SummitPost.org

I was curious about how many peaks each of the various western US states contained, based on various prominence thresholds. As shown in the top half, CA and NV come out on top based on gross totals. When adjusted for the size of the state (bottom half), WA comes out on top in every category. Thought it was interesting and worth sharing if you care for such things. Happy climbing!

OK, I'll bite. I can never stop staring at a spreadsheet until I make sense of it. Seems fairly obvious that as you read across a row of numbers the values are cumulative. So inquiring minds need another table below that shows the incremental values. For example, the peak density for the increment P300-P500 would be as follows:
CA - 43.60 peaks per 1000 sq.mile
AZ - 43.24
WA - 43.00

Interesting. The big surprise for me was Idaho coming in second for P1Ks and lower -- I would have guessed Nevada. Also, Wyoming, Montana, and Colorado would look much better if they ceded their boring halves to Iowa, Nebraska, and the Dakotas.

I made it cumulative because I thought it made more sense that way (I would list a 14er among the 13ers as well, so what do I know). Turns out it makes some difference, but not a lot. Washington still comes out strongly on top. And that's despite the fact that 1/3 - 1/2 of the state is relatively flat.

Well we that live in Washington have always known about this (with respect to our state, at least). This is another among many reasons why mountaineering (and peakbagging) in Washington is overall the best in the U.S.

Klenke wrote:Well we that live in Washington have always known about this (with respect to our state, at least). This is another among many reasons why mountaineering (and peakbagging) in Washington is overall the best in the U.S.

Heh, heh. But your weather often sucks. Just sayin'

We'll concede bragging rights to WA, within the data set of Bob's table. Certainly caught me by surprise. But wouldn't it be funny if someplace like Vermont or Virginia had a higher density of prominence peaks (at least at the lower levels).

Turns out a couple of eastern states stack up pretty well at the P2K level, being surpassed only by WA and NV from Bob's list.
Vermont = 13 peaks = 1.35 peaks per 1000 sq.mile
New Hampshire = 12 peaks = 1.28 peaks per 1000 sq.mile

To me it is logical that Washington is on top. The deep cutting rivers and presence of always prominent volcanoes give it a topography suited to both large prominence peaks and many prominent peaks. Poor Colorado has such a poor showing because of the lack of many deep cutting rivers and endless ridglines. The Sierra Nevada boils down to only 1 ultra. While the basin and ranges of Nevada add up, the North Cascades has a huge density. Drop into canada and you get to prominence lists nobody is going to complete as there are just too many and most are very difficult to access. The promince is there due to these deep rivers as a remnant of glaciation though. Same as in Washington and Glacier NP.

I hope to make it up there to tackle many more of them. I am working on the 4000 ft prominence list for the contiguous US. Only 45/142 so far, but it is a great list that provides a huge diversity of habitats and mostly very aestheticly pleasing peaks. For the few with roads to the summit I am going to mountain bike them or snowshoe them in the winter. Always trying to take the most interesting route I can even if it is not the easiest, and putting logical extensions into traverses to nearby peaks. I have already visited some fabulous peaks I would have otherwise passed over. As Utah is my home state I thought I should do the 3000 foot prominence peaks and there are some great ones I would have passed over here as well.

Thanks to all of you who sign logs both here and on peakbagger for helping me get the logistics and conditions down for approaching these peaks!

Dustin Erickson