WildfireRiskFinder

Proctor, MN

Proctor wildfire risk explained

Moderate
26thpercentile nationally

Proctor's 1,843 buildings earn a 26th-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 Proctor at the 26th national percentile — 1 points above its risk-to-structures score, a gap driven by how much is actually built there.

Proctor's building exposure, zone by zone

1,843Total buildings
28.8%Direct exposure
1.8%Indirect exposure
69.3%Minimal exposure

Most of Proctor's buildings (69.3% of 1,843) 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.

How Proctor compares

There's little gap between Proctor's 26th national percentile and its 30th percentile inside Minnesota, which means the state comparison mostly confirms what the national score already shows. Among the 31,521 US communities USFS scores, Proctor ranks 23,421 for wildfire risk (1 is highest) and 7,935 by building count (1 is largest). Within Minnesota alone, it ranks 637 of 914 places by risk. See the full county-by-county picture for Minnesota on its state page.

Proctor and the insurance market

Proctor's moderate wildfire rating (26th percentile) isn't the kind of score driving the carrier pullback making news in the highest-risk Western markets — but a standard homeowners quote is still worth comparing on its own terms.

Lowering exposure, not just insuring around it

With 69.3% of buildings rated Minimal exposure, Proctor gets less benefit from structure hardening than a Direct- or Indirect-dominant place would — the home-hardening guide explains why the zone matters.

Where Proctor's figures come from

The methodology guide shows exactly how USFS turned 1,843 counted buildings into the percentiles shown above for Proctor. The exposure-zones guide covers what Proctor's dominant minimal exposure actually means, with real examples from across the dataset.