Signature · 3 LILA tracts (37.5% of tracts)
Iron County, UT
Iron County's signature pressure is desert tracts: 3 LILA tracts (37.5% of the book) alongside 39.7% low-access.
- 39.7%
- low-access pop.
- 3
- food-desert tracts
- 8.9%
- on SNAP
- 62K
- residents (ACS 2024)
USDA FARA access plate
County Iron County, UT
LA-ELEVATED · ABOVE-NATIONAL · LILA-POCKET · SNAP-LIGHT · VEH-OK · DENSITY-DENSE
- LA-ELEVATED 39.7% low-access
- ABOVE-NATIONAL +17.6 pts vs US
- LILA-POCKET 3 food-desert tracts
- SNAP-LIGHT 8.9% SNAP
- VEH-OK 3.4% no vehicle
- DENSITY-DENSE 38% tracts LILA
Nearest low-access peer: Wayne County ( -1.0 pts)
Upper-band low-access
Iron County sits in the upper national band (39.7%, #406 of 3,079) with 3 LILA tracts.
- #406
- national by low-access %
- #9
- in UT
- 4
- low-access tracts
- 8K
- 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: 3 LILA tracts (37.5% of tracts) .
How Iron County compares nationally
Relative to the 3,133 U.S. counties with USDA food-access data, Iron County's 39.7% low-access share is elevated, higher than 87% of them and ranked #408 most-affected nationwide.
Iron County's elevated USDA tier split
8 census tracts grouped by USDA classification · 3 LILA.
By USDA urbanicity classification, Iron County has 5 urban and 3 rural census tracts. The 1-mile (urban) vs 10-mile (rural) distance threshold above applies per tract, so a county's access rate reflects this mix.
Iron County vs nearby high low-access peers
Poles + nearest peers in Utah, not a full county-board reprint
- Rich
Rich 100%
100 % low-access
- Wasatch
Wasatch 43%
43 % low-access
- Iron 39.7
Iron 39.7%
39.7 % low-access
- Wayne 38.7
Wayne 38.7%
38.7 % low-access
- Washington 35.6
Washington 35.6%
35.6 % low-access
- Emery 34.1
Emery 34.1%
34.1 % low-access
- Morgan 0.4
Morgan 0.4%
0.4 % low-access
FARA 2019 · elevated low-access
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Census Tracts | 8 |
| Atlas Population (2010 basis) | 46,163 |
| Low-Access Tracts | 4 |
| Food-Desert Tracts (low-income & low-access) | 3 |
| Low-Access Population | 18,344 |
| Low-Access Share | 39.7%well above the national average |
| Low-Income & Low-Access Population | 8,119 |
ACS 2024 · elevated SNAP band
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Population | 62,252 |
| Median Household Income | $66,247 |
| Poverty Rate | 13.8%near the national average |
| SNAP Households | 1,797 |
| SNAP Participation Rate | 8.9%below the national average |
| Households Without a Vehicle | 3.4%well below the national average |
| Group-Quarters Population | 1.9% |
Thick SNAP store book in Iron County
Iron County has 30 stores currently authorized to accept SNAP (EBT) benefits, across 8 store categories. Convenience Store lead with 10 locations (33% of the total), followed by combination grocery/other.
Convenience Store · 10
- gas stop cedar city, cedar city
- loves travel stop 335, cedar city
- maverik, inc 231, parowan
- maverik, inc 244, cedar city
- maverik, inc 245, cedar city
- maverik, inc 348, cedar city
- maverik, inc 362, cedar city
- maverik, inc 790, parowan
- maverik, inc 791, cedar city
- ta express parowan 186, parowan
Combination Grocery/Other · 9
- avondale's llc, cedar city
- dollar general 30051, enoch
- dollar tree 2665, cedar city
- family dollar 10148, cedar city
- family dollar 11290, parowan
- family dollar 11320, enoch
- terrible's 443, parowan
- terribles 450, cove fort
- walgreens 11337, cedar city
Supermarket · 3
- lins 10835, cedar city
- natural grocers u160, cedar city
- parowan market inc, parowan
Farmers' Market · 2
- cedar city year-round farmer's market, cedar city
- midvalley farmers market, cedar city
Medium Grocery Store · 2
- dixie nutrition 4, cedar city
- rally stop #16 16, enoch
Super Store · 2
- smiths food & drug center 042, cedar city
- walmart 1438, cedar city
Bakery Specialty · 1
- papa murphys ut017, cedar city
Meat/Poultry Specialty · 1
- d9 custom cuts, llc, paragonah
Source: USDA SNAP Retailer Locator (currently authorized stores, a live third population, not the 2019 Atlas or ACS 2024 snapshot above).
Other Counties in Utah
One of 28 counties in Utah, 6 are shown here.
Compare Iron County vs Beaver County → · All Utah counties →
Counties near Iron County's elevated low-access or SNAP band
Two USDA/ACS-derived peer sets for Iron County, both outside Utah so the neighborhoods are not the same-state county list above.
Similar low-access share
Nearest low-access rates outside UT (39.7% here).
- Hockley County, TX · 39.7% low-access
- Hockley County, TX · 39.7% low-access
- Monroe County, WV · 39.7% low-access
- Monroe County, WV · 39.7% low-access
Similar SNAP participation
Nearest household SNAP rates outside UT (8.9% here).
- Knox County, TN · 8.9% SNAP
- Knox County, TN · 8.9% SNAP
- Dorchester County, SC · 8.9% SNAP
- Dorchester County, SC · 8.9% 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.
Iron County inside a higher low-access state context
Iron County sits inside Utah (ringed). Each state is colored by population-weighted low-access; click any state to compare.
USDA Economic Research Service, Food Access Research Atlas (2019), population-weighted · Census ACS 2024 context
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 Iron County, UT are computed from the joined Atlas and ACS records for FIPS 49021. 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.