WildfireRiskFinder

Stanwood, WA

How exposed is Stanwood to wildfire?

Low
11thpercentile nationally

USFS scores Stanwood at the 11th national percentile for wildfire risk to structures (among the lower wildfire-risk places nationally), a figure built from 2,743 real buildings rather than raw vegetation cover. (Source: USFS's Wildfire Risk to Communities methodology.)

Separately from the risk score above, Stanwood's burn probability — fire likelihood with no building count factored in — sits at the 13th percentile nationally.

Where Stanwood's buildings actually sit

2,743Total buildings
12%Direct exposure
65.4%Indirect exposure
22.5%Minimal exposure

Indirect exposure is dominant in Stanwood (65.4% of 2,743 buildings): far enough from burnable vegetation to avoid flame contact, close enough for wind-blown embers. Only 12% sit in the Direct zone.

Stanwood against the rest of the country

Stanwood scores 11th nationally and 13th within Washington — close enough that its state context doesn't change the picture the national number already gives. Among the 31,521 US communities USFS scores, Stanwood ranks 27,942 for wildfire risk (1 is highest) and 5,864 by building count (1 is largest). Within Washington alone, it ranks 549 of 628 places by risk. See the full county-by-county picture for Washington on its state page.

Shopping for coverage in Stanwood

Stanwood's low wildfire rating (11th 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

Because 65.4% of Stanwood's buildings sit in the Indirect zone, sealing the ember pathway (vents, roofing, gutters) is the intervention this page's data actually supports — see the home-hardening guide.

Where Stanwood's figures come from

The methodology guide shows exactly how USFS turned 2,743 counted buildings into the percentiles shown above for Stanwood. The exposure-zones guide covers what Stanwood's dominant indirect exposure actually means, with real examples from across the dataset.