Lake Tahoe Basin Census Trends Report - TRPA
Lake Tahoe BasinCensus Trends Report1990-2000-2010Prepared August 2013
ContentsPageExecutive SummaryFindingsDefinitionsSection 1. ValuesRents10121416IncomeIncome DistributionSource of IncomeHousing Affordability18202024Section 2. Economy27WorkforcePlace of WorkTravel Time to Work272728JobsEmployment / Unemployment2929IndustriesEstablishments3131
Executive SummaryThis report analyses Bureau of the United States Census (Census) data from the 1990, 2000,and 2010 Censuses to reveal trends in the demographics and economy of the Lake TahoeBasin over the past twenty years. Trends in the Tahoe Basin are discussed in context withother comparison areas which include the states of Nevada and California (the Tahoe Basinbisects both states), the five counties in which some portion of the county is in the TahoeBasin, and the urban centers of Reno-Sparks, Sacramento, and the counties in and adjacentto the San Francisco Bay Area.FindingsIn many regards the Tahoe Basin has followed the demographic and economic trends of thecomparison areas. The Tahoe Basin has suffered from the recession of the mid-to-late2000’s with loss in population gain from the previous decade, decline in median householdincome in real dollars (income adjusted for inflation), increased difficulty for homeownership by residents, an increased unemployment rate, and decline in total payroll jobsand number of business establishments. Similar demographic changes to comparison areasinclude an aging of the population, a decrease in percentage of population that is White,and increase in percentage of population that is of Hispanic origin.The lack of increase in median rents in the Tahoe Basin is very similar to the comparisonareas and reflects an aging housing stock. Home values however have continued to rise at amore rapid pace than in the comparison areas. The decrease in real income in the TahoeBasin combined with the increase in home values suggests that turnover of housing unitscontinues to be driven by nonresidents of the area buying into the Lake Tahoe experience(natural beauty, recreation, resort amenities and so forth). This observation is alsoconfirmed by the continued high use of homes for seasonal and recreational purposes.While seasonal use of vacant housing units stayed stable in all the comparison areas overthe twenty year period, it rose from 34% to 44% of the Tahoe Basin housing stock.Historically, seasonal use has been highest on the North Shore of Lake Tahoe; however, thegreatest gain in seasonal use was on the South Shore from 22% of housing stock in 1990 to39% of housing stock in 2010.Loss in payroll jobs in the Crystal Bay and Kingsbury/Round Hill areas are likely due to thedecline of casino entertainment. The accommodation and food services industry saw adecline in total number of establishments between 2000 and 2010 from 320 to 303establishments. Industries that experienced the greatest loss in number of establishments inthe last decade include retail trade (some of which associated with casinos), manufacturingand unclassified business types. The professional, scientific and services sector, theadministrative and support, waste management and remediation, as well as the health caresectors experienced the greatest gain in number of establishments in the last decade. Thehealth care sector growth may be in part due to the aging of the population. Another recentbusiness trend in the Tahoe Basin is the increase in the number of establishments with lessthan 5 employees.1
Due to the limited amount of developable land and the types of industries that dominatethe Tahoe Basin, some similar trends with comparison areas are exacerbated in the TahoeBasin. For example, the change in population in percentage terms was much lower, but stillpositive, in the second decade than the first for all areas but in the Tahoe Basin populationdeclined. Total housing units increased 6% in both decades compared with 8% to 10% in thegreater Bay Area, 9% to 12% in the state of California, and 30% in the 5-County Regionsurrounding the Tahoe Basin. Home values also reflect limited development opportunitiesfor development or redevelopment in the Tahoe Basin over the past twenty years. Whilemedian home values increased at an average pace of between 1.7% and 3.1% in thecomparison areas, they increased 4.0% per year in the Tahoe Basin. Increased home valuesare driven by increased demand from nonresidents and an almost static supply.Notable differences between the Tahoe Basin and the comparison areas include: the increased proportion of the population aged 20 to 35-years (note the totalnumber of persons in this age group decreased) and decrease in population under20 years of years, the slower growth in total housing stock, a larger percentage of households with income less than 10,000 and a smallerpercentage of households with income greater than 150,000, the widening and worsening of housing affordability, the high percentage of housing units that are vacant, and are used seasonally, andthe low owner-occupancy and renter-occupancy rates, the fall in percentage of households with wage or salary income, the low percentage of workers age 16 and older living in a place (the non-migratorypopulation), and the proportion of workers travelling less than ten minutes to work (much higher inthe Tahoe Basin).Many of the differences listed above including high seasonal use of housing, higher thanaverage migratory population and shortage of affordable housing are typical of resortcommunities and not peculiar to the Tahoe Basin.2
DefinitionsThroughout this report the following definitions are used:5-County Region – Counties with some portion of the county in the Tahoe Basin, including ElDorado and Placer counties in California, and Washoe, Douglas and Carson counties inNevada.Reno-Sparks MSA - Metropolitan Statistical Area comprising Washoe and Storey counties.Sacramento MSA – Metropolitan Statistical Area comprising El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento,and Yolo counties.San Francisco CMSA - Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area comprising Alameda,Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Marin, Santa Clara, San Benito, San Joaquin,Sonoma, Solano, Santa Cruz, and Napa counties.North Lake Tahoe (or North Shore) – Portions of Placer and Washoe counties within theTahoe Basin.South Lake Tahoe (or South Shore) – Portions of Douglas and El Dorado counties, includingthe City of South Lake Tahoe, within the Tahoe Basin.Urban Centers – Collective term for Reno-Sparks MSA, Sacramento MSA, and San FranciscoCMSA.3
Section 1.Demographics: Population, Housing, and IncomePopulationTotal PopulationOver the twenty-year period, between 1990 and 2010, total population of the Tahoe Basingrew 6%. This total growth is much lower than in the 5-County Region, in which countygrowth ranged between 37% and 102%. Total growth was also much lower than forCalifornia and Nevada and the Urban Centers. As with all the comparison areas, the TahoeBasin experienced positive population growth between 1990 and 2000; however, unlike thecomparison areas, the Tahoe Basin’s population declined between 2000 and 2010. Incontrast, surrounding regions continued to grow in the latter decade although at a slowerpace. In terms of average annual percentage growth over the twenty-year period, the TahoeBasin increase in population was much more similar to the San Francisco CMSA and likelyreflects the limited acreage available for development, among other factors. Table 1 belowshows total population and percentage changes between 1990 and 2010.Table 1Total PopulationAreaStatesCaliforniaNevadaCountiesEl DoradoPlacerDouglasWashoeCarson5-County RegionUrban CentersReno-Sparks MSASacramento MSASan Francisco CMSATahoe BasinNorth LakeSouth LakeTotal Tahoe BasinSource: Census SF1 fileAvg. Annual% Change1990-2000Total % Change2000-2010 %-12%16%1%6%As summarized in Table 2, within the Tahoe Basin population growth was greater on theNorth Shore (2,711 persons) than the South Shore (305 persons). Between 1990 and 2000the Tahoe Basin increased by 10,252 persons but 7,236 persons left between 2000 and2010. On the North Shore the Crystal Bay/Incline Village area grew by the largest number ofpeople. On the South Shore the City of South Lake Tahoe/ Meyers area grew by the largestnumber of people. Due to re-drawing of census tracts, portions of population just outside ofthe City of South Lake Tahoe were included in the City of South Lake Tahoe in Census 2010.4
Table 2Tahoe Basin PopulationTotal Avg. AnnualChange % ChangeTahoe Basin Community199020002010North LakeHomewoodTahoe Pines /SunnysideTahoe CityLake Forest /Dollar HillCarnelian BayTahoe VistaKings Beach /BrockwayCrystal Bay / Incline VillageSubtotal North %South LakeSouth Lake TahoeMeyers / Hope Valley / Luther PassWestside El Dorado /TahomaGlenbrook/ Kingsbury/ E. Shore DouglasSubtotal South 07(7,236)3,0160.3%Total Tahoe BasinTotal Change in BasinSource: Census SF1 fileFigure 1 shows the population of the Tahoe Basin at each Census and the percentagechanges in population between each Census for the whole Tahoe Basin, North Lake, andSouth Lake.Figure 1Tahoe Basin ,000North Lake-12%30,00020,00014%10,0001990-11%South Lake200052010
AgeThe Tahoe Basin population is generally younger than that of the 5-County Region andUrban Centers. This is unsurprising given the ice and snow hazards of winter and limitedspecialized health care facilities to provide for an older generation. The aging of the “babyboom” generation is as evident in the Tahoe Basin as other parts of the country. Figure 2depicts that the largest percentage of population was aged between 30 and 40 in 1990. In2000, the largest percentage of population was aged between 40 and 50, and in 2010between 50 and 60 years of age.In 2000 the proportion of the population aged between 5 and 20 increased in the TahoeBasin while it remained about the same in the 5-County Region. The proportion ofpopulation under age 10 continued to fall from 15% in 1990 to 12% in 2000 to 10% in 2010.The proportion of population of prime age for seasonal and migratory work (ages 20through 45) also decreased markedly from 48% in 1990 to 35% in 2010. This decrease maybe in part due to the decline in gaming employment.Figure 2Age Distribution of the Tahoe Basin and 5-County Region12%5-County Region 19905-County Region 200010%5-County Region 2010Tahoe Basin 1990Tahoe Basin 20008%Tahoe Basin 20106%4%2%0%RaceAlthough in all comparison areas the White race comprises more than 50% of thepopulation in 2010, it is lowest in the San Francisco CMSA area at 53%. The percentage ofpopulation that is White in the Tahoe Basin is very comparable to the 5-County Region6
(between 77% and 90% of total population in 2010). Table 3 shows the percent ofpopulation that is White as of each Census.Table 3Percentage of Population that is WhiteArea199020002010CaliforniaNevadaReno-Sparks MSASacramento MSASan Francisco CMSATahoe Basin5-County %66%77%65%53%84%82%Source: Census SF1 fileFigure 3 shows that in 1990 only 2 of the 7 areas analyzed had a White population less than75% of the total population (California and the San Francisco CMSA); however, Whitepersons comprised more than 75% of the population in the other 5 areas. By 2000 theSacramento MSA had fallen below 75% White, and in 2010, only the Tahoe Basin, the 5County Region, and the Reno-Sparks MSA remained at least 75% White.Figure 3Percentage of the Population that is White2010Tahoe BasinYear5-County RegionReno-Sparks MSA2000Sacramento MSASan Francisco CMSANevada1990California0%20%40%60%80%100%In the Tahoe Basin the proportion of the population other than White is insignificant. Asshown in Table 4 for the 2010 Census this finding is also true in all other comparison areas7
with the exception of San Francisco CMSA in which 22% of the population is Asian, andCalifornia and Sacramento MSA in which about 12% of the population is Asian. Persons ofone or more races comprise between 10% (5-County Region) and 22% (California) of totalpopulation.Table 4Racial Composition in 2010 by AreaStatesCaliforniaNevadaCountiesEl DoradoPlacerDouglasWashoeCarson5-County RegionUrban CentersReno-Sparks MSASacramento MSASan Francisco CMSATahoe Basin2010AmericanIndian /AlaskaNativeAsianNativeHawaiian /PacificIslanderOther (oneor tworaces)WhiteBlack 7,468,39046,5103463891,820806,46255,607Percent of 2010 Racial 56 37,253,956450,868 2,700,551StatesCaliforniaNevadaCountiesEl DoradoPlacerDouglasWashoeCarson5-County %100%100%100%100%100%Urban CentersReno-Sparks MSASacramento MSASan Francisco 0%100%100%Tahoe Basin84%1%1%3%0%12%100%Source: Census SF1 fileWhite includes persons of Hispanic and non-Hispanic origins. The percentage of thepopulation that is of Hispanic origin has grown over the past twenty years within the TahoeBasin and all of the comparison areas analyzed.8
Table 5 shows the number of persons of Hispanic origin by area. Figure 4 shows the greatestincrease in proportion of persons of Hispanic origin has been in the state of Nevada. In theTahoe Basin the proportion of persons of Hispanic origin increased from 13% in 1990 to 22%in 2010.Table 5Persons of Hispanic Origin by AreaArea1990StatesCaliforniaNevadaCountiesEl DoradoPlacerDouglasWashoeCarson5-County RegionUrban CentersReno-Sparks MSASacramento MSASan Francisco CMSATahoe BasinNorth LakeSouth LakeTotal Tahoe BasinAvg. Annual% ChangeTotal % Change1990-2000 2000-2010 %114%51%68%18%7%11%152%62%85%Source: Census SF1 fileFigure 4Persons of Hispanic Origin5-County Region2010Total Tahoe Basin2000San Francisco CMSA1990Sacramento MSAReno-Sparks MSANevadaCalifornia0%10%20%930%40%
The proportion of persons of Hispanic origin has not grown in all communities around LakeTahoe. Table 6 shows the greatest percentage increase in persons of Hispanic origin hasbeen on the North Shore in the communities of Incline Village, Tahoe Vista, and KingsBeach/Brockway. The City of South Lake Tahoe experienced the greatest increase in totalnumber of persons of Hispanic origin. There was a decrease generally along the west shoreof Lake Tahoe and the Crystal Bay area. Figure 5 shows the change in percentage ofpopulation of Hispanic origin in the Tahoe Basin.Table 6Persons of Hispanic Origin in the Tahoe BasinTahoe CommunityHomewoodTahoe Pines /SunnysideTahoe CityLake Forest /Dollar HillCarnelian BayTahoe VistaKings Beach /BrockwaySouth Lake TahoeMeyers / Hope Valley / Luther PassWestside El Dorado /TahomaCrystal Bay /surrounding Incline VillageCentral Incline VillageGlenbrook/ Kingsbury/ E. Shore DouglasTotal Tahoe 2227388483752,0926,93936442961,47057212,203Total % ChangeTotal Avg. AnnualChange % Change 1990-2000 2000-2010 85%Source: Census SF1 fileFigure 5Person of Hispanic Origin in the Tahoe BasinGlenbrook/ Kingsbury/ E. Shore DouglasCrystal Bay / Incline VillageWestside El Dorado /TahomaMeyers / Hope Valley / Luther PassSouth Lake TahoeKings Beach /BrockwayTahoe VistaCarnelian BayLake Forest /Dollar HillTahoe CityTahoe Pines 0%70%
HousingTotal Housing StockThe total housing stock grew decade to decade in the Tahoe Basin and all comparison areas.The State of Nevada experienced the greatest percentage increases of 59% between 1990and 2000 and 42% between 2000 and 2010. Housing stock in the Tahoe Basin increased by6% (2,432 units) in the first decade and 6% (2,740 units) in the second decade. Generally thetrends show that areas with more readily developable land added housing units much morerapidly than those areas with limited amounts of land and more rigorous land entitlementprocesses.The total number of housing units and percentage changes between decades are shown inTable 7. Figure 6 shows this information graphically.Table 7Percentage Change in Total Housing Units by AreaPercentage Change1990 to 2000 2000 to 2010Total Housing UnitsAreaCaliforniaNevada5-County RegionReno-Sparks MSASacramento MSASan Francisco CMSATahoe 0%6%Source: Census SF1 fileFigure 6Percentage Increase in Total Housing UnitsTahoe Basin2000 to 2010San Francisco CMSA1990 to 2000Sacramento MSAReno-Sparks MSA5-County RegionNevadaCalifornia0%20%40%1160%
In the Tahoe Basin the increase in number of housing units was greater on the North Shorethan the South Shore. Figure 7 shows the total increases and percentage increases betweenthe two decades.Figure 7Increase in Tahoe Basin Total Housing Units60,000Housing Units6%6%50,00040,0007%3%30,000South Shore20,00010,0005%10%North Shore0199020002010TenancyTable 8 shows tenure of housing units as owner-occupied, renter-occupied, seasonal use orvacant other. The bottom half of the table shows tenure as a percentage of total housingunits. Figure 8 shows percentage of housing units by tenancy in 2010.The percentage of units occupied by their owners has generally increased and renteroccupation has generally decreased over the twenty-year period in all the comparisonareas. The proportion of units that are vacant and used seasonally has been generally stablein all the comparison areas but has increased in the Tahoe Basin. The percentage of unitsused seasonally increased in the Tahoe Basin from 34% in 1990 to 40% in 2000 and 44% in2010. Figure 9 shows the increase in housing units used seasonally in the Tahoe Basin.The proportion of units used seasonally is greatest on the North Shore; the 2010 Censusreports a 52% seasonal unit usage. This percentage has not changed since 1990 although itdid decrease slightly in 2000. While seasonal use is highest on the North Shore, the greatestincrease in housing units used seasonally has been on the South Shore.12
ban CentersReno-Sparks MSASacramento MSASan Francisco CMSATahoe BasinNorth LakeSouth 82,882518,858StatesCaliforniaNevadaCountiesEl DoradoPlacerDouglasWashoeCarson5-County RegionTahoe BasinNorth LakeSouth LakeUrban CentersReno-Sparks MSASacramento MSASan Francisco CMSAStatesCaliforniaNevadaCountiesEl DoradoPlacerDouglasWashoeCarson5-County 680,0811,173,814Total Housing %41%35%Percent of 46,9596,31389,2044,607,263210,909Housing UnitsRenter ,7653,6249625,004236,85716,526Seasonal ise Vacant199020002010Table 8Total Housing Units and Tenure by AreaSource: Census SF1 file
Figure 8Tenure of Housing UnitsFigure 9Tahoe Basin Seasonal Use of Housing Units2010South Lake20001990North LakeTahoe Basin0%10%20%30%40%50%60%ValuesMedian home values are shown in Table 9. The median home values have been adjusted forinflation using the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for the West Region. Theaverage annual percentage growth in values ranges between 1.7% and 3.1% in thecomparison areas. The average annual percentage growth for the Tahoe Basin has beenmuch higher at 4.0% for the past twenty years.14
Table 9Median Home Values (Adjusted for Inflation)Area1990Median Home Value20002010Avg. Annual% ChangeTotal % Change1990-2000 2000-2010 1990-2010StatesCaliforniaNevadaCountiesEl DoradoPlacerDouglasWashoeCarson5-County Region 328,861 160,982 267,646 179,696 458,500 254,2001.7%2.3%-19%12%71%41%39%58% 260,734 284,284 203,540 187,055 167,038 220,530 246,006 270,683 230,061 204,499 186,656 227,581 445,700 427,600 375,800 295,700 270,500 58%63%45%45%60%71%50%85%58%62%65%Urban CentersReno-Sparks MSASacramento MSASan Francisco CMSA 187,055 229,950 433,491 204,499 202,095 447,341 295,200 357,700 637,0002.3%2.2%1.9%9%-12%3%44%77%42%58%56%47%Tahoe BasinNorth LakeSouth LakeTotal Tahoe Basin 298,040 249,064 282,970 442,786 289,348 395,574 648,409 531,268 ource: Census SF3 file (1990 and 2000), 2010 5-year American Community Survey (2010)While several comparison areas saw a drop in the real median home value between 1990and 2000 the Tahoe Basin had an increase of 40% on average basin-wide. The percentageincrease in home values 2000 to 2010 was similar between the Tahoe Basin and thecomparison areas as is shown in Figure 10.Figure 10Percentage Change in Home ValuesTotal Tahoe Basin2000 to 20101990 to 20005-County RegionReno-Sparks MSASacramento MSASan Francisco 0%80%100%Table 10 demonstrates that within the Tahoe Basin the community of Homewood saw thelargest increase in median home value, followed by the communities in the Douglas County15
portion of the Tahoe Basin. Figure 11 illustrates that the median housing unit value hashistorically been and continues to be greater on the North Shore than the South Shore.Table 10Tahoe Basin Median Home Values (Adjusted for Inflation)Area1990Tahoe BasinHomewoodTahoe Pines /SunnysideTahoe CityLake Forest /Dollar HillCarnelian BayTahoe VistaKings Beach /BrockwaySouth Lake TahoeMeyers / Hope Valley / Luther PassWestside El Dorado /TahomaCrystal Bay /surrounding Incline VillageCentral Incline VillageGlenbrook/ Kingsbury/ E. Shore DouglasTotal Tahoe BasinMedian Home Value20002010 237,688 266,285 257,874 397,324 266,285 242,398 175,617 211,867 200,597 219,184 486,142 352,747 364,606 282,970 307,001 473,283 385,334 542,251 377,994 340,916 238,919 184,758 225,379 296,245 765,605 553,767 451,011 395,574 802,200 593,500 587,700 491,500 575,900 646,700 579,800 410,257 448,550 495,500 858,850 699,533 770,767 612,366TotalChangeAvg. Annual% Change 564,512 327,215 329,826 94,176 309,615 404,302 404,183 198,390 247,953 276,316 372,708 346,786 406,160 %3.5%3.8%3.9%Total % Change1990-2000 2000-2010 ource: Census SF3 file (1990 and 2000), 2010 5-year American Community Survey (2010)Figure 11Change in Tahoe Basin Median Home Values 700,000 600,000Home Value 500,000 400,000 300,000North Lake 200,000South Lake 100,000Total Tahoe Basin 0199020002010RentsUnlike median home value increases, the cost to rent a housing unit has barely changedover the past twenty years in real terms (after adjusting for inflation). Table 11 comparesmedian rents between the Tahoe Basin and comparison areas.16
Table 11Median Rents (Adjusted for Inflation)AreaStatesCaliforniaNevadaCountiesEl DoradoPlacerDouglasWashoeCarson5-County RegionMedian Rents200019902010Avg. Annual% ChangeTotal % Change1990-2000 2000-2010 1990-2010 1,043 856 945 885 1,147 9980.5%0.8%-9%3%21%13%10%17% 957 967 1,045 856 807 927 888 987 987 854 823 908 1,074 1,151 1,030 911 885 %4%7%8%11%12%19%-1%6%10%9%Urban CentersReno-Sparks MSASacramento MSASan Francisco CMSA 856 893 1,161 854 852 1,225 910 1,009 1,3050.3%0.6%0.6%0%-5%6%7%18%7%6%13%12%Tahoe BasinNorth LakeSouth LakeTotal Tahoe Basin 1,048 1,040 1,046 1,106 1,035 1,084 1,228 1,094 1,1870.8%0.3%0.6%6%-1%4%11%6%9%17%5%13%Source: Census SF3 file (1990 and 2000), 2010 5-year American Community Survey (2010)Within the Tahoe Basin the most notable change in median rent has been in Tahoe Vista onthe North Shore. Median rent in Tahoe Vista increased 4.3% per year on average between1990 and 2010. Tahoe Basin community median rents are shown in Table 12.Table 12Tahoe Basin Median Rents (Adjusted for Inflation)AreaTahoe BasinHomewoodTahoe Pines /SunnysideTahoe CityLake Forest /Dollar HillCarnelian BayTahoe VistaKings Beach /BrockwaySouth Lake TahoeMeyers / Hope Valley / Luther PassWestside El Dorado /TahomaCrystal Bay /surrounding Incline VillageCentral Incline VillageGlenbrook/ Kingsbury/ E. Shore DouglasTotal Tahoe Basin1990 1,196 1,028 900 1,211 1,184 870 762 866 1,177 949 1,260 1,023 1,170 1,046Median Rents2000 901 967 1,068 1,149 1,174 1,162 824 809 1,166 1,177 1,574 1,139 987 1,0842010 1,055 796 1,194 851 1,289 2,000 949 1,112 1,056 1,134 1,536 1,384 1,074 1,187TotalChangeAvg. Annual% Change( 141)( 232) 294( 360) 105 1,130 187 246( 121) 185 276 361( 96) 141Source: Census SF3 file (1990 and 2000), 2010 5-year American Community Survey 9%1.0%1.5%-0.4%0.6%Total % Change1990-2000 2000-2010 %33%-30%9%130%25%28%-10%20%22%35%-8%13%
IncomeMedian Household IncomeSimilar to median rents, median household income reported by the Census also saw littlechange in the comparison areas and no change in the Tahoe Basin after adjusting forinflation using the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for the West Region.Table 13 compares median household income for all areas analyzed. In most comparisonareas the median household income increased in real terms between 1990 and 2000 butdecreased between 2000 and 2010. The information in Table 13 is graphically shown inFigure 12.Table 13Median Household Income (adjusted for inflation)Area199020002010Avg. Annual% ChangeTotal % Change1990-2000 2000-2010 1990-2010StatesCaliforniaNevadaCountiesEl DoradoPlacerDouglasWashoeCarson5-County Region 60,218 52,165 60,101 56,416 60,883 55,7260.1%0.3%0%8%1%-1%1%7% 58,973 63,251 59,227 53,646 53,106 57,640 65,151 72,808 65,613 57,977 52,908 62,892 70,000 74,447 60,721 55,658 52,067 -7%-4%-2%0%19%18%3%4%-2%9%Urban CentersReno-Sparks MSASacramento MSASan Francisco CMSA 53,646 55,064 69,740 57,977 58,345 78,489 55,724 60,330 75,9890.2%0.5%0.4%8%6%13%-4%3%-3%4%10
the City of South Lake Tahoe were included in the City of South Lake Tahoe in Census 2010. 5 Table 2 . Tahoe Basin Population . Total Avg. Annual Tahoe Basin Community 1990 2000 2010 Change % Change North Lake Homewood 598 808 709 111 0.9% Tahoe Pines /Sunnyside .
the 1870s, Tahoe's forests and the occurrence of fire started to change. Much of the Lake Tahoe Basin is considered a "fire environment." It contains flammable vegetation and a climate to support fire. Fire is a natural process in the Lake Tahoe Basin, and many of the plants growing here have adaptations to survive and thrive in the .
LAKE TAHOE COMMUNITY COLLEGE WINTER/SPRING 2021- Page 12 UPDATED: 10/5/21 FINANCIAL AID LAKE TAHOE COLLEGE PROMISE FEE WAIVER LTCC has a variety of programs that can make college less expensive, or maybe even free. There are grants, scholarships, loans, work-study opportunities, and the Lake Tahoe College Promise and fee waiver programs.
the USDA Forest Service – Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. THF also publishes the . Lake of the Sky Journal. The Tahoe Heritage Foundation is a non-profit organization formed in 1996. The Foundation’s mission is “to help preserve and protect cultural heritage and natural history resources of the Lake Tahoe Basin through
North Lake Tahoe Resort Association Placer County Sierra Business Council Sierra Community House Squaw Valley Alpine Meadows Squaw Valley Public Service District Sugar Bowl Resort Tahoe City Public Utility District . Tahoe Forest Hospital District Tahoe Prosperity Center Tahoe Regional Planning Agency T
HOW THE TAHOE BASIN HAS CHANGED. F. ire was once a natural part of the Lake Tahoe ecosystem before the Comstock logging era in the late 1800s. Many of Tahoe's native plants evolved with periodic fire, which served to remove dead or dis-eased trees and shrubs, smaller trees, and the buildup of forest litter.
Lake Tahoe’s pristine beaches with wine and cheese and enjoyed the Bard at his best. See schedule. Lake Tahoe Summer Music Festival offers world-class entertainment: Tahoe Donner’s Concert on the Green will host composer, pianist and three-time GRAMMY nominee
Index to Indiana Statistics in the Decennial Censuses Contents 3rd Census of the United States (1810) 2 4th Census of the United States (1820) 3 5th Census of the United States (1830) 4 6th Census of the United States (1840) 5 7th Census of the United States (1850) 7 8th Census of the United States (1860) 10 9th Census of the United States (1870) 17
In the English writing system, many of the graphemes (letters and letter groups) have more than one possible pronunciation. Sometimes, specific sequences of letters can alert the reader to the possible pronunciation required; for example, note the letter sequences shown as ‘hollow letters’ in this guide as in ‘watch’, ‘salt’ and ‘city’ - indicating that, in these words with .
