Earth Support Corp

Western Connecticut Planning RegionConnecticut

Redding, Connecticut

1 high-hazard dam is rated in poor or unsatisfactory condition. 1 of its 15 inventoried bridges is rated poor (7%, against 5% statewide).

Bridges rated poor

1

of 15 inventoried

Poor high-hazard dams

1

National Inventory of Dams

Mapped landslides

1

USGS inventory points

01 · Dams & disasters

1 high-hazard dam needs work

High-hazard dams in poor condition in Redding
DamConditionBuilt
Factory Pond DamNorwalk RiverPoor1874

High hazard potential means failure would probably cost lives — it rates the consequences, not the dam’s condition.

Dams, disasters & moving ground

02 · Ground

1 mapped landslides

Mapped landslides

1

1 rock_fall. Inventory points from the USGS U.S. Landslide Inventory; many are prehistoric slides mapped from lidar.

03 · Bridges

1 of 15 bridges are rated poor — above the Connecticut rate of 5%

Every highway bridge and large culvert in the 2025 National Bridge Inventory that stands inside Redding. Median age 72 years.

27% good, 7% poor

FHWA good / fair / poor rating — the lowest of deck, superstructure, substructure or culvert.
  • Good4 · 27%
  • Fair10 · 67%
  • Poor1 · 7%

Structures by decade built

0123451920s1930s1950s1980s2000s2010s
n = 15 structuresSource: FHWA National Bridge Inventory 2025
▸ Show the numbers
BuiltStructures
1920s3
1930s2
1950s5
1980s1
2000s1
2010s3

The poor-rated bridges

Bridges rated poor in Redding
CarriesOverBuiltDaily traffic
ROUTE 53SAUGATUCK RESERVOIR19392,600
Every poor bridge in New England

04 · Next door

Redding and the 7 towns that border it

A dash means no data for that layer, not zero.
Redding compared with neighbouring towns
TownPoor bridges
Redding, CT1 / 15
Danbury, CT1 / 93
Newtown, CT1 / 66
Wilton, CT0 / 24
Ridgefield, CT3 / 15
Easton, CT3 / 12
Weston, CT2 / 9
Bethel, CT0 / 9

Where these numbers come from

Method, sources & caveats

Redding is the Census county subdivision 0919063480 (Western Connecticut Planning Region). Every record is placed here by its coordinates, not by the place name the source uses.

  • Towns are Census county subdivisions: cities, towns, plantations, and Maine/New Hampshire unorganized territories and townships. Every record is placed in a town by its coordinates (point-in-polygon), not by the source's own place label — so a bridge in Roxbury counts for Boston and a well in 'North Waltham' counts for Waltham.
  • Bridges: FHWA NBI 2025, highway structures ≥ 20 ft including large culverts. 'Poor' is FHWA's good/fair/poor rating (lowest of deck, superstructure, substructure or culvert ≤ 4). Percent-poor is shown only for towns with at least 5 structures.
  • Depth to bedrock is the median of driller- and boring-reported depths in the town, shown only where at least 10 logs exist. Water-well logs over-sample rural lots and hilltops; one town median never describes a particular site.
  • Bedrock depths use the same state databases and filters as the Bedrock & soils module (bedrock wells and borings that reached rock, 0 < depth ≤ 400 ft, exact re-filings dropped), but every log is placed in a town by its coordinates rather than the driller's town field, so town counts can differ slightly between the two pages. Connecticut and Rhode Island have no statewide public well-log database with depths.
  • Dams: only high-hazard-potential dams whose latest condition assessment is Poor or Unsatisfactory are counted (live NID). Connecticut and Rhode Island assessments may lag.
  • FEMA Public Assistance dollars are federal share obligated for disasters declared since 2010, reported by county — they are county context, not a town figure.
  • Grant awards are Massachusetts only (EEA Dam & Seawall program, MVP Action grants, CZM Coastal Resilience). Other states' programs are not yet included.
  • Ground-related permit counts cover only the municipal portals the pipeline reads (Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Worcester, Framingham, Providence, Portsmouth, Hartford and a few others) — an absent count means 'not covered', not zero.
Data as of
Sep 11, 2026
Generated
Sep 11, 2026
Records
367,748
Refresh
Live pull · weekly

Published by Earth Support Corp as a public resource. Regional statistics for planning and curiosity. They are not an engineering report, a bid recommendation or a statement about any particular site, firm or project. Spot an error? Tell us and we will correct it. Full method: methodology.

CallStart Quote