WildfireRiskFinder

McFarland, WI

McFarland, WI's wildfire risk, in USFS's own numbers

Elevated
42ndpercentile nationally

McFarland's 3,454 buildings earn a 42nd-percentile wildfire-risk score nationally under USFS's model — modestly above the national average for wildfire risk. (Source: USFS's Wildfire Risk to Communities methodology.)

Separately from the risk score above, McFarland's burn probability — fire likelihood with no building count factored in — sits at the 43rd percentile nationally.

McFarland's building exposure, zone by zone

3,454Total buildings
14.7%Direct exposure
28.6%Indirect exposure
56.7%Minimal exposure

Most of McFarland's buildings (56.7% of 3,454) fall outside USFS's Direct and Indirect zones entirely — that doesn't zero out the score above, it means the risk is regional, not structure-by-structure.

McFarland against the rest of the country

Within Wisconsin, McFarland ranks higher (93rd percentile) than it does nationally (42nd) — one of the more fire-exposed places in a state that, overall, scores lower than that. Among the 31,521 US communities USFS scores, McFarland ranks 18,266 for wildfire risk (1 is highest) and 4,840 by building count (1 is largest). Within Wisconsin alone, it ranks 54 of 808 places by risk. See the full county-by-county picture for Wisconsin on its state page.

McFarland and the insurance market

McFarland's elevated rating (42nd 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 56.7% of buildings rated Minimal exposure, McFarland gets less benefit from structure hardening than a Direct- or Indirect-dominant place would — the home-hardening guide explains why the zone matters.

Where McFarland's figures come from

Every one of the two percentiles behind McFarland's 18,266-place national rank traces to USFS's Wildfire Risk to Communities dataset — see the methodology guide. The exposure-zones guide covers what McFarland's dominant minimal exposure actually means, with real examples from across the dataset.