Cambridge, ID
Cambridge, ID's wildfire risk, in USFS's own numbers
USFS scores Cambridge at the 93rd national percentile for wildfire risk to structures (in USFS's highest wildfire-risk band nationally), a figure built from 396 real buildings rather than raw vegetation cover. (Source: USFS's Wildfire Risk to Communities methodology.)
Fire likelihood alone (USFS's burn-probability figure) ranks Cambridge at the 93rd national percentile — 0 points above its risk-to-structures score, a gap driven by how much is actually built there.
Cambridge's building exposure, zone by zone
USFS puts 77.8% of Cambridge's 396 buildings in the Indirect exposure zone, versus 22.2% Direct and 0% Minimal — a place where the fire doesn't need to reach the structure directly for embers to.
How Cambridge compares
Cambridge ranks lower within Idaho (71st percentile statewide) than its 93rd national percentile suggests alone — a calmer spot in a state where wildfire risk generally runs high. Among the 31,521 US communities USFS scores, Cambridge ranks 2,330 for wildfire risk (1 is highest) and 19,295 by building count (1 is largest). Within Idaho alone, it ranks 68 of 232 places by risk. See the full county-by-county picture for Idaho on its state page.
What this risk score means for insurance
At the 93rd percentile nationally, Cambridge carries the very high rating that has pushed some carriers to limit new business in similarly-scored places elsewhere in the country. Worth comparing quotes rather than assuming last year's renewal terms still apply.
Lowering exposure, not just insuring around it
Cambridge's 77.8% Indirect-exposure share points at embers, not flame contact, as the main pathway — ember-resistant vents and non-combustible roofing rank ahead of defensible space here. Detail in the home-hardening guide.
Where Cambridge's figures come from
Every one of the two percentiles behind Cambridge's 2,330-place national rank traces to USFS's Wildfire Risk to Communities dataset — see the methodology guide. The exposure-zones guide covers what Cambridge's dominant indirect exposure actually means, with real examples from across the dataset.