St. Paul Park, MN
St. Paul Park wildfire risk explained
St. Paul Park's 2,942 buildings earn a 30th-percentile wildfire-risk score nationally under USFS's model — close to the middle of USFS's national wildfire-risk range. (Source: USFS's Wildfire Risk to Communities methodology.)
Fire likelihood alone (USFS's burn-probability figure) ranks St. Paul Park at the 31st national percentile — 1 points above its risk-to-structures score, a gap driven by how much is actually built there.
Where St. Paul Park's buildings actually sit
Most of St. Paul Park's buildings (76.7%) 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 St. Paul Park ranks
There's little gap between St. Paul Park's 30th national percentile and its 36th percentile inside Minnesota, which means the state comparison mostly confirms what the national score already shows. Among the 31,521 US communities USFS scores, St. Paul Park ranks 22,158 for wildfire risk (1 is highest) and 5,526 by building count (1 is largest). Within Minnesota alone, it ranks 584 of 914 places by risk. See the full county-by-county picture for Minnesota on its state page.
St. Paul Park and the insurance market
St. Paul Park's moderate rating (30th percentile nationally) sits outside the range where wildfire risk alone reshapes an insurance market — still, a homeowner here loses nothing by comparing rates.
Hardening a home in St. Paul Park
St. Paul Park's 76.7% 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 St. Paul Park's figures come from
St. Paul Park's 30th-percentile score and its burn-probability figure both come from the same USFS workbook, documented in the methodology guide. The exposure-zones guide covers what St. Paul Park's dominant indirect exposure actually means, with real examples from across the dataset.