Lipscomb, AL
Lipscomb wildfire risk explained
USFS scores Lipscomb at the 64th national percentile for wildfire risk to structures (well above the national norm for wildfire risk), a figure built from 1,036 real buildings rather than raw vegetation cover. (Source: USFS's Wildfire Risk to Communities methodology.)
Fire likelihood alone (USFS's burn-probability figure) ranks Lipscomb at the 67th national percentile — 3 points above its risk-to-structures score, a gap driven by how much is actually built there.
Where Lipscomb's buildings actually sit
Most of Lipscomb's buildings (61.1%) sit in the Indirect zone, where wind-blown embers rather than flame front are the mechanism USFS is scoring — ember-resistant vents and non-combustible roofing are the interventions this pattern favors, more than defensible space alone.
Where Lipscomb ranks
Lipscomb ranks lower within Alabama (33rd percentile statewide) than its 64th national percentile suggests alone — a calmer spot in a state where wildfire risk generally runs high. Among the 31,521 US communities USFS scores, Lipscomb ranks 11,364 for wildfire risk (1 is highest) and 11,685 by building count (1 is largest). Within Alabama alone, it ranks 395 of 592 places by risk. See the full county-by-county picture for Alabama on its state page.
What this risk score means for insurance
Lipscomb's 64th-percentile, high rating is the kind of score behind a broader national pattern: insurers pulling back from the highest wildfire-risk markets, non-renewing or declining new policies outright, most visibly in California. Shopping around, not assuming automatic renewal, tends to matter here.
Lowering exposure, not just insuring around it
Because 61.1% of Lipscomb's buildings sit in the Indirect zone, sealing the ember pathway (vents, roofing, gutters) is the intervention this page's data actually supports — see the home-hardening guide.
More on how this number was built
Every one of the two percentiles behind Lipscomb's 11,364-place national rank traces to USFS's Wildfire Risk to Communities dataset — see the methodology guide. For more on what indirect exposure implies beyond Lipscomb, see the exposure-zones guide.