Regional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 4. Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
4.15 Earthquakes
According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), “earthquake is
a term used to describe both sudden slip on a fault, and the resulting
ground shaking and radiated seismic energy caused by the slip, or by
volcanic or magmatic activity, or other sudden stress changes in the
earth”cxix. In an earthquake, the amount of shaking is controlled by the
magnitude of the event, the distance of the affected area from the
epicenter and the type of soil in the affected area.
The shaking can last from a few seconds up to five minutes and can
cause ground failure, landslides, liquefaction, uplifts and sand blows. It is
also common for earthquakes to have aftershocks, which are essentially
smaller earthquakes that follow the main shock of an earthquake sequence. Aftershocks normally occur
within one to two fault lengths distance from the main shock fault and may continue for weeks, months
or years after the initial main shock. In general, the larger the main shock of an earthquake, the larger
and more numerous the aftershocks, and the longer they will continue.cxx
The earth's crust is made up of gigantic “plates,” commonly referred to as tectonic plates. These tectonic
plates form the lithosphere — the outer solid part of the earth, including the crust and upper mantle —
and vary in thickness from 6.5 miles (beneath oceans, for example) to 40 miles (beneath mountain
ranges), with an average thickness of 20 miles. The tectonic plates float over a partly melted layer of
crust called the asthenosphere. Boundaries are formed where one tectonic plate meets another.
Convergent plate boundaries occur where tectonic plates move toward each other; divergent plate
boundaries exist where the plates move away from each other.cxxi
Plate movements release built-up energy in the form of earthquakes, tremors and volcanic activity.
Fault lines such as the San Andreas come all the way to the surface and can be readily seen and
identified. Some fault lines do not come all the way to the surface, yet all faults store and release energy
when they move. Many of the faults in the central United States are characterized this way.cxxii
Subterranean faults, or faults that do not make it to the surface, were formed many millions of years
ago on or near the surface of the earth. Subsequent to that time, these ancient faults subsided, while
the adjacent areas were pushed up. As this fault zone (also known as a rift) sank, sediments filled in the
lower areas. Under pressure, sediments hardened into limestone, sandstone and shale, thus burying the
rifts. With the pressure on the North Atlantic Ridge affecting the eastern side of the North American
Plate, and the movements along the San Andreas Fault by the Pacific Plate, one such rift system in the
Mississippi embayment has reactivated. This particular rift system is now called the Reelfoot Rift. Eight
earthquake seismic zones are located in the central United States, two of which are located in Missouri.
The most active zone is the New Madrid Seismic Zone, which is also the most active seismic area in the
United States east of the Rocky Mountains, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. By some measures,
the New Madrid Zone has as high a risk for tremors as seismic zones in California. It runs from northern
Arkansas through southeast Missouri and western Tennessee and Kentucky to the Illinois side of the
Ohio River Valley.cxxiii
The southeastern (Bootheel) section of Missouri is most susceptible to earthquakes because it overlies
the New Madrid Seismic Zone. It is at risk to strong ground motions and has a high potential for soil
liquefaction due to the presence of sandy, loosely consolidated sediments and a high water table. The
Mid-America Regional Council
4.412
June 2015
Regional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 4. Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
immediate vicinity of the Ozarks is also at risk from earthquakes in the New Madrid Seismic Zone
because, like in the Bootheel, subsurface conditions of the Mississippi and Missouri river valleys tend to
amplify earthquake ground shaking. Earthquake hazards in the western part of the state also exist
because of the historical earthquakes in eastern Kansas and Nebraska. No area of Missouri is immune
from the danger of earthquakes. Minor, but potentially damaging, earthquakes can occur anywhere in
the state.cxxiv
In addition to the New Madrid Seismic Zone, other seismic zones that affect Missourians and potentially
the Kansas City region include the Wabash Valley Seismic Zone, the South Central Illinois Seismic Zone,
and the Nemaha Uplift. The Wabash and Illinois seismic zones are not as active as the New Madrid
Seismic Zone based on microseismic activity, but they are considered capable of producing earthquakes
in the range of M 6.0 to 6.8. An earthquake of this magnitude on the South Central Illinois Seismic Zone
could potentially cause more damage to the St. Louis metropolitan area than a New Madrid Seismic
Zone event. This is because St. Louis metropolitan area is closer to the South Central Illinois Seismic
Zone than it is to the New Madrid Zone. The Nemaha Uplift is of concern to Missourians because it runs
parallel to the Missouri/Kansas border from Lincoln, Nebraska, to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Earthquakes from the Nemaha Uplift are not as severe as those associated with the historic New Madrid
Seismic Zone.cxxv
The specific hazards associated with earthquakes include ground shaking, landslides, liquefaction and
amplification. The severity of these hazards depends on several factors, such as soil and slope
conditions, an affected area’s proximity to the fault and earthquake magnitude. Ground shaking is the
motion felt on the Earth's surface; it is caused by seismic waves generated by the earthquake and is the
primary cause of earthquake damage. The strength of ground shaking depends on the magnitude of the
earthquake, the type of fault producing the earthquake and the affected area’s distance from the
earthquake’s epicenter (i.e., the origination point of the earthquake). Buildings and infrastructure on
poorly consolidated and thick soils will typically incur more damage than buildings and infrastructure on
consolidated soils and bedrock.cxxvi
Liquefaction is a phenomenon where saturated sand and silt take on the characteristics of a liquid
during the intense shaking of an earthquake. The highest hazard areas are concentrated in regions of
man-made landfill, especially fill that was placed many decades ago in areas that were once submerged
bay floor. Other potentially hazardous areas include larger stream channels, which produce the loose
young soils that are particularly susceptible to liquefaction.cxxvii
Amplification occurs when shaking levels at a site are increased by the focusing of seismic energy caused
by the geometry of the sediment velocity structure, such as basin subsurface topography, or by surface
topography.cxxviii
4.15.1 Historical Occurrences
According to the USGS National Earthquake Information Center, there are no historic occurrences of
earthquakes in which the Kansas City region was an epicenter or directly impacted. There have been
several earthquakes in the central United States that have affected Missouri, and to a lesser extent, the
Kansas City region. Table 4.15.1 below lists these earthquakes and Map 4.15.1 displays seismic activity in
Missouri from 1973 to 2015.
Mid-America Regional Council
4.413
June 2015
Regional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 4. Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
Table 4.15.1: Earthquakes Occurring in the Central United States Affecting Missouri (1811–2012)
MAXIMUM
SOURCE
DATE
LOCALITY
MAGNITUDE
INTENSITY
ZONE
December 16, 1811 New Madrid, MO
7.7
XII
New Madrid Fault
January 23, 1812
New Madrid, MO
7.7
XII
New Madrid Fault
February 7, 1812
New Madrid, MO
7.7
XII
New Madrid Fault
June 9, 1838
Southern Illinois
5.7
VI
Illinois Basin
January 4, 1843
Western Tennessee
6.3
VIII
New Madrid Fault
Unknown, 1860
Central Minnesota
5.0
Unknown
Colorado Lineament
August 17, 1865
Southeastern Missouri
5.3
VII
New Madrid Fault
April 24, 1867
Lawrence, KS
5.1
VII
Nemaha Uplift
June 18, 1875
Western Ohio
5.3
VII
Cincinnati Arch
November 15, 1877 Eastern Nebraska
5.0
VII
Nemaha Uplift
October 22, 1882
Arkansas - Texas
5.5
VI - VII
Ouchita - Wichita Fault
July 26, 1891
Illinois - Indiana
5.9
VI
Wabash Valley Fault
October 31, 1895
Charleston, MO
6.7
VIII
New Madrid Fault
May 26, 1909
Illinois
5.1
VII
Cincinnati Arch
April 9, 1917
Eastern Missouri
5.0
VI
St. Francois Uplift
March 8, 1937
Western Ohio
5.0
VII - VIII
Cincinnati Arch
April 9, 1952
Enid, OK
5.1
VII
Nemaha Uplift
November 9, 1968
South Central IL
5.5
VII
Wabash Valley Fault
March 24, 1976
Marked Tree, AR
5.0
V – VI
New Madrid Fault
July 27, 1980
North Central Kentucky 5.2
VII
Cincinnati Arch
January 31, 1986
Anna, OH
5.0
VI
Cincinnati Arch
June 9, 1987
Lawrenceville, IL
5.2
V – VI
Wabash Valley Fault
September 26, 1990 New Hamburg, MO
4.8
IV – V
New Madrid Fault
May 3, 1991
Risco, MO
4.6
IV – V
New Madrid Fault
June 26, 2000
Harrison, AK
3.9
VIII
Ouchita – Wichita Fault
December 7, 2000
Evansville, IN
3.9
V
Wabash Valley Fault
May 4, 2001
Conway, AR
4.4
VI
Ouchita - Wichita Fault
February 8, 2002
Lewton, OK
3.9
V
Nemaha Uplift
June 18, 2002
Evansville, IN
4.6
VI
Wabash Valley Fault
November 3, 2002
O’Neill, NE
4.3
V
Nemaha Uplift
June 6, 2003
Cairo, IL
4.0
VI
New Madrid Fault
August 16, 2003
West Plains, MO
4.0
V
New Madrid Fault
June 15, 2004
Sikeston, MO
3.7
V
New Madrid Fault
June 28, 2004
Ottawa, IL
4.2
VI
Illinois Basin
September 17, 2004 Middlesboro, KY
3.7
V
New Madrid Fault
February 10, 2005
Blytheville, AR
4.1
V
New Madrid Fault
May 1, 2005
Blytheville, AR
4.1
V
New Madrid Fault
June 2, 2005
Dyersburg, TN
4.0
IV
New Madrid Fault
August 24, 2005
Greeneville, TN
3.7
IV
New Madrid Fault
January 2, 2006
Harrisburg, IL
3.6
II-III
Wabash Valley Fault
April 18, 2008
Ogden, IL
4.6
VI
Wabash Valley Fault
April 21, 2008
Gards Point, IL
4.0
V
Wabash Valley Fault
April 25, 2008
Ogden, IL
3.7
V
Wabash Valley Fault
February 10, 2010
Maple Park, IL
3.8
V
Unidentified
March 2, 2010
East Prairie, MO
3.7
IV
New Madrid Fault
October 11, 2010
Guy, AR
4.0
V
Guy-Greenbriar Fault
October 11, 2010
Guy, AR
3.6
V
Guy-Greenbriar Fault
Mid-America Regional Council
4.414
June 2015
Regional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 4. Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
Table 4.15.1: Earthquakes Occurring in the Central United States Affecting Missouri (1811–2012)
MAXIMUM
SOURCE
DATE
LOCALITY
MAGNITUDE
INTENSITY
ZONE
October 15, 2010
Bald Knob, AR
3.8
IV
Guy-Greenbriar Fault
October 16, 2010
Guy, AR
3.5
IV
Guy-Greenbriar Fault
November 20, 2010 Old Texas, AR
3.9
V
Guy-Greenbriar Fault
February 16, 2011
Greenbriar, AR
3.5
IV
Guy-Greenbriar Fault
February 17, 2011
Greenbriar, AR
3.8
IV
Guy-Greenbriar Fault
February 18, 2011
Greenbriar, AR
3.9
V
Guy-Greenbriar Fault
February 18, 2011
Greenbriar, AR
4.1
IV
Guy-Greenbriar Fault
February 20, 2011
Greenbriar, AR
3.6
IV
Guy-Greenbriar Fault
February 25, 2011
Greenbriar, AR
3.6
IV
Guy-Greenbriar Fault
February 28, 2011
Greenbriar, AR
4.7
V
Guy-Greenbriar Fault
February 28, 2011
Greenbriar, AR
3.8
V
Guy-Greenbriar Fault
March 3, 2011
Greenbriar, AR
3.5
IV
Guy-Greenbriar Fault
March 9, 2011
Greenbriar, AR
3.5
IV
Guy-Greenbriar Fault
April 7, 2011
Greenbriar, AR
3.9
V
Guy-Greenbriar Fault
April 8, 2011
Greenbriar, AR
3.9
V
Guy-Greenbriar Fault
April 8, 2011
Greenbriar, AR
3.5
V
Guy-Greenbriar Fault
June 7, 2011
Sullivan, MO
3.9
V
Unidentified
September 22, 2011 Grandin, MO
3.6
IV
Unidentified
February 21, 2012
East Prairie, MO
3.9
IV
New Madrid Fault
October 29, 2012
Parkin, AR
3.9
VI
New Madrid Fault
Source: SEMA State Hazard Analysis, Section F (2013)
Source: USGS NEIC Website
Map 4.15.1: Seismic Activity in Missouri from 1973 to 2015
Mid-America Regional Council
4.415
June 2015
Regional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 4. Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
4.15.2 Probable Locations
While the entire region is susceptible to the effects of an earthquake, given the region’s distance from
major fault lines, the direct impacts will likely be minor.
4.15.3 Extent, Severity, Magnitude
Severity: Low
Magnitude: 1
Based on the Projected Earthquake Intensities map and Modified Mercalli damage scale, the future
probable severity for each earthquake level is shown below (based on a hypothetical 7.6 magnitude
earthquake occurring anywhere along the New Madrid seismic zone):
Modified Mercalli Level
Modified Mercalli levels I-V
Modified Mercalli levels VI
Modified Mercalli levels VII
Modified Mercalli levels VIII-XIII
Future Probable Severity
Low
Low
Low
Low
History has shown that the built environment of the Kansas City area may be susceptible to earthquakes
emanating from seismic zones and faults some distance away from the region, such as the New Madrid
seismic zone in southeastern Missouri and the Nemaha Uplift and its Humbolt Fault in eastern Kansas.
The effects of an earthquake can be widespread, and an earthquake occurring along many of the known
faults affecting Missouri or Kansas might be felt, and possibly have damaging effects, in the Kansas City
area.
The degree to which earthquakes are felt in the Kansas City metro area and the damage associated with
them vary, and are based on factors such as the magnitude and/or intensity of the earthquake, duration
of the shock or shocks, proximity of the earthquake’s epicenter to the Kansas City metropolitan area and
the ability of structures and infrastructure to withstand seismic activity. In general, many elements of
the built environment in the region may be susceptible to earthquake damage, such as old commercial
and residential buildings (particularly those made from unreinforced masonry or stone); bridges, train
trestles and overpasses; water, sewer, natural gas, petroleum and other pipelines, hazardous materials
facilities; dams; and other critical facilities and infrastructure.
The potential damage associated with the various earthquake intensities (V through X) of the Modified
Mercalli Intensity Scale are listed below (SEMA State Hazard Analysis, F-5):
Intensity
Potential Damage
V
Almost everyone feels movement. Most people are awakened. Doors swing open or
closed. Dishes and glassware are broken. Pictures on the wall move. Windows crack in
some cases. Small objects move or are turned over. Liquids may spill out of open
containers.
Mid-America Regional Council
4.416
June 2015
Regional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 4. Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
VI
Everyone feels movement. Poorly constructed buildings are slightly damaged.
Considerable quantities of dishes and glassware, and some windows, are broken. People
have difficulty walking. Pictures fall off walls and objects fall from shelves. Plaster walls
may crack. Some furniture is overturned. Small bells in churches, chapels and schools
ring.
VII
People have difficulty standing. Poorly built or badly designed buildings, adobe houses,
old walls, spires and other structures suffer considerable damage. Damage is slight to
moderate in well-built buildings. Numerous windows are broken. Weak chimneys break
at roof lines. Cornices from towers and high buildings fall. Loose bricks fall from
buildings. Heavy furniture is overturned and damaged. Some sand and gravel stream
banks collapse.
VIII
Drivers have trouble steering their vehicles. Poorly built structures suffer severe
damage. Substantial buildings partially collapse. Damage is slight in structures built to
withstand earthquakes. Tree branches break. Houses not bolted to their foundations
may shift. Tall structures, such as towers and chimneys, may twist and collapse. Springs
and wells may experience temporary or permanent changes. Sand and mud is ejected in
small amounts.
IX
Most buildings suffer damage. Houses that are not bolted down move off their
foundations. Some underground pipes are broken. The ground cracks conspicuously.
Dams and reservoirs suffer severe damage.
X
Well-built wooden structures are severely damaged or destroyed. Most masonry and
frame structures are destroyed, including their foundations. Some bridges are
destroyed. Dams are seriously damaged. Large landslides occur. Water is thrown on the
banks of canals, rivers, and lakes. Railroad tracks are bent slightly. Cracks are opened in
cement pavements and asphalt road surfaces.
As an example of the potential effects an earthquake might have on the Kansas City metropolitan area,
Map 4.15.2, from the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan, depicts the projected intensities by county
of a hypothetical 7.6 magnitude earthquake occurring anywhere along the New Madrid seismic zone. As
indicated in Hazard Identification Section 4.15 above, the New Madrid Fault is the most active seismic
zone affecting Missouri.
Mid-America Regional Council
4.417
June 2015
Regional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 4. Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
Source: Missouri State HMP
Map 4.15.2: Projected Modified Mercalli Intensities from a 7.6 Magnitude Earthquake
Along the New Madrid Seismic Zone
Based on this projection, the Kansas City metropolitan area would experience minor damage associated
with an earthquake of intensity VI on the Modified Mercalli Scale. In this scenario, virtually everyone in
the Kansas City metropolitan area would feel movement, and people would have difficulty walking.
Poorly constructed buildings, buildings made from unreinforced masonry, and buildings that are old
might be slightly damaged. Plaster walls might crack. Considerable quantities of dishes and glassware,
and some windows could be broken. Pictures could fall off walls, objects could fall from shelves and
furniture might be overturned.
4.15.4 Probability of Future Occurrence: Low
Scientists from the USGS and the Center for Earthquake Research and Information at the University of
Memphis have updated their expectations for earthquakes in the New Madrid Seismic Zone. The new
forecasts estimate a 7 to 10 percent chance, in the next 50 years, of a repeat of a major earthquake like
those that occurred in 1811–1812, which likely had magnitudes of between 7.5 and 8.0. Based on the
history of seismic activity along the New Madrid Fault Zone and the January 2003 USGS probability
estimates, the Kansas City metropolitan area has a 25 to 40 percent chance of experiencing an
earthquake of magnitude 6.0 or greater in the next 50 years.cxxix
According to USGS scientist Eugene Schweig:
“More than fifteen years of research has given us the information to allow us to
update our forecasts. But even though the chances of a mid-sized earthquake
are reduced, the chances of a devastating earthquake in the region have risen.
Mid-America Regional Council
4.418
June 2015
Regional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 4. Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
Given this new information, people should absolutely not drop their guard. The
threat of an earthquake to Mid-America is still very real.”cxxx
Minor earthquakes occurring along the New Madrid Fault Zone are normally not noticeable in the
Kansas City metropolitan area because the region is located quite far from this area of seismic activity. A
more significant threat to the region exists from an earthquake producing Modified Mercalli impact
levels of VI to XIII. Because of the Kansas City metropolitan area’s distance from the New Madrid Fault
Zone, even an earthquake producing a Modified Mercalli impact level of VI would have relatively limited
consequences for the metropolitan area. The probable risk of an earthquake for the Kansas City
metropolitan area is estimated as:
Modified Mercalli Level
Modified Mercalli levels I-V
Modified Mercalli levels VI
Modified Mercalli levels VII
Modified Mercalli levels VIII-XIII
Future Probable Severity
Unlikely
Possible to Likely
Possible
Possible
4.15.5 Earthquake Vulnerability Analysis and Potential Loss Estimates
The state of Missouri, in the 2013 update to its State Hazard Mitigation Plan (Section 3.5.4), used HAZUS
2.1 to analyze vulnerability and estimate losses to earthquakes. The HAZUS runs included the counties of
Cass, Clay, Jackson, Platte and Ray in the Kansas City region. The state’s results and methodologies have
been reproduced and quoted below to estimate loss from earthquakes for the planning area. Table and
figure numbers have been changed to correspond to sequencing in this plan, and data not relevant to
the planning area has been deleted:
“All HAZUS analyses were run using an enhanced, Level 2 inventory database
comprised of updated demographic and aggregated data based on the 2010
census. Additionally, site-specific essential facility data was updated based on 2011
HSIP inventory data. An annualized loss scenario that enabled an “apples to apples”
comparison of earthquake risk for each county was run. A second scenario, based
on an event with a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years, was done to model a
worst case earthquake using a level of ground shaking recognized in earthquakeresistant design. The Central United States Earthquake Consortium provided statewide National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) site classification
and soil liquefaction characteristics…These data sets were used as additional, Level
2 data inputs to enhance the accuracy of earthquake hazard modeling. It should be
noted that some of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP)
site classification attributes were slightly altered for incorporation into the HAZUS
platform. Areas that were classified as ‘C to D’ were re-attributed as ‘D’ since in
these instances HAZUS does not allow the data in its original format.
Mid-America Regional Council
4.419
June 2015
Regional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 4. Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
Annualized Loss Scenario
The results of the updated annualized loss scenario [for the Kansas City metro
counties] are shown in Table 4.15.2. HAZUS defines annualized loss as the
expected value of loss in any one year. The software develops annualized loss
estimates by aggregating the losses and their exceedance probabilities from the
eight return periods. Annualized loss is the maximum potential annual dollar loss
resulting from various return periods averaged on a ‘per year’ basis. It is the
summation of all HAZUS-supplied return periods multiplied by the return period
probability (as a weighted calculation). This is the scenario that FEMA uses to
compare relative risk from earthquakes and other hazards at the county level
nationwide. The trend shows dollar losses to be most significant in the
southeastern portion of the State and in the urbanized areas near St. Louis. This is
consistent with the southeastern portion of the State’s proximity to the New
Madrid Seismic Zone and the fact that the more developed areas in the region are
likely to suffer the most building losses, particularly where there are large numbers
of unreinforced masonry buildings.
Included in the table are the annualized loss ratio and a ranking based on this loss
ratio. The loss-ratio column in Table 4.15.2 represents the ratio of the average
annualized losses divided by the entire building inventory by county as calculated
by HAZUS. The loss ratio is an indication of the economic impacts an earthquake
could have, and how difficult it could be for a particular community to recover from
an event.cxxxi
Table 4.15.2: HAZUS Earthquake Loss Estimation: Annualized Loss Scenario
Building
Total Economic
Loss Ratio Income Loss
County
Loss Total
Loss to Buildings Loss Ratio Rank
%**
Total ($)*
($)*
($)*
Cass
99
0.00
21
120
101
Clay
208
0.00
53
261
96
Jackson
776
0.00
219
995
80
Platte
78
0.00
18
96
58
Ray
20
0.00
4
24
53
Source: HAZUS 2.1
*All $ values are in thousands.
**Loss ratio is the sum of structural and nonstructural damage divided by the entire building inventory
value within a county.
Note: Total loss numbers provide an estimate of total losses and due to rounding; these numbers may
differ slightly from the global summary report outputs from HAZUS.
2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years Earthquake Scenario
“A second scenario, based on an event with a 2% probability of exceedance in 50
years, was done to model a worst case scenario. The methodology is based on
probabilistic seismic hazard shaking grids developed by the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) for the National Seismic Hazard Maps that are included with HAZUS. The
USGS maps provide estimates of peak ground acceleration and spectral
acceleration at periods of 0.3 second and 1.0 second, respectively, which have a 2%
probability of exceedance in the next 50 years. The International Building Code
uses this level of ground shaking for building design in seismic areas. This scenario
Mid-America Regional Council
4.420
June 2015
Regional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 4. Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
used a 7.7 driving magnitude in HAZUS-MH, which is the magnitude used for typical
New Madrid fault planning scenarios in Missouri. While the 2% probability of
exceedance in the next 50 years ground motion maps incorporate the shaking
potential from all faults with earthquake potential in and around Missouri, the
most severe shaking is predominately generated by the New Madrid Fault.
The results of this probabilistic scenario include total [statewide] losses exceeding
$65 billion in building and income losses, with overall economic losses exceeding
$77 billion. Over 20 percent (%) of the total number of buildings in the State would
be at least moderately damaged. 19 percent (%) of the building and income losses
would be related to business interruption.
HAZUS estimates direct damage to structural and non-structural building
components separately. Structural components are the walls, columns, beams and
flood systems that are responsible for holding up the building. In other words, the
structural components are the gravity and lateral load resisting systems. Nonstructural building components include building mechanical/electrical systems and
architectural components such as partition walls, ceilings, windows and exterior
cladding that are not designed as part of the building load carrying system.
Equipment that is not an integral part of the building, such as computers, is
considered building contents. Damage to structural components affects other
losses differently than damage to non-structural components. For example, if the
ceiling tiles fall down in a building, business operations can probably resume once
the debris is removed. On the other hand, if a column in a building is damaged,
there is a life safety hazard until the column is repaired or temporarily shored,
possibly resulting in a long-term disruption.
Table 4.15.3 depicts loss ratio by county [for the Kansas City metro], which is the
ratio of the building structure and nonstructural damage to the value of the entire
building inventory. The loss ratio is a measure of the disaster impact to community
sustainability, which is generally considered at risk when losses exceed 10 percent
of the built environment (FEMA). Limitations to the HAZUS loss modeling include
inability to accurately assess the impact to long-span bridges, such as those
crossing the Mississippi River. Damage to major infrastructure, such as power and
other utility distribution systems, is estimated based on a proxy of the population
within the study area and not on actual data representing these systems.
Improvements to future HAZUS software versions and data sets may include using
more extensive geologic mapping (as it becomes available), using more extensive
ground shaking mapping, adding utilities infrastructure, and adding groundwater
depth maps to the analysis.”cxxxii
Table 4.15.3: HAZUS-MH Earthquake Loss Estimation: 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years
Building Impacts by County, Ranked by Highest Building Losses
Damage
Structural Nonstructural
Loss
Income
Total Economic
Loss
and
County
Damage
Damage ($)*
Ratio
Loss Loss to Buildings
Ratio
Inventory
($)*
Contents
(%)**
($)*
($)*,***
Rank
Loss ($)*
Cass
18,117
53,639
16,034
0.70
15,836
103,626
90
Mid-America Regional Council
4.421
June 2015
Regional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 4. Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
Table 4.15.3: HAZUS-MH Earthquake Loss Estimation: 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years
Building Impacts by County, Ranked by Highest Building Losses
Damage
Structural Nonstructural
Loss
Income
Total Economic
Loss
and
County
Damage
Damage ($)*
Ratio
Loss Loss to Buildings
Ratio
Inventory
($)*
Contents
(%)**
($)*
($)*,***
Rank
Loss ($)*
Clay
40,171
118,189
37,672
0.63
43,229
239,261
96
Jackson
139,943
427,463
144,419
0.68
174,461
886,286
92
Platte
15,151
46,173
13,993
0.60
15,157
90,474
98
Ray
3,950
11,217
3,288
0.64
3,694
22,149
95
Source: HAZUS 2.1
*All $ values are in thousands.
**Loss ratio is the sum of structural and nonstructural damage divided by the entire building inventory
value within a county.
***Total economic loss to buildings includes inventory loss, relocation loss, capital-related loss, wages
loss, and rental income loss.
Note: Total loss numbers provide an estimate of total losses and due to rounding; these numbers may
differ slightly from the global summary report outputs from HAZUS.
“Table 4.15.4 shows social impact estimates by county for the same event. Table
4.15.5provides definitions for casualty severity, displaced households, and short-term
shelter needs as used in Table 4.15.4. Casualties resulting from an earthquake will vary
depending on if the earthquake occurs during the middle of the night, middle of the day,
or rush hour. HAZUS provides casualty estimates for three different times of day: 2 a.m.,
2 p.m., and 5 p.m. Table 4.15.4 represents the 2 a.m. timeframe. This scenario models
the earthquake at 2am, when Missouri residents are in their homes and not at their
workplace. During any given day or week, people spend more time in their homes than
they do in their workplace; this scenario produces the most accurate social impact
analysis. The MMI Zone is the Modified Mercalli Intensity Zone classification determined
according to PeakGround Acceleration (PGA). The MMI zones I-XII indicate potential
damage classifications which range from none to very heavy. Additional details on each
MMI Zone are included in Section 4.15.3.cxxxiii”
Table 4.15.4: Social Impact Estimates by County from the 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years
Scenario 2 a.m. time of occurrence
County
MMI
Zone
Cass
Clay
Jackson
Platte
Ray
V
V
V
V
V
Casualty Severity
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Total
Displaced
Households
Short-Term
Shelter Needs
21
41
160
16
5
3
6
22
2
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
24
49
188
18
6
27
79
325
41
6
15
43
204
21
4
Mid-America Regional Council
4.422
June 2015
Regional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 4. Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
Table 4.15.5: Social Impact Estimate Category Definitions
Casualty Severity
Level 1
Casualty Severity
Level 2
Casualty Severity
Level 3
Casualty Severity
Level 4
Displaced Households
Short-Term Shelter
Needs
Injuries will require medical attention but hospitalization is not needed.
Injuries will require hospitalization but are not considered life-threatening.
Injuries will require hospitalization and can become life threatening if not
promptly treated.
Victims are killed by the earthquake.
The number of households that are expected to be displaced from their
homes due to the earthquake.
The number of displaced people that will require accommodations in
temporary public shelters.
4.15.5a Changes to Potential Loss Estimation from 2010 Plan
In Section 3.3.3.a of the 2010 Plan, potential loss estimates were calculated to understand potential loss
in terms of building values on an individual jurisdiction level for certain area- specific hazards. These
hazards included flooding, dam failure, earthquakes and wildland fire. For this 2015 update, earthquakes
were removed as an area- specific hazard, given the reality that the entire planning is in a Modified
Mercalli Zone VI, and no one jurisdiction is more susceptible to the effects of an earthquake than
another. This is supported by the results of the Annualized Loss Scenario presented in Table 4.15.2
above, where the relatively minor projected damage simply corresponds to the differences in property
valuations between each county, where Jackson has the highest building stock value and Ray the lowest.
For this reason, potential loss is best characterized on a county level.
4.15.6 Problem Statements
Given the Kansas City metro’s distance from major fault lines and the predictions of HAZUS-MH
modeling, there are likely to be insignificant direct impacts from earthquakes in the Kansas City metro.
However, depending upon severity, there is potential for building damage. More likely, jurisdictions in
the planning area will be significantly impacted from the secondary effects of earthquakes—evacuee
reception and care, resource allocation, disruption of services from impacted infrastructure in the
eastern part of the state.
Problem statements, such as those below, can support development of mitigation strategies for
earthquakes:



Numerous emergency shelters equipped with backup powered will be needed to meet the mass
care needs of evacuees from a New Madrid earthquake.
Some critical facilities may be potentially at-risk for structural damage due to earthquakes.
Injuries may occur from hazards within buildings if a large-scale earthquake in the New Madrid
Seismic Zone is felt in the Kansas City region.
Mid-America Regional Council
4.423
June 2015