Signature · 14.5% low-access (31st pct)
Montague County, TX
Montague County lands in the lower national band on low-access (14.5%); supermarket distance is less binding than in the upper band, though local tracts can still diverge.
- 14.5%
- low-access pop.
- 1
- food-desert tracts
- 9.8%
- on SNAP
- 21K
- residents (ACS 2024)
USDA FARA access plate
County Montague County, TX
LA-MODERATE · BELOW-NATIONAL · LILA-SINGLE · SNAP-LIGHT · VEH-OK · DENSITY-MIXED
- LA-MODERATE 14.5% low-access
- BELOW-NATIONAL -7.6 pts vs US
- LILA-SINGLE 1 food-desert tract
- SNAP-LIGHT 9.8% SNAP
- VEH-OK 5.6% no vehicle
- DENSITY-MIXED 17% tracts LILA
Nearest low-access peer: Comal County (+ 0.1 pts)
Lower-band low-access
Montague County lands in the lower national band (14.5%, #2,154 of 3,079); local tracts can still diverge from the county mean.
- #2,154
- national by low-access %
- #205
- in TX
- 2
- low-access tracts
- 889
- food-desert residents
Lower-band county means still leave tract outliers on the table below.
Signature read: 14.5% low-access (31st pct) (-7.6 pts vs U.S. low-access).
How Montague County compares nationally
Montague County lands in the middle of the national distribution: a 14.5% low-access share that beats 31% of the 3,133 U.S. counties with USDA data (rank #2,154).
Montague County's lower-band USDA tier split
6 census tracts grouped by USDA classification · 1 LILA.
Montague County is mostly rural by USDA tract type (4 rural, 2 urban), so most tracts are held to the 10-mile test and only the 2 urban tracts face the 1-mile one.
Montague County vs nearby low low-access peers
Poles + nearest peers in Texas, not a full county-board reprint
- Throckmorton
Throckmorton 100%
100 % low-access
- Comal 14.6
Comal 14.6%
14.6 % low-access
- Shackelford 14.6
Shackelford 14.6%
14.6 % low-access
- Montague 14.5
Montague 14.5%
14.5 % low-access
- Hunt 14.3
Hunt 14.3%
14.3 % low-access
- Lee 14
Lee 14%
14 % low-access
- Rains 0
Rains 0%
0 % low-access
FARA 2019 · lower low-access
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Census Tracts | 6 |
| Atlas Population (2010 basis) | 19,719 |
| Low-Access Tracts | 2 |
| Food-Desert Tracts (low-income & low-access) | 1 |
| Low-Access Population | 2,866 |
| Low-Access Share | 14.5%below the national average |
| Low-Income & Low-Access Population | 889 |
Demographics & Assistance (Census ACS 2024)
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Population | 21,046 |
| Median Household Income | $64,545 |
| Poverty Rate | 14.2%near the national average |
| SNAP Households | 837 |
| SNAP Participation Rate | 9.8%below the national average |
| Households Without a Vehicle | 5.6%below the national average |
| Group-Quarters Population | 1.6% |
SNAP retailers in Montague County
Montague County has 19 stores currently authorized to accept SNAP (EBT) benefits, across 5 store categories. Convenience Store lead with 8 locations (42% of the total), followed by combination grocery/other.
Where the store book sits, by town
4 towns share the 19 authorized stores; Bowie holds 63% of them. 2 of the 4 towns have no grocery-grade outlet, only convenience or dollar/combination stores: Forestburg, Sunset.
| Town | SNAP stores | Grocery-grade |
|---|---|---|
| Bowie | 12 | 2 |
| Nocona | 5 | 1 |
| Forestburg | 1 | none |
| Sunset | 1 | none |
Convenience Store · 8
- allsup's 102473, bowie
- allsups 134, bowie
- allsups 315, bowie
- bowie fuel mart, bowie
- express mart, bowie
- kountry korner, nocona
- murphy usa 7101, bowie
- star travel center, bowie
Combination Grocery/Other · 7
- cvs/ pharmacy inc 7445, bowie
- dollar general 21635, nocona
- dollar general 2951, bowie
- dollar general 22930, forestburg
- dollar general 25943, sunset
- family dollar 9440, bowie
- family dollar store 8752, nocona
Supermarket · 2
- brookshire 136, bowie
- nocona finer foods, nocona
Meat/Poultry Specialty · 1
- nocona meat company, nocona
Super Store · 1
- walmart supercenter 271, bowie
Source: USDA SNAP Retailer Locator (currently authorized stores, a live third population, not the 2019 Atlas or ACS 2024 snapshot above).
Other Counties in Texas
One of 253 counties in Texas, 6 are shown here.
Compare Montague County vs Anderson County → · All Texas counties →
Counties near Montague County's lower low-access or SNAP band
Two USDA/ACS-derived peer sets for Montague County, both outside Texas so the neighborhoods are not the same-state county list above.
Similar low-access share
Nearest low-access rates outside TX (14.5% here).
- McMinn County, TN · 14.5% low-access
- Crockett County, TN · 14.5% low-access
- Crawford County, PA · 14.5% low-access
- Rutherford County, NC · 14.5% low-access
Similar SNAP participation
Nearest household SNAP rates outside TX (9.8% here).
- Smith County, TN · 9.8% SNAP
- Culpeper County, VA · 9.8% SNAP
- Butler County, OH · 9.8% SNAP
- Warren County, NY · 9.8% 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.
Texas among West South Central states
Texas ranks 3rd of 4 West South Central states by population-weighted low-access (25.0%). Montague County, at 14.5%, runs 10.5 pts below the Texas 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 Montague County, TX are computed from the joined Atlas and ACS records for FIPS 48337. 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.