But I’m talking about the current/proposed, real life application of the scale here, which means EF4 is possible but it’s absolutely not a slam dunk. First off, you mentioned total debarking in rural areas being an EF5 indicator, and while it might be true when it comes to our opinions, it simply isn’t true when it comes to real life application of the scale. The proposed updated EF scale essentially defines EF5 tree damage as en masse root balling, not extreme debarking in rural areas. Neither of these two phenomenon occurred with the Kouts tornado. Not really relevant here since it’s an EF4 candidate, not an EF5 candidate, but still.
Secondly, while it can be in some circumstances, tree stubbing alone is absolutely not an automatic EF4 indicator, and it absolutely can and does happen in the EF3 range. When looking at real life examples, almost every single recent instance of EF4 tree damage (Dayton, Bassfield, Rolling Fork, London, Enderlin, Enid, and probably a couple others I’m forgetting) involved at least some degree of debarking and/or root balling. You used Kankakee as a cherry picked example of what you think EF3 tree damage “should” look like, but you’re ignoring countless examples of trees being stubbed and defoliated, but not debarked within the vicinity of EF3 damage to homes. MANY, and I do mean many EF3 tornadoes defoliate and denude trees, and in some instances can even produce low-end debarking. For example, the EF3 that hit my home town in 2019 stubbed trees within the immediate vicinity of homes that still had walls standing, and I observed this very clearly in person. Plus if you want a VERY recent example, as you can see above, this exact degree of tree damage (with even a little bit of debarking too) from the Washburn tornado was rated EF3. That’s just two examples, and I could give many, many, many more. In the Kouts tornado, the tree damage is not at all consistent with the type of tree damage that typically gets rated EF4 in real life, and is therefore not a strong contextual boost for the home. As shown by my previous examples, in real life, EF4 is only really applied to tree damage when considerable debarking or root balling occurs along with the stubbing. So your claim that the extent of damage to the trees surrounding the Kouts home is representative of typical tree damage from an EF4 event is demonstrably untrue from multiple angles. Bottom line; EF4s typically produce significant debarking, period, regardless of rural or populated settings.
Now on to the home itself. We have a floor platform that has slid off its basement foundation. That is automatically a tell of a weak floor to foundation connection. Now you might say, “But the highest rated DI from Enid was a dubiously anchored farmhouse with a subfloor that slid off”. That is true, but the difference is in Enid, there was grass scouring, incredible root ball displacements, severe debarking, and long distance lofting of heavy metal storage tanks. In Kouts, all we really have contextually near the home is cycloidal crop scouring and a lofted flatbed trailer. While there’s a chance these provide JUST enough for a context based EF4, it’s a stretch and far from a slam dunk, and nowhere near the contextual damage surrounding the Enid farmhouse.
Now the transmission tower is probably the best shot at EF4, especially given the precedent from Bowdle and the 170 MPH DOD for displaced transmission towers in the proposed scale update. Given we haven’t seen this happen since Bowdle though, it’s far from certain.
Conclusion: Given the current and proposed confines and applications of the EF scale, this is a possible, but not a slam dunk EF4 by any means. While we could maybe see an EF4 rating depending on how forward thinking the survey team is, high-end EF3 is every bit as likely, if not more so.
