If you could live in the Sierras - where would it be?

[mokelumnekid]

I'm with giantbrookie on this one. Both my work needs and my primary non-work passion (glass blowing) requires urban-based resources. And I enjoy international travel enough that I would want to be near an airport with reasonable service to the Bay Area or LA. If money were no object I'd probably go for a spot in the Callahan Ranch/Galena Creek area on the lower-east side of Mt. Rose just south of Reno. This is where the sage brush meets the Ponderosa pines and Tuolumne Meadows is only about 2.5 hours away, Carson and Ebbetts areas are near by, and that area sits above the winter inversion smog of the Truckee Meadows. One can jump on the Mt. Rose hwy to go to Tahoe for a swim and decent winter sports (I'm not a snowy person like g-b either) are right there.

Plus the Nevada wilderness begins there and that has charms as well, especially eastern Nevada.

[SSSdave]

Bishop and the rest of the Owens Valley towns and Bridgeport are not geologically in the south eastern Sierra but rather just east in adjacent fault block valleys. The only three communities that are topographically actually within the Sierra would be Mammoth Lakes, Hilton Creek, Lee Vining, and Topaz. Of those, if one is retired and wealthy, Hilton Creek/Crowley would be a nice choice. Very scenic landscape with less winter snow than Mammoth Lakes though colder, not as hot as Bishop, however minimal infrastructure. An excellent base with towering nearby slopes for the backcountry skier willing to earn their turns.

[mokelumnekid]

Why hasn't anyone mentioned Markleeville? Not all that much snow, verdant valley, close to civilization, fishing, etc.?

(SSSDave- I would be a bit careful about being too technical about what defines the "Sierra" geologically as we could spend days talking about that one- as a geologist who has spent considerable time working there- as has giantbrookie who is better equipped than I am to make that call based on the distribution of normal faults- the eastern front is actually a diffuse zone of faulting that penetrates well into the range proper, as well as to the east. If one thinks of the "Sierra" as the Creataceous age plutonic rocks, many of those now are the basement for the ranges in western Nevada. Just saying is all.)

[giantbrookie]

Why hasn't anyone mentioned Markleeville? Not all that much snow, verdant valley, close to civilization, fishing, etc.?

(SSSDave- I would be a bit careful about being too technical about what defines the "Sierra" geologically as we could spend days talking about that one- as a geologist who has spent considerable time working there- as has giantbrookie who is better equipped than I am to make that call based on the distribution of normal faults- the eastern front is actually a diffuse zone of faulting that penetrates well into the range proper, as well as to the east. If one thinks of the "Sierra" as the Creataceous age plutonic rocks, many of those now are the basement for the ranges in western Nevada. Just saying is all.)

As a bit of a geologic clarification, I should say that many research geologists have a hard time with the definition of the Sierra Nevada, and I can say I've given them a hard time about their inconsistency both in statements in my published papers and in my formal journal reviews of other folks' papers. We need to remember that there is a difference between the geologic Sierra Nevada block and what we may think of as the Sierra, which is why you don't find me saying anything about this unless prompted (such as here). In the strictest sense the Sierra should EXCLUDE everything east of the westernmost significant fault in the Sierra Nevada eastern Frontal fault system at any given latitude. However, as Mokelumne pointed out, the SN frontal fault system north of Bishop is a series of overlapping escarpments, so even this definition gets difficult. Suffice it to say there are some who still think of the Carson Range (Mt. Rose etc.) and the Diamond Mtns (east of Mohawk Valley) as part of the Sierra or "transitional", but this is an inconsistent definition tantamount to calling the White-Inyos "Sierra" or "transitional". Needless to say Mammoth,Bishop, South Lake Tahoe, Truckee, Quincy, Meadow Valley and Westwood are NOT Sierra by this definition, but for the purposes of folks thinking of the Sierra for recreational purposes, they are. And that's what we're all about here (as much as I like geology--we're about recreation here, not neotectonics and tectonic geomorphology). By the way, here are a couple of geo-trivia points: (1) The granitic rocks of the Sierra "the Sierra Nevada batholith" diverge northward from the Sierra at around L. Tahoe--this puts them east of the "neotectonic" (ie present day geologic Sierra) in the region north of Tahoe (as noted by Mokelumne). In other words there is a post- 5 m.y. geologic definition of the Sierra, but the pre-5 m.y. geologic definition of the Sierra can be quite different. In fact the eastern border of the post-20 m.y. border of the Sierra has shifted progressively westward since then, as new faults have initiated slip--The Sierra Nevada microplate (see below) is getting progressively narrower with time.
(2) The tectonic block that includes the Sierra also includes the Sacramento and San Joaquin Vallies--this is known as the "Sierra Nevada microplate". Accordingly, I could say that I'm in the Sierra (being in Fresno), I suppose, but that would make little sense from a recreatonal or eco system standpoint.

Regarding Markleeville, that is indeed a nice place. It is a bit short of amenities (say compared to my beloved Quincy), but it is a nice place indeed.

Cheers,

GB

P.S. I am posting here from Houston, where I am attending the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America (just finished convening a session, giving a talk, and having the requisite multiple pints afterwards--my talk was partly about the pre-granitic history of the Sierra Nevada ca. 500 m.y. to 175 m.y.).

[mokelumnekid]

Well said giantbrookie. Another definition might simply be, "is an area inside the snow zone or in the rain shadow?" Although in that case the west side of the Carson Range is in. Can you send me the abstract of your GSA talk? Oh look beautiful aspens in Bishop- but wait you are in *lovely* Houston- hah, hah. (Sorry couldn't help but rub that in. See you at AGU?)

[madeintahoe]

Sometimes we often think about that we would like living a little lower down south and in elevation...Woodfords/Markleeville areas, Gardnerville down to Topaz lake even around Coleville and Walker. We have lived in Meyers/South Lake Tahoe for 22 years and have seen our share of snowfall! Tahoe does have most everything you need and it is beautiful and all...but we get a lot of tourist here certain times of the year and sometimes it gets a little annoying
You have to love snow and not mind having to deal with it..some people do not realize how much snow this area can get...and sometimes your street will not get plowed right away. All the seasons are really beautiful here...we feel very fortunate that we do live here

It really is a beautiful place to be living....you are close to so much hiking here and not far away to get to the Southern Sierra for the more higher elevation areas.

[dave54]

There seems to be many different definitions of the Sierra depending on the users frame of reference. A geologist defines it differently from a biologist's ecosystem view. Land use planners tend to use a political definition. The 'Sierran counties' include land areas extending to the coast range. The Forest Service Sierra Nevada Framework boundary was all the way north to Modoc (which made no sense at all from any viewpoint). The Sierra Conservancy covers nearly as much. The media seems to be clueless. If I hear another idiot news reporter refer to Lassen Volcanic National Park as 'the Sierra' I may throw a brick at the TV.

And if you want to be a real nitpicker, there is also a Sierra Nevada Range in Spain.

GB said in an earlier post Westwood is not technically in the Sierras. Westwood residents do not think of the town as Sierran, we think of ourselves in the Cascades (which may not be technically correct either. Some argue this is the tip of a finger of the Columbia plateau. I'll let others debate that, I just call it home). However, just 15 miles west in Chester they do consider themselves as a Sierra town and Susanville seems to be split between Great Basin, Sierras, and Cascades.

[Phil R]

Mammoth, or between Mammoth & Bishop.
A retired co-worker of mine owns a chalet in Wilsonia, which is inside Kings Canyon National Park...I have to admit I wouldn't mind that. LIttle or no access during winter, however.

[SteveB]

Where would I live, if I could? I would live where no man's foot has tread for years, where nature is king and knows it, where I learn right away that I am but a brief visitor, and where my single greatest concern is contemplating both the grand and simple pleasures in whatever I see.

I know, but there it is.

[Bad Man From Bodie]

I live in the Sierra Nevada. I always have and god willing I always will. I was born and I will die there. She goes with me in my travels and she is always on my mind. I am haunted and mesmorized by her beauty. As for the best place to live......anywhere but Mammoth Lakes. I went to highschool there and Ive had enouth of that. Id have to say Lee Vining, because its not overpopulated and never will be, has Mono Lake, Mono Craters, Sierra Mts, and YNP just a couple of minuts away. Lee Vining even has live music these days. Or, Saddlehorn/Calahan Ranch area in Reno because you can make a desent living in Reno and Lee Vining is just 2.5 hrs away.