{
  "title": "Wildfire Risk in Plumas County, CA 2026 | Satelife",
  "description": "Wildfire risk in Plumas County is generally elevated in the places we scored. Overall scores range from 34.5 in Peninsula Village to 82.0 near Greenville, with a county median of 68.7.",
  "image": "https://satelife.ai/images/wildfire-risk/plumas-county/generated/plumas-county-locator.webp",
  "canonical": "https://satelife.ai/wildfire-risk/california/plumas-county/",
  "content": "[Home](/)›[Wildfire Risk](/wildfire-risk/)›[California](/wildfire-risk/california/)›Plumas County\n\nPlumas County, California\n\n# Wildfire risk in Plumas County: _where it is highest_, and why\n\nWildfire risk in Plumas County is generally elevated in the places we scored. Overall scores range from 34.5 in Peninsula Village to 82.0 near Greenville, with a county median of 68.7.\n\n[Score my Plumas County address →](#score-my-address) [How risky is this county? ↓](#risk-at-a-glance)\n\nBefore 20002000s2010s2020sCommunity\n\nPlumas County — the largest fires on record, at their perimeter centres, with the county’s main communities. Select a marker for its detail.\n\nAt a glance\n\n## Half of Plumas County scores _High_ or worse\n\nWe scored 158 points across Plumas County on the same 0–100 scale a Satelife address report uses, and they do not land in one place. 24% of them come out Very High, while 6% are Moderate. Which end your own parcel sits at is not something a county map can tell you.\n\n24%\n\n70%\n\n**Very High** 24% · 38 of 158 points **High** 70% · 111 of 158 points **Moderate** 6% · 9 of 158 points\n\nSafest end we measured 34.5 near Peninsula Village · Moderate\n\nMiddle of the county 68.7 High — half of Plumas County is above this\n\nMost exposed end we measured 82 near Greenville · Very High\n\n### And the federal models agree it is a fire county\n\nRelatively High FEMA National Risk Index — wildfire risk rating · index score 98.6 / 100\n\n$13.2M / yr FEMA NRI — expected annual loss from wildfire · rated Relatively High\n\n1.19% USFS Wildfire Risk to Communities — mean annual burn probability · 90th-percentile cell 2.54%\n\n7.13 ft USFS WRC — mean conditional flame length · 98% of the county carries burnable fuel\n\nFEMA NRI also rates Plumas County: all-hazards risk Relatively Moderate · social vulnerability Very High · community resilience Relatively High · annualised wildfire frequency 0.0112.\n\nSources: FEMA National Risk Index 1.20.0 (Dec 2025), county record · USFS Wildfire Risk to Communities v2.0, mean of the grid cells inside the county. Both describe the county as a whole, never an address in it.\n\nWhat does your Plumas County address score?\n\nA county range shows the spread. Your parcel sits somewhere inside it — the report says where, and what to do about it.\n\nFree to request · PDF report with a 0–100 score, the drivers behind it, and a mitigation plan\n\nLocal context\n\n## What the data says about _Plumas County_\n\nThe most common rating is High: 111 scored locations fall in that tier. Another 38 locations are in Very High, which means higher exposure is common in many parts of the county.\n\nOnly 9 scored locations are Moderate, and none are Low. For buyers and owners, that pattern means it is important to look at the exact location, not just the county name.\n\nFire record\n\n## Where the fires _actually were_\n\nFire has touched a very large share of Plumas County. Since 1984, 1,569,648 acres have burned within county fire perimeters, and 94.4% of the county has burned at least once.\n\nThe largest fire listed is the Dixie Fire (2021), at 963,309 acres. It also destroyed 1,311 structures.\n\nThe most recent large fire is Mill (2024). Other major fires listed for this county include Sugar, Chips, Walker, Moonlight, BTU Lightning Complex, Storrie, and Bucks.\n\n![Dixie Fire (2021) in Plumas County, California - Smoke of the Dixie Fire in California on August 4, 2021. Picture taken by an astronaut on the International Space Station.](/images/wildfire-risk/plumas-county/photos/iss065-e-220417-lrg.webp)\n\n**Dixie Fire, 2021** — Plumas County. Photo: NASA Earth Observatory · [Public domain](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ISS065-E-220417_lrg.jpg)\n\n![Sugar Fire (2021) in Plumas County, California - 2nd place winner, 2022 Employee Photo Contest: Wildland Fire category. Sugar Fire smoke above Honey Lake. Photo by William O. John](/images/wildfire-risk/plumas-county/photos/sugar-fire-smoke-above-honey-lake-52392440232.webp)\n\n**Sugar Fire, 2021** — Plumas County. Photo: blmcalifornia · [Public domain](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sugar_Fire_smoke_above_Honey_Lake_\\(52392440232\\).jpg)\n\n166 mapped fire perimeters centred in the county since 1984\n\n1,569,648 acres inside those perimeters since 1984\n\n94.4% of the county's area, as a share of 6,729.4 km²\n\nMill 2024 most recent large fire on record\n\nBefore 20002000s2010s2020s \n\nFire perimeters coloured by decade. Select a perimeter for its name, year and size.\n\nNamed fires on record\n\n-   **Dixie Fire**2021963,309 acres1,311 structures destroyed\n-   **Sugar Fire**2021105,076 acres\n-   **Chips Fire**201276,350 acres\n-   **Walker Fire**201954,615 acres\n-   **Moonlight Fire**200764,960 acres\n-   **BTU Lightning Complex Fire**200853,699 acres\n-   **Storrie Fire**200056,076 acres\n-   **Bucks Fire**199934,236 acres\n\nPerimeter sources: NIFC Interagency Fire Perimeter History · WFIGS Interagency Perimeters · largest on record: Dixie 2021. Perimeters are simplified for display; acreage is the figure the source records.\n\nCommunities\n\n## Where in the county you are _matters most_\n\nFEMA’s National Risk Index rates Plumas County’s wildfire risk as \"Relatively High\" and its expected annual wildfire loss as \"Relatively High.\" FEMA rates the county’s all-hazards risk as \"Relatively Moderate.\"\n\nIn the same FEMA index, social vulnerability is rated \"Very High\" and community resilience is rated \"Relatively High.\" These are county-wide FEMA ratings, not neighborhood-level scores.\n\nA separate U.S. Forest Service burn-probability model shows a mean annual burn probability of 1.19% and a 90th-percentile cell value of 2.54%. This is a modeled burn-probability view, not a fire-weather score.\n\nThat model also indicates that 97.8% of the county can burn, and it reports a mean conditional flame length of 7.13 feet.\n\nQuincy town\n\n77.7 _Very High_\n\nEast Quincy village\n\n75 _Very High_\n\nLa Porte village\n\n72.5 _High_\n\nGreenville village\n\n72.3 _High_\n\nPortola town · 2,188 people\n\n67.3 _High_\n\nGraeagle village\n\n66.9 _High_\n\nPeninsula Village village\n\n62.9 _High_\n\nChester town · 2,144 people\n\n60.5 _High_\n\nThe score is the median of the sampled points nearest that community — a community-scale indicator, not a score for any individual property in it. Population comes from the community's own record where the source carries one.\n\nTerrain & fuels\n\n## Terrain, vegetation and _fuels_\n\nTerrain scores are fairly tight in this county, from 55.0 in La Porte to 65.0 near Portola, with a median of 55.0. That narrow spread means slope-related exposure changes, but not dramatically, across the places we scored.\n\nVegetation and fuels vary much more: from 5.0 in Peninsula Village up to 80.0 near Portola, with a median of 74.0. In this county, that wider fuels spread contributes to bigger differences in overall wildfire risk between locations.\n\nIn plain terms, two properties can have similar terrain scores but different overall wildfire risk when vegetation and fuels are very different.\n\n55 median terrain score (max 65 near Portola)\n\n74 median vegetation & fuels score (max 80 near Portola)\n\nFire weather\n\n## Fire weather across _Plumas County_\n\nFire weather was measured across the county, and the scores are in a relatively narrow band. They run from 54.8 near Greenville to 62.9 in La Porte, with a median of 62.1.\n\nBecause that spread is smaller than some other factors, differences in overall wildfire risk between communities are more associated with terrain, fuels, hazard-zone, and fire-history differences than with fire-weather score differences alone.\n\n54.8 lowest fire-weather score — near Greenville\n\n62.9 highest fire-weather score — near La Porte\n\nWhat drives it\n\n## Which part of the risk _moves_, and which doesn't\n\nRisk is not uniform from one community to another. The highest overall score in the places we scored is 82.0 near Greenville, while the lowest is 34.5 in Peninsula Village.\n\nAmong named communities, Quincy is on the higher end at 77.7, and East Quincy is also high at 75.0. Greenville is elevated as well at 72.3.\n\nOn the lower side of the county’s range, Chester is 60.5 and Peninsula Village is 62.9. Portola sits in between at 67.3, showing that nearby markets can still differ meaningfully.\n\nEach bar is what one part of the score covers across Plumas County, on the same 0–100 scale. A long bar is a part of the risk that depends on where you are; a short one is the same almost everywhere.\n\nTerrain\n\n55–65 highest near Portola\n\nVegetation & fuels\n\n5–80 highest near Portola\n\nHazard zone\n\n10–93.5 highest near La Porte\n\nFire history\n\n5–95 highest near La Porte\n\nFire weather\n\n54.8–62.9 highest near La Porte\n\nOverall score\n\n34.5–82 highest near Greenville\n\nThe tick on each bar is the middle value. Tier boundaries — Moderate at 25, High at 50, Very High at 75 — are the faint lines behind them.\n\nShow every number behind these bars\n\nLayer\n\nMin\n\nMedian\n\nMax\n\nLowest place\n\nHighest place\n\nPoints\n\nTerrain\n\n55\n\n55\n\n65\n\nLa Porte\n\nnear Portola\n\n158\n\nVegetation & fuels\n\n5\n\n74\n\n80\n\nPeninsula Village\n\nnear Portola\n\n158\n\nHazard zone\n\n10\n\n81.3\n\n93.5\n\nnear Portola\n\nLa Porte\n\n158\n\nFire history\n\n5\n\n70\n\n95\n\nnear Portola\n\nLa Porte\n\n158\n\nFire weather\n\n54.8\n\n62.1\n\n62.9\n\nnear Greenville\n\nLa Porte\n\n158\n\nComposite\n\n34.5\n\n68.7\n\n82\n\nPeninsula Village\n\nnear Greenville\n\n158\n\nIndependently of Satelife's layers, the USFS Wildfire Risk to Communities grid puts the county's mean annual burn probability at **1.19%** (90th percentile cell: **2.54%**), with a mean conditional flame length of **7.13 ft**. **98%** of the 23,948 grid cells inside the county carry burnable fuel at all.\n\nSource: USFS Wildfire Risk to Communities v2.0 (ImageServer, county extent).\n\nCAL FIRE has no mapped Fire Hazard Severity Zone at **107** of the 158 sampled points — the zones cover Local Responsibility Areas, and most of this county is state or federal land. At **107** of them the USFS grid above supplied the hazard reading instead.\n\n158 sample points on a ~2.3 km grid, plus one at the centre of each community, weighted with the Satelife county profile v1 · median layer coverage 100%. Scores are 0–100 and comparable within the county, not across states.\n\nFor a property\n\n## What a county range means for _one address_\n\nFor parcel-level context, hazard-zone scores are high in much of Plumas County. The median is 81.3, reaching 93.5 in La Porte and dropping to 10.0 near Portola.\n\nFire-history scores show a similar contrast: the median is 70.0, with 95.0 in La Porte and 5.0 near Portola. Past fire footprint and recurrence patterns are an important part of why property-level risk can change quickly across short distances.\n\nMost scored locations land in the High tier (111), and many are Very High (38). That means many property searches here start from moderate-to-higher exposure.\n\nThere are 9 Moderate locations and no Low locations in the county scoring results, so lower-exposure pockets exist but are less common.\n\nAcross 158 sampled points in Plumas County, the score runs from 34.5 to 82 — two neighbouring parcels can sit in different tiers. A county number is the middle of that spread; it says nothing about which end yours is at.\n\nFind out where your Plumas County parcel sits\n\nSlope, the fuel touching the structure, the road out, the fire history within a mile — measured at your address, not averaged across the county.\n\nFree to request · PDF report with a 0–100 score, the drivers behind it, and a mitigation plan\n\nCoverage\n\n## ZIP codes we cover in Plumas County\n\nEvery one of the 28 ZIP areas that touch Plumas County — we run address-level reports in all of them. They are grouped by the median score of the points we sampled inside each, which is a neighbourhood-scale indicator and **not** a score for any property: two homes in the same ZIP routinely land in different tiers.\n\n**Very High** 4 ZIPs\n\n-   [95983 East Quincy77](/wildfire-risk/zip/95983/)\n-   [95915 Quincy76](/wildfire-risk/zip/95915/)\n-   [95981 La Porte76](/wildfire-risk/zip/95981/)\n-   [95984 Quincy75](/wildfire-risk/zip/95984/)\n\n**High** 14 ZIPs\n\n-   [95971 East Quincy75](/wildfire-risk/zip/95971/)\n-   [95947 Greenville72](/wildfire-risk/zip/95947/)\n-   [96109 Portola72](/wildfire-risk/zip/96109/)\n-   [95934 Greenville71](/wildfire-risk/zip/95934/)\n-   [95923 Peninsula Village71](/wildfire-risk/zip/95923/)\n-   [96105 Portola70](/wildfire-risk/zip/96105/)\n-   [96122 Portola68](/wildfire-risk/zip/96122/)\n-   [96103 Graeagle67](/wildfire-risk/zip/96103/)\n-   [95956 Quincy67](/wildfire-risk/zip/95956/)\n-   [96137 Peninsula Village64](/wildfire-risk/zip/96137/)\n-   [96129 Portola64](/wildfire-risk/zip/96129/)\n-   [96020 Chester59](/wildfire-risk/zip/96020/)\n-   [96135 Portola54](/wildfire-risk/zip/96135/)\n-   [96106 Graeagle51](/wildfire-risk/zip/96106/)\n\n**Moderate** 1 ZIP\n\n-   [96118 Portola45](/wildfire-risk/zip/96118/)\n\n**No sampled point inside** 9 ZIPs\n\n[95916 La Porte](/wildfire-risk/zip/95916/) · [95954](/wildfire-risk/zip/95954/) · [95965](/wildfire-risk/zip/95965/) · [96061 Chester](/wildfire-risk/zip/96061/) · [96114](/wildfire-risk/zip/96114/) · [96121](/wildfire-risk/zip/96121/) · [96124 Portola](/wildfire-risk/zip/96124/) · [96125 Graeagle](/wildfire-risk/zip/96125/) · [96130](/wildfire-risk/zip/96130/)\n\nGrouped from 19 of 28 ZIP areas — the rest had no sample point fall inside them. The community shown is the nearest mapped place to the ZIP's centre.\n\nZIP areas are Census 2020 ZIP Code Tabulation Areas intersecting the county boundary.\n\nWhere to go next\n\n## Plumas County wildfire risk _in context_\n\n[California wildfire risk The statewide picture and every county page we publish](/wildfire-risk/california/) [Wildfire risk by state Every state and county we cover](/wildfire-risk/) [How Satelife calculates wildfire risk Data sources, layers, score composition, honest limits](/wildfire-risk/methodology/) [Create a wildfire evacuation plan Zones, egress routes, refuge areas](/wildfire-evacuation-plan/) [Run a report for a Plumas County address PDF + score + mitigation plan](/#cta)\n\nFAQ\n\n## Frequently asked questions about _Plumas County wildfire risk_\n\nWhat does the 0–100 wildfire risk score mean?\n\nIt is a location score where higher numbers mean greater wildfire exposure. In Plumas County, the places we scored run from 34.5 to 82.0.\n\nWhich fire was the largest, and which was the most recent large fire?\n\nThe largest listed fire is Dixie (2021), at 963,309 acres, and it destroyed 1,311 structures. The most recent large fire is Mill (2024).\n\nIs FEMA’s rating the same thing as a town score like Quincy or Chester?\n\nNo. FEMA’s National Risk Index ratings here are county-wide ratings for Plumas County, while town and nearby-location scores describe specific places inside the county.\n\nIs burn probability the same as fire weather?\n\nNo. The U.S. Forest Service numbers shown here are modeled burn probabilities (1.19% mean annual, 2.54% for higher-end cells), while fire weather is a separate part of the county scoring.\n\nThis page is generated from a Plumas County data pack assembled on 2026-08-18 (pack v1.0). Scores are sampled across the county, not measured at any individual address, and are informational decision support — not a substitute for official evacuation orders, a fire-agency hazard determination, or an insurer's underwriting judgement. Data versions: fema\\_nri 1.20.0 (Dec 2025) · landfire per adapter · nifc\\_history All Years View · wfigs current · wrc v2.0 (2024) · zcta Census 2020.\n\n## What does _your parcel_ look like, layer by layer?\n\nA county range shows the spread. An address-level Satelife report shows where in that spread your property actually sits — PDF, per-layer score, and a prioritized mitigation plan.\n\n[Start with your address →](/#cta)\n\n[![PRR](/images/prr.png)](/ficha-de-website-voucher-satelife.pdf)\n\n© 2024–2026 Satelife, Lda. All rights reserved.\n\nSatelife reports are for informational purposes only and do not constitute insurance, financial, or legal advice."
}