution grids, but not in the other direction. In operational testing, this 

was found to substantially improve the numerical stability of the model. Limited 

comparison in this study with an older, bidirectionally coupled model implementation found comparable results.

Grid Extent Resolution

A (122.70°W, 48.31°N) – (122.13°W, 47.31°N) 9 arc sec

B (122.51°W, 48.17°N) – (122.14°W, 47.77°N) 3 arc sec

C (122.28°W, 48.05°N) – (122.14°W, 47.96°N) 0.5 arc sec

Table 3: Bathymetric grid details.

10 Chamberlin and Arcas
6. Modeling Results

6.1 Scenario A: Seattle Fault Mw 7.3

The fault for this source, the larger of the two scenario sources, causes a sharp 

vertical deformation along the fault, stretching from southern Bainbridge Island 

to just north of Alki Point in West Seattle. The uplift south of the fault produces 

a large initial wave that travels north through Puget Sound. In central Puget 

Sound, the initial wave has a height of approximately 1.3 m; the larger second 

wave 7.8 min later is 1.6 m high. The first of these wave peaks reaches the south 

end of Whidbey Island approximately 16 min after the event, and divides to propagate northwest up Admiralty Inlet and northeast up Possession Sound toward 

Everett. Wave heights, especially of the first wave, diminish somewhat as the 

wave propagates north into Possession Sound. Near the Mukilteo ferry terminal, 

the first wave is 0.8 m and the second wave is 1.2 m (Fig. 4a).

The first positive wave peak arrives at the Everett waterfront 25 min after 

the event; the second and largest wave arrives 34 min after the event. There are 

two major areas of inundation. First, the southern two-thirds of Jetty Island, the 

low-lying island off the central Everett waterfront, is inundated with flow depths 

of between 0.5 m and 1.0 m. The major area of inundation on the mainland is on 

the grounds of Naval Station Everett. Here, most of the land around the Naval 

Station’s East Waterway is inundated to a depth of 0.6 m above the land surface 

(2.5 m above mean high water). This inundation zone reaches Marine View Drive, 

the major arterial road servicing the Naval Station. Much of this inundation 

occurs with the initial wave train, but additional inundation is caused by local 

oscillations occurring in the East Waterway; this area has by far the largest wave 

amplitudes in the Everett harbor area.

The tsunami will also cause severe currents reaching more than 4 m/s over a 

substantial area in the East Waterway area, especially along the waterway’s west 

edge, the site of Naval Station Everett’s large mooring pier, where peak currents 

reach 7 m/s. Similar currents are produced in the lower Snohomish River channel, 

and on the west side of Jetty Island (Fig. 5a).

The model predicts a wave of up to 1 m propagating up the Snohomish River 

channel as far as the US 2 highway bridge. This causes additional inundation on 

both sides of the dredged channel, largely in intertidal and floodplain areas, but 

also in a small industrial area located between State Route 529 and Interstate 

5, north of the river channel. Both of these major highways are constructed on 

elevated ground, so the model does not predict inundation of either. The final area 

of substantial inundation is on the north side of Steamboat Slough, in a low-lying 

marsh area unprotected by continuous levees.

Tsunami Hazard Mapping at Everett, Washington 11 
Bourgeois and Johnson (2001) found a sand layer at multiple sites in the 

Snohomish delta area that were attributed to a tsunami inundation of the area, 

probably by the AD 900 Seattle Fault earthquake. The modeling results presented 

here indicate that such a tsunami could indeed propagate this far, causing substantial inundation in the area. However, these results are suggestive at best, because 

it is difficult to exactly reproduce the AD 900 topography of the area with sufficient accuracy for inundation modeling. In this low-relief region, small variations 

in elevation make a substantial difference in inundation extent. While the area is 

covered by accurate, high-resolution LIDAR topography, it has been substantially 

modified in the modern era by dredging, road building, and levee construction.

6.2Scenario B: Seattle Fault Mw 6.7

The initial deformation of Scenario B, much smaller than Scenario A, triggers 

roughly equal waves traveling north and south in central Puget Sound. The initial 

northerly wave is 22 cm high in central Puget Sound; it maintains most of its 

energy as it enters Possession Sound. Wave height near the Mukilteo ferry terminal 

is approximately 18 cm. The initial wave reaches the Everett harbor area 20 min 

after the event, and a second, smaller wave arrives 31 min after the earthquake 

(Fig. 4b).

(a) Scenario A: Seattle Fault Mw 7.3 (b) Scenario B: Seattle Fault Mw 6.7 (EERI)

Maximum amplitude

(cm)

0 – 25

25 – 50

50 – 100

100 – 200

200 – 300

0 2 4 km

(a) Scenario A: Seattle Fault Mw 7.3 (b) Scenario B: Seattle Fault Mw 6.7 (EERI)

0 2 4 km

Maximum current speed

(cm/s)

< 25

25 – 50

50 – 100

100 – 150

150 – 200

200 – 300

> 300

Figure 4: Maximum tsunami wave amplitudes in the Everett area for Scenarios A and B.

Figure 5: Maximum current speeds in the Everett area for Scenarios A and B.

12 Chamberlin and Arcas
This event causes no substantial inundation above the mean high water line. 

Maximum wave heights in the East Waterway are 27 cm; wave heights in the 

Snohomish River channel behind Jetty Island are 22 cm.

In contrast to Scenario A, this scenario does not produce major currents in the 

Naval Station’s East Waterway; currents here are less than 20 cm/s. The Snohomish 

River channel has the largest currents under this scenario; up to 40 cm/s (Fig. 5b). 

Wave amplitudes for Scenarios A and B at five locations appear in the time 

series presented in Fig. 6 below, with the maximum elevation recorded during the 

first two wave peaks at location 3 for Scenario A (Port Gardner).

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

−1

0

1

2 1: Central Puget Sound

Wave amplitude (m)

Scenario A 

Scenario B 

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

−1

0

1

2 2: Possession Sound

Wave amplitude (m)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

−1

0

1

2 3: Port Gardner East Waterway

Wave amplitude (m)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

−1

0

1

2 4: Snohomish Channel Entrance

Wave amplitude (m)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

−1

0

1

2 5: Central Snohomish Channel

Wave amplitude (m)

Time (hours since event)

Figure 6: Wave amplitude time series at five locations in the model domain 

for Scenarios A and B. Time series locations are indicated in Fig. 1. 

Tsunami Hazard Mapping at Everett, Washington 13 

7. Conclusion

The results of modeling two local tsunami source scenarios in Everett, Washington, are presented. Both scenarios are based on the Seattle Fault. Of the two 

scenarios investigated in this study, Scenario A, a Mw 7.3 event, clearly emerges 

as the more dangerous of the two. Although the deformation of Scenario B covers 

approximately the same extent surface as that of Scenario A, the large seismic slip 

associated with Scenario A causes a much larger volume of water to be displaced. 

In both scenarios, areas most at risk for inundation are in the area of Naval 

Station Everett, Jetty Island, and low-lying areas north of the Snohomish River.

8. Acknowledgments

This publication is contribution 3625 from NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental 

Laboratory and is partially funded by the Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean (JISAO) at the University of Washington under NOAA Cooperative Agreement No. NA17RJ1232, JISAO contribution 1833. The authors thank 

Lonnie Reid-Pell (USACE Seattle District) for providing bathymetric survey data.

Tsunami Hazard Mapping at Everett, Washington 15 

9. References

Atwater, B.F., and A.L. Moore (1992): A tsunami about 1000 years ago in Puget 

Sound, Washington. Science, 258(5088), 1614–1617.

Bourgeois, J., and S.Y. Johnson (2001): Geologic evidence of earthquakes at the 

Snohomish delta, Washington, in the past 1200 yr. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 

113(4), 482–494.

Bucknam, R.C., E. Hemphill-Haley, and E.B. Leopold (1992): Abrupt uplift 

within the past 1700 years at southern Puget Sound, Washington. Science, 

258(5088), 1611–1614.

Finlayson, D.P. (2005): Combined bathymetry and topography of the Puget 

Lowland, Washington State. University of Washington (http://www.ocean.

washington.edu/data/pugetsound/).

González, F.I., B.L. Sherrod, B.F. Atwater, A.P. Frankel, S.P. Palmer, M.L. 

Holmes, R.E. Karlin, B.E. Jaffe, V.V. Titov, H.O. Mofjeld, and A.J. Venturato (2003): Puget Sound Tsunami Sources - 2002 Workshop Report, NOAA/

OAR/PMEL, In NOAA OAR Special Report: A contribution to the Inundation Mapping Project of the U.S. National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation 

Program, 34 pp.

Hess, K.W., and S.A. White (2004): VDatum for Puget Sound: Generation of the 

grid and population with tidal datums and sea surface topography. Technical Memorandum. NOS CS 4, NOAA OAR, 27 pp.

Shipman, H. (2001): The fall of Camano Head: A Snohomish account of a large 

landslide and tsunami in Possession Sound during the early 1800s. TsuInfo 

Alert , 3(6), edited, 13–14.

Stewart, M. (2005): Scenario for a magnitude 6.7 earthquake on the Seattle 

Fault. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute and Washington Military Department, Emergency Management Division, 162 pp.

Tang, L., V.V. Titov, Y. Wei, H.O. Mofjeld, M. Spillane, D. Arcas, E.N. Bernard, C. Chamberlin, E. Gica, and J. Newman (2008): Tsunami forecast analysis for the May 2006 Tonga tsunami. J. Geophys. Res., 113, 

C12015,10.1029/2008JC004922.

Titov, V.V., and C.E. Synolakis (1998): Numerical modeling of tidal wave 

runup. J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng., 124(4), 157–171.

Titov, V.V., F.I. González, H.O. Mofjeld, and A.J. Venturato (2003): NOAA 

TIME Seattle Tsunami Mapping Project: Procedures, data sources, and 

products. NOAA Tech. Memo. OAR PMEL-124, NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle, WA, 21 pp.

Tsunami Hazard Mapping at Everett, Washington 17 
Venturato, A.J., D. Arcas, V.V. Titov, H.O. Mofjeld, C.C. Chamberlin, and F.I. 

González (2007): Tacoma, Washington, tsunami hazard mapping project: 

Modeling tsunami inundation from Tacoma and Seattle fault earthquakes. 

NOAA Tech. Memo. OAR PMEL-132, NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental 

Laboratory, Seattle, WA, 23 pp.

Wei, Y., E. Bernard, L. Tang, R. Weiss, V. Titov, C. Moore, M. Spillane, M. 

Hopkins, and U. Kânoğlu (2008): Real-time experimental forecast of the 

Peruvian tsunami of August 2007 for U.S. coastlines. Geophys. Res. Lett., 

35, L04609, doi: 10.1029/2007GL032250.

18 Chamberlin and Arcas