Signature · 3.1% low-access (7th pct)
Sevier County, UT
Sevier County lands in the lower national band on low-access (3.1%); supermarket distance is less binding than in the upper band, though local tracts can still diverge.
- 3.1%
- low-access pop.
- 0
- food-desert tracts
- 10.0%
- on SNAP
- 22K
- residents (ACS 2024)
USDA FARA access plate
County Sevier County, UT
LA-ADEQUATE · BELOW-NATIONAL · LILA-NONE · SNAP-LIGHT · VEH-OK · DENSITY-CLEAR
- LA-ADEQUATE 3.1% low-access
- BELOW-NATIONAL -19.0 pts vs US
- LILA-NONE 0 food-desert tracts
- SNAP-LIGHT 10.0% SNAP
- VEH-OK 4.4% no vehicle
- DENSITY-CLEAR 0% tracts LILA
Nearest low-access peer: Morgan County ( -2.7 pts)
Lower-band low-access
Sevier County lands in the lower national band (3.1%, #2,914 of 3,079); local tracts can still diverge from the county mean.
- #2,914
- national by low-access %
- #28
- in UT
- 0
- low-access tracts
- 275
- food-desert residents
Lower-band county means still leave tract outliers on the table below.
Signature read: 3.1% low-access (7th pct) (-19 pts vs U.S. low-access).
How Sevier County compares nationally
Food access in Sevier County compares favorably nationally: its 3.1% low-access share is lower than the vast majority of the 3,133 U.S. counties with USDA data, higher than only 7% of them (rank #2,914).
Sevier County's lower-band USDA tier split
5 census tracts grouped by USDA classification .
Sevier County is mostly rural by USDA tract type (4 rural, 1 urban), so most tracts are held to the 10-mile test and only the 1 urban tract faces the 1-mile one.
Sevier County vs nearby low low-access peers
Poles + nearest peers in Utah, not a full county-board reprint
- Rich
Rich 100%
100 % low-access
- Beaver 14.4
Beaver 14.4%
14.4 % low-access
- Salt Lake 11.5
Salt Lake 11.5%
11.5 % low-access
- Grand 8
Grand 8%
8 % low-access
- Sevier 3.1
Sevier 3.1%
3.1 % low-access
- Morgan 0.4
Morgan 0.4%
0.4 % low-access
FARA 2019 · lower low-access
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Census Tracts | 5 |
| Atlas Population (2010 basis) | 20,802 |
| Low-Access Tracts | 0 |
| Food-Desert Tracts (low-income & low-access) | 0 |
| Low-Access Population | 650 |
| Low-Access Share | 3.1%well below the national average |
| Low-Income & Low-Access Population | 275 |
ACS 2024 · elevated SNAP band
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Population | 22,085 |
| Median Household Income | $74,884 |
| Poverty Rate | 9.7%below the national average |
| SNAP Households | 751 |
| SNAP Participation Rate | 10.0%below the national average |
| Households Without a Vehicle | 4.4%well below the national average |
| Group-Quarters Population | 1.9% |
SNAP retailers in Sevier County
Sevier County has 15 stores currently authorized to accept SNAP (EBT) benefits, across 7 store categories. Convenience Store lead with 5 locations (33% of the total), followed by combination grocery/other.
Where the store book sits, by town
3 towns share the 15 authorized stores; Richfield holds 53% of them. Every one of these towns has at least one grocery-grade outlet (4 across the county).
| Town | SNAP stores | Grocery-grade |
|---|---|---|
| Richfield | 8 | 2 |
| Salina | 5 | 1 |
| Monroe | 2 | 1 |
Convenience Store · 5
- gas stop richfield, richfield
- love's travel stop 581, salina
- maverik inc 637, salina
- maverik, inc 246, richfield
- pilot travel center 773, richfield
Combination Grocery/Other · 4
- dollar tree 3136, richfield
- family dollar store 10897, monroe
- family dollar store 11000, salina
- terribles's 462, salina
Supermarket · 2
- barretts foodtown inc, salina
- lin's supermarkets, inc 10837, richfield
Bakery Specialty · 1
- papa murphys of richfield llc ut033, richfield
Large Grocery Store · 1
- gg's marketplace 1, monroe
Meat/Poultry Specialty · 1
- utah beef producers, richfield
Super Store · 1
- walmart sc 5168, richfield
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 Sevier County vs Beaver County → · All Utah counties →
Counties near Sevier County's lower low-access or SNAP band
Two USDA/ACS-derived peer sets for Sevier 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 (3.1% here).
- Gaines County, TX · 3.1% low-access
- Calhoun County, MS · 3.1% low-access
- Johnson County, KY · 3.1% low-access
- Little River County, AR · 3.1% low-access
Similar SNAP participation
Nearest household SNAP rates outside UT (10.0% here).
- Suffolk city, VA · 10.0% SNAP
- Kitsap County, WA · 10.0% SNAP
- Waupaca County, WI · 10.0% SNAP
- Snyder County, PA · 10.0% 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.
Utah among Mountain states
Utah ranks 5th of 8 Mountain states by population-weighted low-access (23.9%). Sevier County, at 3.1%, runs 20.8 pts below the Utah rate.
- New Mexico 31.7%
- Wyoming 29.7%
- Arizona 26.8%
- Idaho 25.8%
- Utah 23.9%
- Nevada 23.0%
- Montana 22.3%
- Colorado 21.5%
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 Sevier County, UT are computed from the joined Atlas and ACS records for FIPS 49041. 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.