Earth Support Corp

Worcester CountyMassachusetts

Leominster, Massachusetts

1 high-hazard dam is rated in poor or unsatisfactory condition. Bedrock sits a median 21 ft down across 197 logs, close to the Massachusetts median of 24 ft.

Median depth to bedrock

21 ft

middle half 9–37 ft · 197 logs

Bridges rated poor

1

of 38 inventoried

State resilience grants

$1.3M

3 awards on file

Poor high-hazard dams

1

National Inventory of Dams

01 · Dams & disasters

1 high-hazard dam needs work

FEMA Public Assistance is reported by county, so the figure below is Worcester County-wide context, not a Leominster number.
High-hazard dams in poor condition in Leominster
DamConditionBuilt
Fall Brook Reservoir Dam and DikeFall BrookPoor1896

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

FEMA Public Assistance, Worcester County

$85.3M

Federal share obligated across 882 projects in 9 declared disasters since 2010. The largest category is emergency protective measures (91%); roads & bridges took $723K.
Dams, disasters & moving ground

02 · Ground

Rock turns up a median 21 ft down

From 197 depth-to-rock records inside Leominster (MassGIS / MGS borings & well logs). Logs cluster where people drill wells and bore for roads, so treat this as the town’s pattern, not a site answer.

Half of Leominster's logs reach rock between 9 and 37 ft

Depth to bedrock: 10th–90th percentile whisker, middle-half box, median tick; dashed line = Massachusetts median.
median 21 ft
MA 24 ft
0204060 ft
0204060801000–5 ft5–10 ft10–20 ft20–50 ft50–100 ft100+ ft
n = 197 logsSource: MassGIS / MGS borings & well logs
▸ Show the numbers
Depth to rock (ft)Logs
0–516
5–1036
10–2036
20–5081
50–10020
100+8

Rock within 10 ft

33%

of logs (23% across Massachusetts). Shallow rock means ledge in excavations, refusal for driven piles and rock anchors rather than soil nails; deep ground means taller shoring and more groundwater. 14% of logs here go past 50 ft.

03 · Bridges

1 of 38 bridges are rated poor — below the Massachusetts rate of 9%

Every highway bridge and large culvert in the 2025 National Bridge Inventory that stands inside Leominster. Median age 51 years; 3 posted for weight.

21% good, 3% poor

FHWA good / fair / poor rating — the lowest of deck, superstructure, substructure or culvert.
  • Good8 · 21%
  • Fair29 · 76%
  • Poor1 · 3%

Structures by decade built

051015pre-19101930s1940s1950s1960s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s
n = 38 structuresSource: FHWA National Bridge Inventory 2025
▸ Show the numbers
BuiltStructures
pre-19105
1930s3
1940s4
1950s3
1960s1
1970s15
1980s2
1990s1
2000s2
2010s2

The poor-rated bridges

Bridges rated poor in Leominster
CarriesOverBuiltDaily traffic
POND STpostedMONOOSNOC BROOK19009,700
Every poor bridge in New England

04 · Money & permits

16 construction projects on file, median $3.2M — above the state's $1.5M

State resilience grant awards in Leominster
ProjectYearAward
Barrett Park Pond Dam RepairsFY2026$1.0M
Monoosnoc Brook Bank Stabilization ProjectFY2022$168K
Colburn Pond Dam Repair DesignFY2021$164K

Public construction projects

16

Median estimated value $3.2M, middle half $627K–$7.1M, against $1.5M across Massachusetts. Capped total $91.3M (each project counted at no more than $100M). Public bid records compiled June 2026, heavy on 2021–22 — a sample, not an annual market.

05 · Next door

Leominster and the 6 towns that border it

A dash means no data for that layer, not zero.
Leominster compared with neighbouring towns
TownPoor bridgesRock depth
Leominster, MA1 / 3821 ft
Fitchburg, MA9 / 4225 ft
Sterling, MA0 / 3220 ft
Westminster, MA1 / 1820 ft
Lancaster, MA1 / 1845 ft
Princeton, MA1 / 821 ft
Lunenburg, MA0 / 528 ft

Where these numbers come from

Method, sources & caveats

Leominster is the Census county subdivision 2502735075 (Worcester County). Every record is placed here by its coordinates, not by the place name the source uses. Construction-project figures come from Massachusetts public bid results, published as town-level counts, medians and capped totals (n ≥ 10).

  • 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