I was diddling around, as one does, on the website of the Department of Agriculture and came across a new report called "Characterizing Rugged Terrain in the United States." My first thought was the same as yours: Why does the USDA care about rugged terrain? I mean, the Post Office, sure. The Interior Department, sure. Maybe even the Army. But why the Agriculture Department?
We will probably never know, but in any case I bet you're curious about how your state stacks up, ruggedness-wise. Here you go:
Louisiana is the flattest state and West Virginia is the most rugged. Surprisingly, California ranks pretty high too. In fact, the West Coast has by far the largest amount of really rugged territory and really rugged roads:
No other region is even in double digits, but 25% of the West Coast is super-rugged and so are 37% of its roads. I would not have guessed that!
Anyway, this is your tax dollars at work. Enjoy.
I grew up in Seattle. It is very, very hilly.
Pierce County, just south of King County and Seattle, has the largest verticals range of any county in the lower 48, from the 14,411 ft summit of Mt. Rainer to the 600 ft depth of Commencement Bay.
From the report summary, it doesn't sound like anyone's analyzed land ruggedness and income demographics relative to land ruggedness. Does Ag need to identify a specific benefit for sponsoring such research?
Perhaps this research can be used to identify better land use policies that minimize costs of roads and development and preserving those rugged areas as wild, scenic places?
Agriculture over hilly to mountainous terrain is hard but not impossible. Growing trees in that type of terrain is more cost effective then say growing corn
It also indicates which states would be prone to flooding (if that state is near a major river) or climate change near a coast. So the insurance industry uses this along with many other government studies to identify where their risk to exposure may be highest. Huge swaths of Florida and Louisiana are high risk areas (Insurers leaving Florida ring a bell?). But flood insurance along the Mississippi is also a concern.
Its when you have both situations in the same state - thats when it becomes a bit sticky for insurers.
Take my state of North Carolina listed as one of the more rugged state but its essentially flat from the Atlantic ocean to the middle of the state. Then you get hilly, then its the Appalachian mountain range. In MY STATE insuring a home along the coast line or on the coastal plain is expensive - its where all the risk is.
Studying dirt for agricultural reasons along with the slope of that dirt provides a state, and private companies a blue print as to what could/should be built in any given area. We, however, as humans are an over confident lot. We look at Galveston and Houston and think, wow, we should import oil there - deep water access, level for piping systems. Then we put refineries right along side the coast as well to improve efficiencies. But when both systems get wiped out by sea level rise what happens then? Maybe all those oil workers and coastal dwellers could become Christmas tree farmers in the mountains
Unfortunately there's also risk in the hills of western NC and Virginia too - the valleys are flood risks - tropical storms go inland bump up against the Appalachians ridges and dump a ton of rain into the valleys.
Alaska doesn't even make the list for ruggedness?
Neither does New York. But Colorado and Florida make the list twice.
Hawaii has some rugged terrain. Hey, it's volcanic.
Texas seems awfully flat to me.
"But why the Agriculture Department?"
Possibly because 'rugged'ness has effects on getting products to markets.
I think it's more what can be grown most economically. It's easier to grow most crops on flat land. e.g. the Corn Belt and, even, the Central Valley in California.
Look up the Juan de Fuca Plate. Plate tectonics formed the Cascade Range and made the Pacific North West particularly bumpy...
And anyone who's driven the Coast Highway and the Redwood Highway should be able to tell you... it's rugged.
The only thing in this world that is flatter than eastern North Dakota is southern Manitoba.
I have driven through both areas and totally agree. One resident of southern Manitoba told me the total change in elevation in one large rural county is 10 feet (<3m).
Some years ago the Journal of Irreproducible Results published an article in which they scanned the surface of a pancake, calculated what the relief detected would look like if the pancake was scaled up to the size of Kansas, compared that to a relief map of Kansas, and concluded that, in the words of the article's title, "Kansas is Flatter than a Pancake".
Saskatchawan-- the very image of empty space. I drove from Lloydminster all the way to the US border, and so much of it was flat and empty. One might see a sign "Middle-Of-No-Wheres-Ville, 3 Km", and when you get there it's three houses a fuel tank and a grain elevator.
"Why the agriculture Department?"
Well, possibly because Agriculture, specifically the National Forest Service, manages about 25% of all Federal lands. Surprising to many folks, the National Forest Service is not part of the Department of the Interior. NFS was established 120 years ago in Agriculture to manage the nations forestry reserves, transferring that management responsibility from the Bureau of Land Management (in Interior) to the Bureau of Forestry (in Agriculture). Ever since then, Agriculture (and particularly the NFS) has had the lead in many functions of land management, including accumulation and analysis of land use data.
In addition to the US Forest Service (sorry Ken, but the name National Forest Service is not correct), USDA is also the home department for the Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service) which maps soils for the US, among other responsibilities. A "ruggedness" index might be of some utility for descriptive purposes and, perhaps, as a factor in allocating resources in response to legislation. Teddy Roosevelt signed the legislation creating the USFS and he vigorously opposed placement in the Dept. of Interior which, at the time. had a corruption problem relating to mineral and oil leases. I am a retired USFS employee.
I read this wrong. I was thinking it was about how much of the area is covered by rugs. My living room, for example, is only about half rugged.
"Oh, rugged *terrain!?! That's completely different.
Never mind."
Thank you Ms Litella.
What, no New Mexico? AGAIN? This happens so often, there's actually a monthly column "One of our Fifty is Missing."
It's actually 51 they always, always leave out DC.
My state’s a rugged one and it’s ok…
I was born in ND and now live in FL. For least rugged the chart lists ND 2nd and FL 3rd. Non-possible. Right off the top, the lowest point in ND is in the Red River valley at 750 ft ASL and the highest White Butte in SW ND at 3,506 ft. The lowest point in FL is obviously 0 ft ASL and the highest is a barely noticeable hill in the panhandle near the AL border at 345 ft ASL. There's a whole lot more up and down hill driving in ND than in FL. I have to question these guys methodology.
I have the same impression, but the study cited by Kevin for states measured travel or road ruggedness, not overall ("terrain ruggedness", which was the regional table).
The road measure excludes 0.15 sq mile quadrants without roads. White Butte is probably out.
But even so it seems wrong. I wonder what they mean by "road" ... interstates only?
"Surprisingly, California ranks pretty high too . . ."
Not sure what is surprising about this. My experience is that the entire US from the Rockies on west if one mountain range after another. Perhaps Kevin has been in California so long he does not realize that some places are actually pretty flat.
Including some places in California. Decades ago I was flying in a small aircraft down the Sacramento River Valley from Chico to Sacramento; we flew over rice fields that were being leveled by laser-controlled road graders, so that they could be flooded with mere centimeters of water. That’s flat.
Former lake beds tend to be very flat.
It's a rugged life out here on the frontier...
Given the number of times Kevin posts photos of various mountains around where he lives, I'm surprised he's surprised California scores high on "rugged."
I'm surprised Delaware isn't the flattest state. If there's a real hill in this state, and one not due to a highway overpass, I have yet to find it.
I've been to the highest point in Delaware!
It's not very high. 🙂
So true, it's basically the delta area between the Susquehanna/Chesapeake Bay and the Delaware River/Delaware Bay.