DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 2013 Skagit County, Washington Prepared by: Skagit Council of Governments 204 West Montgomery Street, Mount Vernon, WA 98273
CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction... 1 Persons and Populations... 2 Data... 4 Race and Ethnicity... 7 Income... 14 Poverty... 15 Language... 19 City and Town Maps... 22 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Population By Race and Hispanic/Latino Origin: 2010 Census... 7 Table 2. Median Household Income By Race and Hispanic/Latino Origin of Householder: 2007-2011... 14 Table 3. Poverty Statistics: 2007-2011... 15 Table 4. Poverty Statistics By Race and Hispanic/Latino Origin: 2007-2011... 17 Table 5. Poverty Rate for the Population Age 65 and Over: 2007-2011... 18 Table 6. Poverty Rate for Persons with a Disability: 2009-2011... 18 Table 7. Persons with Limited English Proficiency: 2009-2011... 19 Table 8. Language Spoken At Home By Ability to Speak English, Persons Age 5 Years and Over: 2007-2011... 20 Table 9. Common Languages Other Than English Spoken in Skagit County: 2009-2011... 21 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Asian Population in Skagit County: 2010... 8 Figure 2. Black or African American Population in Skagit County: 2010... 9 Figure 3. Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Population in Skagit County: 2010... 10 Figure 4. American Indian and Alaska Native Population in Skagit County: 2010... 11 Figure 5. Hispanic or Latino Population in Skagit County: 2010... 12 Figure 6. Total Minority Population in Skagit County: 2010... 13 Figure 7. Low-income Population in Skagit County: 2007-2011... 16 Figure 8. Environmental Justice Races, City of Anacortes: 2010... 22
CONTENTS Figure 9. Environmental Justice Races, City of Burlington: 2010... 23 Figure 10. Environmental Justice Races, Town of Concrete: 2010... 24 Figure 11. Environmental Justice Races, Town of Hamilton: 2010... 25 Figure 12. Environmental Justice Races, Town of La Conner: 2010... 26 Figure 13. Environmental Justice Races, Town of Lyman: 2010... 27 Figure 14. Environmental Justice Races, City of Mount Vernon: 2010... 28 Figure 15. Environmental Justice Races, City of Sedro-Woolley: 2010... 29 Figure 16. Hispanic/Latino Population, Skagit County Cities & Towns: 2010... 30 Figure 17. Total Minority Population, Skagit County Cities & Towns: 2010... 31 Figure 18. Low-income Population, Skagit County Cities & Towns: 2007-2011... 32
INTRODUCTION Environmental Justice (EJ) principles protect minority populations and low-income populations from disproportionately adverse effects of programs, policies and activities funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). By accepting federal funds through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), both operating administrations within the DOT, the Skagit Council of Governments (SCOG) and any recipients of federal funds through SCOG must incorporate Environmental Justice into their programs, policies and activities. WHAT IS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE? As it relates to transportation, EJ is a concept that assures that before decisions are made for programs, policies and activities that use federal transportation funds; the impacts to minority populations and low-income populations are identified and addressed. EJ principles ensure that negative impacts to human health and the environment are not disproportionately borne by these populations. WHO DOES ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE APPLY TO? EJ applies to all recipients of federal funds from FHWA or FTA. It applies to SCOG, as a recipient of these federal funds and it applies to all jurisdictions receiving these funds, through SCOG, for any program, policy or activity. WHAT ORDERS APPLY TO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE? In 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898 directing federal agencies to develop environmental justice strategies that identify and address disproportionately high and adverse effects of programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. In response, the DOT issued an order establishing such a strategy and directing its operating administrations to also provide guidance to recipients of federal funds on how EJ must be incorporated into programs, policies and activities. The DOT-FHWA-FTA orders/guidance were first published in 1997 & 1998. New orders were published by DOT-FHWA-FTA in 2012 reaffirming the commitment to EJ and clarifying certain aspects of the original 1997 DOT order. In 2012, the definitions for minority populations were modified and the distinction between a Title VI analysis and EJ analysis was clarified. For specific EJ guidance, FHWA published Order 6640.23A and FTA published Circular 4703.1. HOW IS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPLEMENTED? This demographic profile is an implementation measure for EJ through the collection and analysis of demographic data for minority populations and low-income populations. This profile provides a basis for transportation decision-making in that location and concentration of these populations are identified. After the publication of the profile, other EJ-related activities will include, but not be limited to, public engagement processes reaching EJ populations, and transportation project review under the National Environmental Policy Act. 1
PERSONS AND POPULATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Persons that must be identified for Environmental Justice purposes include certain races, ethnic groups and low-income individuals. These minority and lowincome persons are defined as follows: MINORITY PERSONS American Indian and Alaska Native: people having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment. Asian: people having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent, including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand and Vietnam. Black or African American: people having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: people having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. Hispanic or Latino: includes persons of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture of origin, regardless of race. LOW-INCOME PERSONS Low-income: a person whose median household income is at or below the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines. 1 Minority populations and low-income populations must be identified when they live in geographic proximity to a proposed program, policy or activity. If circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed or transient persons who will be similarly affected must be identified. Effects on these populations must not be disproportionately high and adverse meaning: (1) effects may not be disproportionately borne by minority populations or low-income populations; and (2) adverse effects may not be more severe or greater in magnitude than effects borne by non-minority populations or low-income populations. 1 The FTA recommends creating locally developed thresholds for low-income, which must include, at a minimum those people within the HHS guidelines. 2
PERSONS AND POPULATIONS OTHER PERSONS AND POPULATIONS While not required by guidance on Environmental Justice, other persons and populations are included in this demographic profile. These other groups are included because they are protected populations through Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and related nondiscrimination statutes. These persons are as follows: LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY Using American Community Survey (ACS) data, SCOG classifies persons as having limited English proficiency (LEP) if they responded with any answer other than very well when asked to rate their ability to speak English. Those who spoke only English at home were assumed to be proficient in English. Available data for language proficiency is for the population age 5 and over. SENIORS Persons reporting that they were age 65 or over, using data provided by the ACS, are classified by SCOG as seniors. PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES The ACS uses questions to determine whether or not someone is considered disabled. The questions identify six disability types which are: 1. Deaf or having serious difficulty hearing. 2. Blind or having serious difficulty seeing, even when wearing glasses. 3. Because of a physical, mental, or emotional problem, having difficulty remembering, concentrating, or making decisions. 4. Having serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. 5. Having difficulty bathing or dressing. 6. Because of a physical, mental, or emotional problem, having difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor s office or shopping. 2 SCOG classifies persons as having a disability if they meet the ACS definition and are included in the ACS data. 2 These six categories are abbreviated from those available through the U.S. Census Bureau, which were introduced in 2008 through questionnaires used to ascertain disability status. 3
DATA MAIN DATA SOURCES The main data sources used for this demographic profile are both products of the U.S Census Bureau: the 2010 decennial Census and the American Community Survey. Data for all the tables are county-level, whereas data for all the maps are at the smallest geography available through the U.S. Census Bureau. Data from the ACS are primarily from the five-year estimates as these generally produce the highest level of accuracy in the data with a larger sample size than the three-year estimates and one-year estimates. All ACS data is an average over a 12-month period. The five-year estimates produce the most reliable estimates for the most part, but the data are spread over a long range, which is 2007 2011 for this demographic profile. Conversely, the one-year estimates provide estimates over the shortest timeframe (2011), but are generally the least reliable. Reliability of data is favored over shorter-timeframe estimates for this demographic profile. Therefore, the 2007-2011 estimates are primarily used. In cases where five-year estimates were unavailable, three-year estimates were used. All data that should be considered unreliable are identified in the maps and tables of this demographic profile. The following are used in the data tables and figures of this demographic profile: AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY Table C16001, Language Spoken At Home By Ability to Speak English for the Population 5 Years and Over, 2009 2011 three-year estimates, county-level geography Table C17002, Ratio of Income in the Past 12 Months to Poverty Level, 2007-2011 five-year estimates, county-level geography Table C16004, Age By Language Spoken At Home By Ability to Speak English for the Population 5 Years and Over, 2009 2011 three-year estimates, county-level geography Table B16001, Language Spoken At Home By Ability to Speak English, Persons Age 5 Years and Over, 2007 2011 five-year estimates, county-level geography Table B17001, Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months By Sex By Age, 2007 2011 five-year estimates, county-level and tract-level geographies Tables B17001A I, Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months By Sex By Age, 2007 2011 five-year estimates, county-level geography Table B18130, Age By Disability By Poverty Status, 2009 2011 three-year estimates, county-level geography Tables B19013A I, Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2011 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars), 2007 2011 five-year estimates, county-level geography DECENNIAL CENSUS Table P3, Race, 2010 Summary File #1, block-level geography Table P5, Hispanic or Latino By Race, 2010 Summary File #1, block-level geography Table P12, Sex By Age, 2010 Summary File #1, block-level geography 4
DATA ALTERNATIVE DATA SOURCE State of Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) data was examined for this demographic profile to cross-reference main data sources on EJ populations. For this analysis, available primary school data was used from the following schools districts: Anacortes School District; Burlington-Edison School District; Concrete School District; Conway School District; La Conner School District; Mount Vernon School District; and Sedro-Woolley School District. Race data, ethnicity data and free/reduced-price lunch data were reviewed for all primary schools for which data were available for the 2012 2013 school year. Free/reduced-price lunch data was used as a proxy for comparison to EJ low-income populations; though the thresholds for those children receiving lunch benefits and the definition of low-income persons vary. The data from this alternative source showed consistent results of race and ethnic data with the 2010 decennial Census. For example, the two primary schools with the highest percentage of self-identified American Indian and Alaska Native students were in the service areas of the Census blocks with the highest concentrations of self-identified American Indians and Alaska Native persons. Additionally, Census blocks with the highest concentration of self-identified Hispanic or Latino persons were in the service areas of primary schools that had the highest percentage of self-identified Hispanic or Latino students. Finally, the seven primary schools with the highest percentage of free/reduced-price lunches are all in the Mount Vernon School District or Burlington-Edison School District. These two school districts contain the three Census tracts with the highest concentrations of low-income persons, according to the American Community Survey 2007 2011 five-year estimates. DATA NOTES Each data source has strengths and weaknesses, as they relate to this demographic profile. Here are notable examples of strengths and weaknesses for the data sources used: OSPI PRIMARY SCHOOL DATA Strengths: updated on an annual basis so is useful to see year-to-year changes; helpful in geographic cross-referencing 2010 decennial Census data for race and ethnicity; good leading indicators for changing trends in locations of racial groups, ethnic groups and low-income groups. Weaknesses: school districts do not always assign local service areas for each primary school, which makes it difficult to ascertain locations of EJ populations; definitions do not necessarily meet EJ definitions (e.g. free/reduced-price lunch criteria vary from definition of EJ lowincome ); primary school children are a narrow cohort of the population and are not representative of entire low-income or minority populations. 5
DATA 2010 DECENNIAL CENSUS Strengths: very high level of data accuracy; detailed race and ethnic information available at the Census block level; data trends/patterns can be ascertained in 10-year increments with every decennial Census. Weaknesses: limited information available with decennial Census with elimination of long-form after Census 2000; value of data decreases for accuracy of race and ethnicity data as years pass the data is no longer current. AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY Strengths: data releases annually reflect changing trends/patterns; provides the most detailed data available for income and poverty at the Census tract level; helpful for determining significant trends (e.g. high number of Spanish or Spanish Creole speakers in the county). Weaknesses: small sample sizes with high margins of error can lead to unreliable data; data is not available at the same block-level geographies as the decennial Census so analysis is limited to larger-scale areas. All data sources used for this demographic profile use self-reported data or household member-reported data. All data is collected by questionnaire or form. 6
RACE AND ETHNICITY TABLE 1. POPULATION BY RACE AND HISPANIC/LATINO ORIGIN: 2010 CENSUS Total Rate (%) Total Population 116,901 100% Race White 1 97,448 83.4% Black or African American 774 0.7% American Indian and Alaska Native 2,516 2.2% Asian 2,080 1.8% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 226 0.2% Other race or two or more races 13,857 11.9% Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino (or any race) 19,709 16.9% Race and Ethnicity Total Minority 2 27,207 23.3% Source: 2010 U.S. Census Summary File 1 Notes: 1 Includes Hispanic Whites 2 Does not include non-hispanic Whites Percentage rates in bold are used on maps as thresholds to determine higher than average populations of persons of minority race or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. Persons responding that they are of the White racial group were by far the highest population among all persons of all races in Skagit County. Over 83% of persons responded that they were White in 2010, a total of 94,448 persons out of the 116,901 population. The second highest number of people identified themselves as other race or two or more races. This was nearly 12% of the total population in 2010. Of all other self-identified racial groups, American Indians and Alaska Natives were 2.2% of the total population; Asians were 1.8% of the total population; Blacks or African Americans were.7% of the total population; and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander were the smallest racial group at.2% of the total population. People responding that they were of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, and of any race including White, totaled 16.9% of the population in 2010. The term Total Minority, encompasses all racial and ethnic groups other than non-hispanic Whites. Total Minorities in the county comprised 23.3% of the total population in 2010. For geographic calculations at the Census block-level, thresholds were composed to differentiate between locations of various racial groups and see where concentrations of non- White racial populations exist. To aid in this analysis, a map threshold of 5% was selected for racial groups to provide for a consistent threshold among racial groups. For people of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, the rate of 16.9% is used as the map threshold to identify populations of this ethnicity. And for the Total Minority group, 23.3% is set as the map threshold to identify populations. These rates correspond directly with the rates reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The maps in Figures 1 6 all include 2010 decennial Census data. 7
RACE AND ETHNICITY FIGURE 1. ASIAN POPULATION IN SKAGIT COUNTY: 2010 8
RACE AND ETHNICITY FIGURE 2. BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION IN SKAGIT COUNTY: 2010 9
RACE AND ETHNICITY FIGURE 3. NATIVE HAWAIIAN AND OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER POPULATION IN SKAGIT COUNTY: 2010 10
RACE AND ETHNICITY FIGURE 4. AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE POPULATION IN SKAGIT COUNTY: 2010 11
RACE AND ETHNICITY FIGURE 5. HISPANIC OR LATINO POPULATION IN SKAGIT COUNTY: 2010 12
RACE AND ETHNICITY FIGURE 6. TOTAL MINORITY POPULATION IN SKAGIT COUNTY: 2010 13
INCOME TABLE 2. MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY RACE AND HISPANIC/LATINO ORIGIN OF HOUSEHOLDER: 2007-2011 Median Household Income in Past 12 Months 1 Race Margin of Error (+/-) Percent of Median Household Income All Households $ 55,555 $ 1,209 100.0% White 2 $ 56,656 $ 1,252 102.0% Black or African American $ 60,000 $ 17,547 108.0% American Indian and Alaska Native $ 41,902 $ 8,322 75.4% Asian $ 45,313 $ 17,565 81.6% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander $ 44,167 $ 44,643 79.5% Some Other Race $ 36,522 $ 10,573 65.7% Two or More Races $ 50,556 $ 11,442 91.0% White Alone, Not Hispanic or Latino $ 57,965 $ 1,686 104.3% Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino (of any race) $ 40,357 $ 5,759 72.6% The highest median household income estimated for the past 12-month period for any racial group was Black or African American with a $60,000 estimate, though this small sample size had a very high margin of error and is considered unreliable for this demographic profile. White Alone, without Hispanic or Latino ethnicity had the second highest estimated median income per household at $57,965. This is slightly higher than the median for all households, which was $55,555 in the American Community Survey 2007 2011 timeframe. The four lowest racial median household incomes for racial groups were: Some Other Race; American Indian and Alaska Native; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; and Asian. Each of these groups had median household incomes below $46,000, though the data are considered unreliable for the most part. Median household incomes for Hispanic/Latino households were 72.6% of the median for the county at $40,357. Source: 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-year s, Tables B19013 A-I Notes: 1 Households are classified by race and ethnicity reported by Head of Household 2 Includes Hispanic Whites s highlighted in red indicate unreliable data. Coefficients of variation for these estimates were above the rate of 15%. 14
POVERTY TABLE 3. POVERTY STATISTICS: 2007-2011 Total Population Below Poverty Level Below 200% of Poverty Level 200% of Poverty Level and Above Margin of Error (+/-) Percent Margin of Error (+/-) Percent Margin of Error (+/-) Percent Margin of Error (+/-) 115,125 332 13,801 12.0% 1,581 35,868 31.2% 2,510 79,257 68.8% 1,913 Source: 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-year s, Table C17002 The threshold for poverty in Skagit County is 12.0%. According to the most recent American Community Survey data, this percentage of people was below the federal poverty level in the county from 2007 2011, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. 35,868 of the total county population were below 200% of the poverty level for the county and the remaining people (79,257) were above 200% of the poverty level. Figure 7 identifies low-income populations geographically around the county at the Census tract-level. All tracts that are not colored green are above the 12.0% threshold. 15
POVERTY FIGURE 7. LOW-INCOME POPULATION IN SKAGIT COUNTY: 2007-2011 16
Poverty Rate POVERTY TABLE 4. POVERTY STATISTICS BY RACE AND HISPANIC/LATINO ORIGIN: 2007-2011 Margin of Error (+/-) Poverty Rate (%) Margin of Error (+/-) Race 1 Population for Whom Poverty Status is Determined 115,125 332 N/A N/A All Persons 13,801 1,503 12.0% 1.3% White 10,278 1,243 10.3% 1.2% Black or African American 155 97 18.8% 11.7% American Indian and Alaska Native 696 218 33.3% 10.4% Asian 280 148 13.9% 7.4% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 15 17 7.2% 8.2% Some Other Race 1,797 760 28.5% 12.0% Two or More Races 580 238 13.9% 5.7% Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino (or any race) 4,637 1,052 24.8% 5.6% Total Minority 2 6,033 913 23.2% 3.5% Source: 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-year s, Tables B17001A-I Notes: 1 Race is determined by Householder; 2 Total Minority excludes White non-hispanic; estimates highlighted in red indicate unreliable data. Coefficients of variation for these estimates were above the rate of 15%. The highest population of any racial group in poverty were Whites, who were estimated to have 10,278 persons below the poverty level from 2007 2011. This represents roughly 10% of the population of Whites. Poverty rates indicate that one-third of American Indians and Alaska Natives were below the poverty level during this timeframe, though the data is considered unreliable due to the small sample size. Although all racial group estimates, other than White, were unreliable; most racial groups were above the average poverty level for the county. Nearly 25% of people with Hispanic or Latino ethnicity were below the poverty level from 2007 2011. The estimate for Total Minority, a term that encompasses all racial groups and ethnicities other than non-hispanic Whites, has an estimate of 6,033 people below the poverty level. Over 43% of persons below the poverty level from 2007 2011 were in the Total Minority category. 17
POVERTY TABLE 5. POVERTY RATE FOR THE POPULATION AGE 65 AND OVER: 2007-2011 Population Age 65 and Over Total Population Total Population Income Below Poverty Level in Past 12 Months Approximately 16% of the population in Skagit County was age 65 and over from 2007 2011. Of this population, 6% were below the poverty level, an estimate of 1,087 people. Margin of Error (+/-) Margin of Error (+/-) Margin of Error (+/-) Rate Margin of Error (+/-) 115,125 332 18,140 290 1,087 182 6.0% 1.0% Source: 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-year s, Table B17001. TABLE 6. POVERTY RATE FOR PERSONS WITH A DISABILITY: 2009-2011 Persons with A Disability or Disabilities Total Population Total Population Income Below Poverty Level in the Last 12-months Approximately 14% of the county s population was identified by the U.S. Census Bureau as having at least one disability from 2009 2011. Of this population, over 17% were also below the poverty level. Margin of Error (+/-) Margin of Error (+/-) Margin of Error (+/-) Rate Margin of Error (+/-) 115,050 401 15,796 860 2,701 514 17.1% 3.3% Source: 2009-2011 American Community Survey 3-year s, Table B18130 18
LANGUAGE TABLE 7. PERSONS WITH LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY: 2009-2011 Limited English Proficiency Total Population Age 5 and Over Persons with Limited English Proficiency Spanish Language Spoken At Home Other Than English Other Indo- European Languages Asian and Pacific Island Languages Other Languages Margin of Error (+/-) Margin of Error (+/-) Margin of Error (+/-) Margin of Error (+/-) Margin of Error (+/-) Margin of Error (+/-) 109,617 88 5,215 869 4,041 796 600 228 442 174 132 197 Source: 2009-2011 American Community Survey 3-year s, Table C16004 Notes: estimates highlighted in red indicate unreliable data. Coefficients of variation for these data were above the rate of 15%. 2007 2011 5-year s, which likely would have produced more reliable data, were not available for Table C16004. There were an estimated 5,215 persons that had limited English proficiency in Skagit County, of the total population age 5 and over from 2009 2011. This estimate was nearly 5% of the total population of the county for persons 5 years old and over. Spanish is by far the most prevalent language spoken at home, other than English, among those with LEP. Over 75% of persons with LEP speak Spanish at their home in the county, according to these data. All other languages spoken at home among persons with LEP, other than Spanish, had small sample sizes with large margins of error. Due to the small sample size for all these other languages spoken, these data are considered unreliable. 19
LANGUAGE TABLE 8. LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME BY ABILITY TO SPEAK ENGLISH, PERSONS AGE 5 YEARS AND OVER: 2007-2011 Speaks English Less than "Very Well" Language Spoken at Home Margin of Error (+/-) Percentage of Total Population Spanish or Spanish Creole 5,076 690 4.7% Chinese 127 74 0.1% Korean 110 59 0.1% Russian 305 153 0.3% Tagalog 193 107 0.2% Other Languages 508 351 0.5% All Languages 6,319 802 5.8% For the 2007 2011 American Community Survey, those who answered that they spoke English less than Very Well were classified by the language they spoke at home. Spanish or Spanish Creole was the most common language spoken at home in Skagit County other than English among those who spoke English less than Very Well. Spanish or Spanish Creole speakers who spoke English less than Very Well composed an estimated 5,076, nearly 5% of the total population and 80% of all respondents who spoke English less than Very Well. Over 94% of the county s population responded that they either spoke English Very Well or Speaks Only English during the 2007 2011 timeframe. Speaks English "Very Well" or "Speaks Only English" 102,464 1345 94.2% Total Population 108,783 21 100.0% Source: 2007-2011 American Community Survey, Table B16001 Notes: estimates highlighted in red indicate unreliable data. Coefficients of variation for these data were above the rate of 15%. 20
LANGUAGE TABLE 9. COMMON LANGUAGES OTHER THAN ENGLISH SPOKEN IN SKAGIT COUNTY: 2009-2011 Rank Language(s) Margin of Error (+/-) Of the many languages spoken in Skagit County from 2009 2011 other than English, only Spanish or Spanish Creole had a reliable estimate ranking number one among all non-english languages spoken. 1 Spanish or Spanish Creole 11,527 1,216 2 Slavic languages 914 435 3 Tagalog 639 243 4 Other Indo-European languages 487 284 5 Other and unspecified languages 365 338 6 German or other West Germanic languages 332 180 Slavic languages, Tagalog, and Other Indo-European languages ranked third, fourth, and firth, respectively, in other languages spoken in the county other than English during this timeframe. 7 Other Asian and Pacific Island languages 322 119 8 Vietnamese 195 142 9 French (including Patois, Creole, Cajun) 194 110 10 Korean 184 143 11 Chinese 131 72 Source: 2009-2011 American Community Survey 3-year s, Table C16001 Notes: the Coefficients of variation are above 15% for all language estimates other than Spanish or Spanish Creole and are not considered reliable by the U.S. Census Bureau. These values are highlighted in red. 21
CITY AND TOWN MAPS FIGURE 8. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE RACES, CITY OF ANACORTES: 2010 22
CITY AND TOWN MAPS FIGURE 9. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE RACES, CITY OF BURLINGTON: 2010 23
CITY AND TOWN MAPS FIGURE 10. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE RACES, TOWN OF CONCRETE: 2010 24
CITY AND TOWN MAPS FIGURE 11. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE RACES, TOWN OF HAMILTON: 2010 25
CITY AND TOWN MAPS FIGURE 12. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE RACES, TOWN OF LA CONNER: 2010 26
CITY AND TOWN MAPS FIGURE 13. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE RACES, TOWN OF LYMAN: 2010 27
CITY AND TOWN MAPS FIGURE 14. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE RACES, CITY OF MOUNT VERNON: 2010 28
CITY AND TOWN MAPS FIGURE 15. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE RACES, CITY OF SEDRO-WOOLLEY: 2010 29
CITY AND TOWN MAPS FIGURE 16. HISPANIC/LATINO POPULATION, SKAGIT COUNTY CITIES & TOWNS: 2010 30
CITY AND TOWN MAPS FIGURE 17. TOTAL MINORITY POPULATION, SKAGIT COUNTY CITIES & TOWNS: 2010 31
CITY AND TOWN MAPS FIGURE 18. LOW-INCOME POPULATION, SKAGIT COUNTY CITIES & TOWNS: 2007-2011 32