Louisville, NE
Louisville, NE's wildfire risk, in USFS's own numbers
USFS scores Louisville at the 76th national percentile for wildfire risk to structures (well above the national norm for wildfire risk), a figure built from 695 real buildings rather than raw vegetation cover. (Source: USFS's Wildfire Risk to Communities methodology.)
USFS's separate burn-probability score — fire likelihood alone, before counting what's built there — puts Louisville at the 72nd percentile, close to its 76th-percentile risk score.
What "at risk" means for the buildings here
695 buildings are counted in Louisville, and 82.5% of them are Indirect exposure — ember-driven risk rather than the 17.6% in Direct exposure or the 0% rated Minimal.
Where Louisville ranks
There's little gap between Louisville's 76th national percentile and its 79th percentile inside Nebraska, which means the state comparison mostly confirms what the national score already shows. Among the 31,521 US communities USFS scores, Louisville ranks 7,663 for wildfire risk (1 is highest) and 14,719 by building count (1 is largest). Within Nebraska alone, it ranks 125 of 583 places by risk. See the full county-by-county picture for Nebraska on its state page.
Louisville and the insurance market
Louisville's 76th-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
With ember exposure the dominant pattern in Louisville (82.5% Indirect), vent screens and roofing material tend to matter more than lot clearing alone. The home-hardening guide covers both.
Where Louisville's figures come from
Every one of the two percentiles behind Louisville's 7,663-place national rank traces to USFS's Wildfire Risk to Communities dataset — see the methodology guide. The exposure-zones guide covers what Louisville's dominant indirect exposure actually means, with real examples from across the dataset.