The plan expires in five years.The record shouldn't.
Hazzard holds what your hazard decisions rest on — the plans, the hazards and threats, the jurisdictions, the facilities, the actions, and the evidence under all of it. Every finding cited to a source page. Every feed stamped with its vintage.
One record. Fifteen towns or one. Yours either way.
Levees fail and roughly 80% of New Orleans floods.
Orleans Parish models $223M/yr in expected hurricane loss
33 federal disaster declarations here since 2005
Levees fail and roughly 80% of New Orleans floods.
Orleans Parish models $223M/yr in expected hurricane loss
33 federal disaster declarations here since 2005
- Modeled annual loss
- Lower
- Higher
- Disaster · 23 events, 2005–2025
The same record, doing a different job on every desk.
Start with the one that looks like yours.
Emergency management
Track plan cycles, organize hazard data, and walk into FEMA review with sources attached.
See how it fits
Fire & public safety
Community risk, response footprint, and capital asks backed by cited data.
See how it fits
Local government
One risk picture across departments — defensible in front of council.
See how it fits
County & regional
One regional record across every member jurisdiction — with scoped access for the agencies you coordinate with.
See how it fits
State agencies & SHMOs
Plan-cycle monitoring and standardized methodology across every jurisdiction you cover.
See how it fits
Consultants
Find expiring plans, reuse your analysis, and manage more jurisdictions per planner.
See how it fits
Your risk picture is spread across documents, departments, jurisdictions, and vendors.
A city manager or emergency management director assembles the community's risk picture from plans written at different times, with different methods, different accuracy, and different geographic scopes. Some are current; some are obsolete. Some hazards are well studied; others are assumptions. That isn't poor management — it's structural complexity.
Hazard mitigation plan
Consultant PDF, adopted 2019
Emergency operations plan
Emergency manager's drive
THIRA / SPR
Regional working group
Flood & wildfire studies
Different vendors, different years
Critical infrastructure data
Spreadsheets and GIS layers
Neighboring & state plans
Someone else's website
Consultant work product
Delivered, invoiced, filed away
Institutional memory
Staff who may retire next year
None of it talks to each other — and different consultants may repeat the same work without knowing what already exists. Hazzard makes it one record.
Check when your plans expireFrom scattered documents to a defensible risk picture — as a guided, reviewable workflow.
Step 1 of 5
Define your footprint
Boundaries are only the start. Add facilities, service territories, corridors, and the upstream places — like the dam in the next county — whose failures land on you. Risk follows systems, watersheds, and dependencies, not just administrative lines.
- JurisdictionPrimary
City of Lone Tree
Municipal boundary
- WatchedExternal
Douglas County
Adjacent — upstream flood & dam context
- LocationConfirmed
Water Treatment Plant #2
Critical facility
- LocationConfirmed
Civic Center Campus
Government operations
- TerritoryResolving
North Service District
Service territory — spans 2 jurisdictions
Step 2 of 5
Bring in what you already know
Upload mitigation plans, emergency plans, studies, consultant reports, and GIS layers. Hazzard extracts findings and keeps each one tied to its source, date, method, and geographic scope. Not all documents are equal — and extracted information never silently becomes truth.
- 38 findings
2019 Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Plan
PDF · 214 pp · county scope · data vintage 2018
- Processing
THIRA / SPR 2023
PDF · regional scope · uploaded today
- Queued
Chatfield Dam Emergency Action Plan
PDF · restricted · external jurisdiction
- 12 findings
Wildland-urban interface assessment
Consultant report · 2021 · city scope
Step 3 of 5
Build the risk inventory
Start with a clear answer to: what are we actually at risk from? A structured hazard list with subtypes, local aliases, cascading risks, and threats that originate outside your boundary — established by an authorized approver, and extendable later without starting over.
- Established
Earthquake
aka seismic hazard, ground shaking
- Established
Wildfire
wind-driven · WUI exposure · smoke
- Needs review
Burnscar Flooding
cascading from wildfire burn scars
- Watched
Dam Failure
external — Chatfield Dam, Douglas County
- Proposed
Ice Jam Flooding
suggested from state plan overlap
Step 4 of 5
Profile each risk
Probability, impact, and readiness — with the evidence, confidence level, and open gaps behind every conclusion. Not just “could this happen,” but how likely it is, what it could affect, how prepared you are today, and what new data would improve confidence.
Sources
USGS wildfire hazard potential · 2019 HMP §4.3 · CO-DFPC assessment · WUI study 2021
Step 5 of 5
Review, coordinate, and keep it current
Staff, consultants, departments, and partners see what needs review, who owns the next decision, and what changed since the last version. The picture stays current between plan cycles instead of disappearing into a static PDF.
18
risks tracked
7
verified recently
5
need review
3
new partner findings
Next up
Approve updated flood profile
ApproverReview extraction: Douglas County HMP
PlannerConfirm dam-failure watch scope
Approver
Two things come out of a document. Only one of them gets kept.
Every finding Hazzard extracts has to quote the document it came from, and that quote is checked against the actual text of the actual page before anything is written down. When it doesn't match, the finding is thrown out and the rejection is logged with its reason — visible to you, in the run history, next to what survived.
Coastal flooding · extent
“Approximately 4,000 parcels lie within the mapped 1% annual chance floodplain.”
doc:8f3ac21#p147:p0147-b012
quote not found in the cited block
“the county experiences frequent severe flooding”
The model produced a plausible sentence the document never said. It never reaches the record.
What a document says
Quoted verbatim, anchored to a page, dated to the version it came from.
What the system inferred
Labelled as inference, with the model, prompt and taxonomy versions that produced it.
What a person decided
Findings become official when an authorized approver says so. A machine never overwrites that.
Built for sensitive information and accountable decisions.
Real organizations hold information they cannot share broadly: security plans, utility vulnerabilities, hospital continuity details, facility-specific risks. Hazzard is designed around that reality, not around it being an edge case.
Role- and scope-based permissions
Organization, project, and document-level access. A partner can contribute to one assessment without seeing everything else.
Audit history on every change
Who changed what, when, and what it superseded — approvals, version history, and export records included.
Sensitive-document handling
Law-enforcement-sensitive material, critical-infrastructure details, and partner-restricted data carry their classification through every workflow.
Your data stays yours
Clear data ownership and export controls. Consultant and partner work product stays attributed and governed by your permissions.
A note on candor: Hazzard is in beta, and we don't claim certifications we haven't earned. Security and auditability are foundational to how we're building — and beta partners help define the controls their operating environment actually requires. If your security review needs something specific, tell us. That's what the beta is for.
One account. Your whole risk picture.
Create your account, set up your organization, and see your seeded hazard list in about ten minutes. Free while in beta.
- Set up your organization and define your footprint
- Hazard suggestions seeded from national data for your counties
- A risk inventory with review and approval built in
- Roles and permissions for staff, reviewers, and approvers