Signature · 2 LILA tracts (40% of tracts)
Adams County, WA
Adams County's signature pressure is desert tracts: 2 LILA tracts (40% of the book) alongside 41.7% low-access.
- 41.7%
- low-access pop.
- 2
- food-desert tracts
- 18.9%
- on SNAP
- 21K
- residents (ACS 2024)
USDA FARA access plate
County Adams County, WA
LA-SEVERE · ABOVE-NATIONAL · LILA-POCKET · SNAP-HEAVY · VEH-OK · DENSITY-DENSE
- LA-SEVERE 41.7% low-access
- ABOVE-NATIONAL +19.6 pts vs US
- LILA-POCKET 2 food-desert tracts
- SNAP-HEAVY 18.9% SNAP
- VEH-OK 6.4% no vehicle
- DENSITY-DENSE 40% tracts LILA
Nearest low-access peer: Kitsap County ( -1.0 pts)
Upper-band low-access
Adams County sits in the upper national band (41.7%, #348 of 3,079) with 2 LILA tracts.
- #348
- national by low-access %
- #4
- in WA
- 2
- low-access tracts
- 4K
- food-desert residents
Upper-band counties often pair elevated low-access with clustered LILA tracts. Low access = >1 mile urban / >10 miles rural.
Signature read: 2 LILA tracts (40% of tracts) .
How Adams County compares nationally
Adams County sits among the nation's most food-access-constrained counties: its 41.7% low-access share outpaces 89% of the 3,133 U.S. counties with USDA data, ranking #348 most-affected nationwide.
Adams County's elevated USDA tier split
5 census tracts grouped by USDA classification · 2 LILA.
Adams County is mostly urban by USDA tract type (3 urban, 2 rural), so most of its low-access count comes from the 1-mile test; the 2 rural tracts are held to 10 miles.
Adams County vs nearby high low-access peers
Poles + nearest peers in Washington, not a full county-board reprint
- Douglas
Douglas 55.5%
55.5 % low-access
- Adams
Adams 41.7%
41.7 % low-access
- Kitsap
Kitsap 40.7%
40.7 % low-access
- Lincoln
Lincoln 39.4%
39.4 % low-access
- Clallam
Clallam 38.2%
38.2 % low-access
- Stevens
Stevens 36%
36 % low-access
- San Juan 0
San Juan 0%
0 % low-access
FARA 2019 · elevated low-access
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Census Tracts | 5 |
| Atlas Population (2010 basis) | 18,728 |
| Low-Access Tracts | 2 |
| Food-Desert Tracts (low-income & low-access) | 2 |
| Low-Access Population | 7,812 |
| Low-Access Share | 41.7%well above the national average |
| Low-Income & Low-Access Population | 4,350 |
ACS 2024 · elevated SNAP band
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Population | 20,800 |
| Median Household Income | $66,136 |
| Poverty Rate | 19.5%above the national average |
| SNAP Households | 1,188 |
| SNAP Participation Rate | 18.9%well above the national average |
| Households Without a Vehicle | 6.4%below the national average |
| Group-Quarters Population | 1.8% |
SNAP retailers in Adams County
Adams County has 18 stores currently authorized to accept SNAP (EBT) benefits, across 6 store categories. Convenience Store lead with 9 locations (50% of the total), followed by medium grocery store.
Where the store book sits, by town
3 towns share the 18 authorized stores; Othello holds 67% of them. Every one of these towns has at least one grocery-grade outlet (7 across the county).
| Town | SNAP stores | Grocery-grade |
|---|---|---|
| Othello | 12 | 5 |
| Ritzville | 5 | 1 |
| Lind | 1 | 1 |
Convenience Store · 9
- a-1 smoke, othello
- bobs korner none, othello
- circle k 2706041, ritzville
- hawk fuel othello 8, othello
- love's travel stop 514, ritzville
- maverik, inc 725, ritzville
- othello 76 5, othello
- othello chevron, othello
- ritz food mart, ritzville
Medium Grocery Store · 3
- el jazmin, othello
- jim's market inc, lind
- mi casa market 2, othello
Super Store · 2
- lep-re-kon mart #2, othello
- walmart 3217, othello
Supermarket · 2
- akins fresh market, ritzville
- la mexicana super market, othello
Combination Grocery/Other · 1
- dollar tree 6475, othello
Fruits/Veg Specialty · 1
- apolinar produce, othello
Source: USDA SNAP Retailer Locator (currently authorized stores, a live third population, not the 2019 Atlas or ACS 2024 snapshot above).
Other Counties in Washington
One of 38 counties in Washington, 6 are shown here.
Compare Adams County vs Asotin County → · All Washington counties →
Counties near Adams County's elevated low-access or SNAP band
Two USDA/ACS-derived peer sets for Adams County, both outside Washington so the neighborhoods are not the same-state county list above.
Similar low-access share
Nearest low-access rates outside WA (41.7% here).
- Madison County, IL · 41.8% low-access
- Brevard County, FL · 41.8% low-access
- Park County, MT · 41.6% low-access
- Plymouth County, MA · 41.6% low-access
Similar SNAP participation
Nearest household SNAP rates outside WA (18.9% here).
- Sussex County, VA · 18.9% SNAP
- Cambria County, PA · 18.9% SNAP
- Burke County, GA · 18.9% SNAP
- Brantley County, GA · 18.9% SNAP
Source: USDA Food Access Research Atlas (2019) + Census ACS 2024 SNAP. Peers floor at 10,000 residents so stub counties cannot own the match.
Washington among Pacific states
Washington ranks 3rd of 5 Pacific states by population-weighted low-access (23.1%). Adams County, at 41.7%, runs 18.6 pts above the Washington rate.
- Alaska 30.9%
- Hawaii 26.7%
- Washington 23.1%
- Oregon 16.9%
- California 13.3%
Source: USDA Economic Research Service, Food Access Research Atlas (2019), population-weighted by state; divisions per the U.S. Census Bureau. National state map
Read with this county
Sources: USDA Economic Research Service, Food Access Research Atlas (2019) · U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2024 5-Year Estimates · methodology · compiled .
PlainFoodAccess renders this county profile directly from the USDA Food Access Research Atlas (2019) and U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (2024 5-year estimates), no number is typed in by an editor. Figures for Adams County, WA are computed from the joined Atlas and ACS records for FIPS 53001. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the methodology behind these numbers, or report a data error. Data current as of 2026-06-23. Primary sources: USDA Food Access Research Atlas and Census ACS 5-year estimates.
Note: This page presents public USDA and Census data for informational purposes and is not professional advice. Figures reflect the cited dataset vintages and may differ from the most recent local conditions. How this data is sourced & verified.