Cudahy, WI
Cudahy, WI's wildfire risk, in USFS's own numbers
USFS's Wildfire Risk to Communities model puts Cudahy at the 22nd national percentile for risk to structures, close to the middle of USFS's national wildfire-risk range — a score built from 9,044 actual buildings. (Source: USFS's Wildfire Risk to Communities methodology.)
Separately from the risk score above, Cudahy's burn probability — fire likelihood with no building count factored in — sits at the 26th percentile nationally.
Cudahy's building exposure, zone by zone
Cudahy rates 99.5% Minimal exposure against just 0.6% Direct and 0% Indirect — of 9,044 buildings counted, few sit close enough to burnable vegetation for USFS to flag them individually. At 9,044 buildings, this is a substantial built environment, so the shares below describe a real population of structures, not a handful of edge cases.
Where Cudahy ranks
Cudahy's 38th-percentile standing inside Wisconsin outpaces its 22nd national percentile — this is a hotter spot than most of its own state, even though the state as a whole runs cooler nationally. Among the 31,521 US communities USFS scores, Cudahy ranks 24,600 for wildfire risk (1 is highest) and 1,833 by building count (1 is largest). Within Wisconsin alone, it ranks 503 of 808 places by risk. See the full county-by-county picture for Wisconsin on its state page.
Cudahy and the insurance market
Cudahy's moderate rating (22nd percentile nationally) sits outside the range where wildfire risk alone reshapes an insurance market — still, a homeowner here loses nothing by comparing rates.
What would actually reduce this score
With 99.5% of buildings rated Minimal exposure, Cudahy gets less benefit from structure hardening than a Direct- or Indirect-dominant place would — the home-hardening guide explains why the zone matters.
Where Cudahy's figures come from
Every one of the two percentiles behind Cudahy's 24,600-place national rank traces to USFS's Wildfire Risk to Communities dataset — see the methodology guide. The exposure-zones guide covers what Cudahy's dominant minimal exposure actually means, with real examples from across the dataset.