Signature · 2 LILA tracts (40% of tracts)
Mackinac County, MI
Mackinac County's signature pressure is desert tracts: 2 LILA tracts (40% of the book) alongside 34.6% low-access.
- 34.6%
- low-access pop.
- 2
- food-desert tracts
- 11.9%
- on SNAP
- 11K
- residents (ACS 2024)
USDA FARA access plate
County Mackinac County, MI
LA-ELEVATED · ABOVE-NATIONAL · LILA-POCKET · SNAP-TYPICAL · VEH-GAP · DENSITY-DENSE
- LA-ELEVATED 34.6% low-access
- ABOVE-NATIONAL +12.5 pts vs US
- LILA-POCKET 2 food-desert tracts
- SNAP-TYPICAL 11.9% SNAP
- VEH-GAP 10.1% no vehicle
- DENSITY-DENSE 40% tracts LILA
Nearest low-access peer: Ontonagon County ( -0.4 pts)
Upper-band low-access
Mackinac County sits in the upper national band (34.6%, #618 of 3,079) with 2 LILA tracts.
- #618
- national by low-access %
- #8
- in MI
- 3
- low-access tracts
- 2K
- 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 Mackinac County compares nationally
Relative to the 3,133 U.S. counties with USDA food-access data, Mackinac County's 34.6% low-access share is elevated, higher than 80% of them and ranked #618 most-affected nationwide.
Mackinac County's elevated USDA tier split
5 census tracts grouped by USDA classification · 2 LILA.
All 5 of Mackinac County's tracts are rural in the USDA classification, so every one is judged on the 10-mile test: a resident counts as low-access only when the nearest supermarket is more than 10 miles away.
Mackinac County vs nearby high low-access peers
Poles + nearest peers in Michigan, not a full county-board reprint
- Schoolcraft
Schoolcraft 46%
46 % low-access
- St. Clair
St. Clair 35.7%
35.7 % low-access
- Otsego
Otsego 35.2%
35.2 % low-access
- Mackinac
Mackinac 34.6%
34.6 % low-access
- Ontonagon
Ontonagon 34.2%
34.2 % low-access
- Clinton
Clinton 34.1%
34.1 % low-access
- Arenac 0
Arenac 0%
0 % low-access
FARA 2019 · elevated low-access
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Census Tracts | 5 |
| Atlas Population (2010 basis) | 11,113 |
| Low-Access Tracts | 3 |
| Food-Desert Tracts (low-income & low-access) | 2 |
| Low-Access Population | 3,850 |
| Low-Access Share | 34.6%well above the national average |
| Low-Income & Low-Access Population | 1,553 |
Demographics & Assistance (Census ACS 2024)
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Population | 10,957 |
| Median Household Income | $63,909 |
| Poverty Rate | 16.1%above the national average |
| SNAP Households | 617 |
| SNAP Participation Rate | 11.9%near the national average |
| Households Without a Vehicle | 10.1%above the national average |
| Group-Quarters Population | 3.4% |
SNAP retailers in Mackinac County
Mackinac County has 13 stores currently authorized to accept SNAP (EBT) benefits, across 6 store categories. Combination Grocery/Other lead with 5 locations (38% of the total), followed by convenience store.
Where the store book sits, by town
6 towns share the 13 authorized stores; Saint Ignace holds 46% of them. 3 of the 6 towns have no grocery-grade outlet, only convenience or dollar/combination stores: Curtis, Engadine, Moran.
| Town | SNAP stores | Grocery-grade |
|---|---|---|
| Saint Ignace | 6 | 1 |
| Cedarville | 3 | 1 |
| Curtis | 1 | none |
| Engadine | 1 | none |
| Mackinac Island | 1 | 1 |
| Moran | 1 | none |
Combination Grocery/Other · 5
- dollar general 18249, cedarville
- dollar general 17355, saint ignace
- dollar general 20373, curtis
- family dollar 8226, cedarville
- family dollar store 1421, saint ignace
Convenience Store · 4
- circle k 2746204, saint ignace
- k&v grocery inc, moran
- midjim convenience store, saint ignace
- pines trading post, saint ignace
Large Grocery Store · 1
- douds market, mackinac island
Small Grocery Store · 1
- d & d red owl, engadine
Super Store · 1
- family fare 1530, saint ignace
Supermarket · 1
- cedarville foods, cedarville
Source: USDA SNAP Retailer Locator (currently authorized stores, a live third population, not the 2019 Atlas or ACS 2024 snapshot above).
Other Counties in Michigan
One of 82 counties in Michigan, 6 are shown here.
Compare Mackinac County vs Alcona County → · All Michigan counties →
Counties near Mackinac County's elevated low-access or SNAP band
Two USDA/ACS-derived peer sets for Mackinac County, both outside Michigan so the neighborhoods are not the same-state county list above.
Similar low-access share
Nearest low-access rates outside MI (34.6% here).
- Dakota County, MN · 34.6% low-access
- Morgan County, GA · 34.6% low-access
- Floyd County, GA · 34.6% low-access
- Walton County, FL · 34.6% low-access
Similar SNAP participation
Nearest household SNAP rates outside MI (11.9% here).
- Simpson County, KY · 11.9% SNAP
- Scotts Bluff County, NE · 11.9% SNAP
- Boyle County, KY · 11.9% SNAP
- Crawford County, KS · 11.9% 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.
Michigan among East North Central states
Michigan ranks 3rd of 5 East North Central states by population-weighted low-access (23.2%). Mackinac County, at 34.6%, runs 11.4 pts above the Michigan rate.
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 Mackinac County, MI are computed from the joined Atlas and ACS records for FIPS 26097. 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.