Coos CountyNew Hampshire
Randolph, New Hampshire
Bedrock sits a median 15 ft down across 152 logs, shallower than the New Hampshire median of 20 ft. None of its 10 inventoried bridges is rated poor.
- Live · as of Sep 11, 2026
- 9 public sources · method
- ← All towns
Median depth to bedrock
15 ft
middle half 10–30 ft · 152 logs
Bridges rated poor
0
of 10 inventoried
FEMA repair $, Coos County
$7.8M
federal share since 2010 · county-wide
01 · Ground
Rock turns up a median 15 ft down
From 152 depth-to-rock records inside Randolph (NH DES well inventory). Logs cluster where people drill wells and bore for roads, so treat this as the town’s pattern, not a site answer.
Half of Randolph's logs reach rock between 10 and 30 ft
Depth to bedrock: 10th–90th percentile whisker, middle-half box, median tick; dashed line = New Hampshire median.
median 15 ftNH 20 ft
02040 ft
n = 152 logsSource: NH DES well inventory
▸ Show the numbers▾ Hide the numbers
| Depth to rock (ft) | Logs |
|---|---|
| 0–5 | 10 |
| 5–10 | 28 |
| 10–20 | 57 |
| 20–50 | 40 |
| 50–100 | 16 |
| 100+ | 1 |
Rock within 10 ft
36%
of logs (31% across New Hampshire). 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. 9% of logs here go past 50 ft.
02 · Bridges
None of Randolph's 10 bridges is rated poor
Every highway bridge and large culvert in the 2025 National Bridge Inventory that stands inside Randolph. Median age 60 years; 1 posted for weight.
30% good, 0% poor
FHWA good / fair / poor rating — the lowest of deck, superstructure, substructure or culvert.
- Good3 · 30%
- Fair7 · 70%
- Poor0 · 0%
n = 10 structuresSource: FHWA National Bridge Inventory 2025
▸ Show the numbers▾ Hide the numbers
| Built | Structures |
|---|---|
| 1940s | 4 |
| 1960s | 4 |
| 1980s | 1 |
| 2010s | 1 |
03 · Dams & disasters
Coos County has drawn $7.8M in federal disaster repair since 2010
FEMA Public Assistance is reported by county, so the figure below is Coos County-wide context, not a Randolph number.
FEMA Public Assistance, Coos County
$7.8M
Federal share obligated across 184 projects in 11 declared disasters since 2010. The largest category is roads & bridges (81%); roads & bridges took $6.2M.
04 · Next door
Randolph and the 6 towns that border it
A dash means no data for that layer, not zero.
| Town | Poor bridges | Rock depth |
|---|---|---|
| Randolph, NH | 0 / 10 | 15 ft |
| Jefferson, NH | 0 / 13 | 26 ft |
| Berlin, NH | 0 / 12 | 14 ft |
| Gorham, NH | 0 / 9 | 54 ft |
| Low and Burbanks, NH | 0 / 5 | — |
| Thompson and Meserves, NH | — | — |
| Kilkenny, NH | — | — |
Where these numbers come from
Method, sources & caveats
Randolph is the Census county subdivision 3300763860 (Coos County). 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
- U.S. Census Bureau cartographic boundary files — county subdivisions (2024, 1:500k)Public domain
- FHWA National Bridge Inventory (2025 delimited files)Public domain
- USACE National Inventory of DamsPublic domainHigh-hazard dams rated Poor or Unsatisfactory (live NID).
- USGS U.S. Landslide InventoryPublic domain
- MassGIS / Massachusetts Geological Survey — Bedrock Data PointsPublic recordBorings and well logs that reached rock (MassDEP well drillers, USGS, MWRA, MassDOT…); seismic/HVSR and map-derived shallow-bedrock/outcrop points excluded.
- NH DES Water Well Inventory, Maine Geological Survey Wells Database, Vermont DEC well recordsPublic recordBedrock wells only; driller-reported depth to bedrock / overburden thickness.
- OpenFEMA Public Assistance Funded Projects Details (v2)Public domain
- MA EEA / CZM grant awards — Dam & Seawall, MVP Action, CZM Coastal ResiliencePublic record
- Municipal open-data permit portals (Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Providence, Portsmouth, others)Public recordOnly permits flagged as ground-related (retaining walls, excavation, foundations) are counted.
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.