BPDA Neighborhoods are a combination of zoning neighborhood boundaries, zip code boundaries and 2010 census tract boundaries. These boundaries are used in the broad sense for visualization purposes, research analysis and planning studies. However these boundaries are not official neighborhood boundaries for the City of Boston. The BPDA is not responsible for any districts or boundaries within the City of Boston except for the districts we use for planning purposes.

The Census Bureau does not recognize or release data for Boston neighborhoods. However, Census tracts can be aggregated to approximate Boston neighborhood boundaries to allow for reporting and visualization of Census data at the neighborhood level. Census tracts are created by the U.S. Census Bureau as statistical geographic subdivisions of a county defined for the tabulation and presentation of data from the decennial census and the American Community Survey. The 2020 Census tract boundary files for Boston can be found here. These tract-approximated neighborhood boundaries are used for work with Census data. Work that does not rely on Census data generally uses the Boston neighborhood boundaries found here.

The Census Bureau does not recognize or release data for Boston neighborhoods. However, Census block groups can be aggregated to approximate Boston neighborhood boundaries to allow for reporting and visualization of Census data at the neighborhood level. Census block groups are created by the U.S. Census Bureau as statistical geographic subdivisions of a census tract defined for the tabulation and presentation of data from the decennial census and the American Community Survey. The 2020 Census block group boundary files for Boston can be found here. These block group-approximated neighborhood boundaries are used for work with Census data. Work that does not rely on Census data generally uses the Boston neighborhood boundaries found here.

Areas that are within 10 minutes of an exit are emphasized on this map, to give an indication of how accessible neighborhoods are by highway. The colors represent 1, 3, 5 and 10 minute increments from the exits, based on posted exit speeds and local road speeds in ideal conditions. The areas were calculated using ready to use services hosted in ArcGIS which feature a road network from HERE. A simple geoprocessing tool sent 40,000+ exit locations to the service, which returned the 160,000+ polygons. ---------------------The Civic Analytics Network collaborates on shared projects that advance the use of data visualization and predictive analytics in solving important urban problems related to economic opportunity, poverty reduction, and addressing the root causes of social problems of equity and opportunity. For more information see About the Civil Analytics Network.

Demographic Data for Boston’s Neighborhoods, 1950-2019

Boston is a city defined by the unique character of its many neighborhoods. The historical tables created by the BPDA Research Division from U.S. Census Decennial data describe demographic changes in Boston’s neighborhoods from 1950 through 2010 using consistent tract-based geographies. For more analysis of these data, please see Historical Trends in Boston's Neighborhoods. The most recent available neighborhood demographic data come from the 5-year American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS tables also present demographic data for Census-tract approximations of Boston’s neighborhoods. For pdf versions of the data presented here plus earlier versions of the analysis, please see Boston in Context.

This dataverse repository contains two datasets: 1. A one square meter resolution map of biomass for the City of Boston. Units are Mg biomass per hectare (Mg/ha). 2. A one square meter resolution map of canopy cover for the City of Boston. Units are binary: 0 = no canopy, 1 = canopy Both datasets are derived from LiDAR and high resolution remote sensing imagery. Details of the methodology are provided in the following publications: Raciti, SM, Hutyra, LR, Newell, JD, 2014. Mapping carbon storage in urban trees withmulti-source remote sensing data: Relationships between biomass, land use, and demographics in Boston neighborhoods,Science of the Total Environment, 500-501, 72-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.08.070 Raciti, SM, Hutyra, LR, Newell, JD, 2015. Corrigendum to “Mapping carbon storage in urban trees with multi-source remote sensing data: Relationships between biomass, land use, and demographics in Boston neighborhoods”, Science of the Total Environment, 538, 1039-1041. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.154

HOLC, in consultation with local real estate professionals and local policymakers, categorized neighborhoods in hundreds of cities in the United States into four types: Best (A), Still Desirable (B), Definitely Declining (C), and Hazardous (D). So-called “hazardous” zones were colored red on these maps. These zones were then used to approve or deny credit-lending and mortgage-backing by banks and the Federal Housing Administration. The descriptions provided by HOLC in their reports rely heavily on race and ethnicity as critical elements in assigning these grades. According to the University of Richmond's Mapping Inequality project, “Arguably the HOLC agents in the other two hundred-plus cities graded through this program adopted a consistently white, elite standpoint or perspective. HOLC assumed and insisted that the residency of African-Americans and immigrants, as well as working-class whites, compromised the values of homes and the security of mortgages” (Mapping Inequality). HOLC’s classifications were one contributory factor in underinvestment in a neighborhood, and generally, although not always, closed off many, especially people of color, from the credit necessary to purchase their own homes.The 15 Worcester neighborhood zones included on the map are ordered from Zone 1 (categorized as "Best") to Zone 15, with the highest numbered zones included in the least desirable "Hazardous" category. The exact descriptions used by HOLC to classify the neighborhoods in 1936 are included, and therefore may contain some disturbing language. Many scholars and institutions have focused their efforts on tracking the effects the 1930s redlining maps still have today. The Mapping Inequality project by the University of Richmond has collected and analyzed a comprehensive set of redlining maps for more than 200 cities in the U.S. One of their conclusions is that, for most cities, there are striking and persistent geographic similarities between redlined zones and currently vulnerable areas even after eighty years. See the Mapping Inequality website for more information (https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining).This digitized version prepared by the Worcester Regional Research Bureau was based on a scanned copy from the National Archives, obtained thanks to Dr. Robert Nelson, the Digital Scholarship Lab, and the rest of his team at Mapping Inequality at the University of Richmond. Dr. Nelson worked with The Research Bureau directly to track it down in the Archives.Informing Worcester is the City of Worcester's open data portal where interested parties can obtain public information at no cost.

2020 Census data for the city of Boston, Boston neighborhoods, census tracts, block groups, and voting districts. In the 2020 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau divided Boston into 207 census tracts (~4,000 residents) made up of 581 smaller block groups. The Boston Planning and Development Agency uses the 2020 tracts to approximate Boston neighborhoods. The 2020 Census Redistricting data also identify Boston’s voting districts.

For analysis of Boston’s 2020 Census data including graphs and maps by the BPDA Research Division and Office of Digital Cartography and GIS, see 2020 Census Research Publications

For a complete official data dictionary, please go to 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, Chapter 6. Data Dictionary. 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File

2020 Census Tracts In Boston

2020 Census Block Groups In Boston

Boston Neighborhood Boundaries Approximated By 2020 Census Tracts

Boston Voting District Boundaries

This map includes shoreline change data for the state of Massachusetts hosted by the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management.The active data layer in this map is Massachusetts Shoreline Change Transect (1970-2014) with short-term shoreline change rates. To view long-term rates, open map in Map Viewer to turn on layer.The Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management launched the Shoreline Change Project in 1989 to identify erosion-prone areas of the coast. The shoreline position and change rate are used to inform management decisions regarding the erosion of coastal resources. In 2001, a shoreline from 1994 was added to calculate both long- and short-term shoreline change rates along ocean-facing sections of the Massachusetts coast. In 2013, two oceanfront shorelines for Massachusetts were added using 2008-9 color aerial orthoimagery and 2007 topographic lidar datasets obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Ocean Service, Coastal Services Center. In 2018 two new mean high water (MHW) shorelines for Massachusetts were extracted from lidar collected between 2010 and 2014 (described below). 2018 addition shoreline 1The North Shore and South Coast uses 2010 lidar data collected by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Joint Airborne Lidar Bathymetry Technical Center of Expertise. The South Shore and Outer Cape uses 2011 lidar data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) National Geospatial Program Office. Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard uses 2012 lidar data collected by the USACE (post Sandy)from a 2012 USACE Post Sandy Topographic lidar survey. 2018 addition shoreline 2The North Shore, Boston, South Shore, Cape Cod Bay, Outer Cape, South Cape, Nantucket, Martha’s Vineyard, and the South Coast (around Buzzards Bay to the Rhode Island Border) is from 2013-14 lidar data collected by the (USGS) Coastal and Marine Geology Program. This 2018 update of the rate of shoreline change in Massachusetts includes two types of rates. Some of the rates include a proxy-datum bias correction, this is indicated in the filename with “PDB”. The rates that do not account for this correction have “NB” in their file names. The proxy-datum bias is applied because in some areas a proxy shoreline (like a High Water Line shoreline) has a bias when compared to a datum shoreline (like a Mean High Water shoreline). In areas where it exists, this bias should be accounted for when calculating rates using a mix of proxy and datum shorelines. This issue is explained further in Ruggiero and List (2009) and in the process steps of the metadata associated with the rates. This release includes both long-term (~150 years) and short term (~30 years) rates. Files associated with the long-term rates have “LT” in their names, files associated with short-term rates have “ST” in their names.

The Department of Neighborhood Development (DND) takes care of city owned property, including the maintanence of buildings and vacant land. This is a legacy dataset that provides information on these properties including the size, location, potential use, and more.

Please see the current visualization of this data, provided by the Department of Neighborhood Development, for the most up to date information. Available @ http://property.boston.gov

Throughout history, government and industries have neglected investments in some neighborhoods, especially communities of color, who are more likely to have fewer resources.

Terms of UseData Limitations and DisclaimerThe user’s use of and/or reliance on the information contained in the Document shall be at the user’s own risk and expense. MassDEP disclaims any responsibility for any loss or harm that may result to the user of this data or to any other person due to the user’s use of the Document.This is an ongoing data development project. Attempts have been made to contact all PWS systems, but not all have responded with information on their service area. MassDEP will continue to collect and verify this information. Some PWS service areas included in this datalayer have not been verified by the PWS or the municipality involved, but since many of those areas are based on information published online by the municipality, the PWS, or in a publicly available report, they are included in the estimated PWS service area datalayer.Please note: All PWS service area delineations are estimates for broad planning purposes and should only be used as a guide. The data is not appropriate for site-specific or parcel-specific analysis. Not all properties within a PWS service area are necessarily served by the system, and some properties outside the mapped service areas could be served by the PWS – please contact the relevant PWS. Not all service areas have been confirmed by the systems.Please use the following citation to reference these data:MassDEP, Water Utility Resilience Program. 2024. Community and Non-Transient Non-Community Public Water System Service Area (PubV2024_7).IMPORTANT NOTICE: This MassDEP Estimated Water Service datalayer may not be complete, may contain errors, omissions, and other inaccuracies and the data are subject to change. This version is published through MassGIS. We want to learn about the data uses. If you use this dataset, please notify staff in the Water Utility Resilience Program (WURP@mass.gov).

This GIS datalayer represents approximate service areas for Public Water Systems (PWS) in Massachusetts. In 2017, as part of its “Enhancing Resilience and Emergency Preparedness of Water Utilities through Improved Mapping” (Critical Infrastructure Mapping Project ), the MassDEP Water Utility Resilience Program (WURP) began to uniformly map drinking water service areas throughout Massachusetts using information collected from various sources. Along with confirming existing public water system (PWS) service area information, the project collected and verified estimated service area delineations for PWSs not previously delineated and will continue to update the information contained in the datalayers. As of the date of publication, WURP has delineated Community (COM) and Non-Transient Non-Community (NTNC) service areas. Transient non-community (TNCs) are not part of this mapping project.

Layers and Tables:

The MassDEP Estimated Public Water System Service Area data comprises two polygon feature classes and a supporting table. Some data fields are populated from the MassDEP Drinking Water Program’s Water Quality Testing System (WQTS) and Annual Statistical Reports (ASR).

The Community Water Service Areas feature class (PWS_WATER_SERVICE_AREA_COMM_POLY) includes polygon features that represent the approximate service areas for PWS classified as Community systems.The NTNC Water Service Areas feature class (PWS_WATER_SERVICE_AREA_NTNC_POLY) includes polygon features that represent the approximate service areas for PWS classified as Non-Transient Non-Community systems.The Unlocated Sites List table (PWS_WATER_SERVICE_AREA_USL) contains a list of known, unmapped active Community and NTNC PWS services areas at the time of publication.

Production

Data Universe

Public Water Systems in Massachusetts are permitted and regulated through the MassDEP Drinking Water Program. The WURP has mapped service areas for all active and inactive municipal and non-municipal Community PWSs in MassDEP’s Water Quality Testing Database (WQTS). Community PWS refers to a public water system that serves at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents.

All active and inactive NTNC PWS were also mapped using information contained in WQTS. An NTNC or Non-transient Non-community Water System refers to a public water system that is not a community water system and that has at least 15 service connections or regularly serves at least 25 of the same persons or more approximately four or more hours per day, four or more days per week, more than six months or 180 days per year, such as a workplace providing water to its employees.

These data may include declassified PWSs. Staff will work to rectify the status/water services to properties previously served by declassified PWSs and remove or incorporate these service areas as needed.

Maps of service areas for these systems were collected from various online and MassDEP sources to create service areas digitally in GIS. Every PWS is assigned a unique PWSID by MassDEP that incorporates the municipal ID of the municipality it serves (or the largest municipality it serves if it serves multiple municipalities). Some municipalities contain more than one PWS, but each PWS has a unique PWSID. The Estimated PWS Service Area datalayer, therefore, contains polygons with a unique PWSID for each PWS service area.

A service area for a community PWS may serve all of one municipality (e.g. Watertown Water Department), multiple municipalities (e.g. Abington-Rockland Joint Water Works), all or portions of two or more municipalities (e.g. Provincetown Water Dept which serves all of Provincetown and a portion of Truro), or a portion of a municipality (e.g. Hyannis Water System, which is one of four PWSs in the town of Barnstable).

Some service areas have not been mapped but their general location is represented by a small circle which serves as a placeholder. The location of these circles are estimates based on the general location of the source wells or the general estimated location of the service area - these do not represent the actual service area.

The service areas were mapped from 2017 to 2022 and may not include all current active PWSs. A list of unmapped PWS systems is included in the USL table PWS_WATER_SERVICE_AREA_USL available for download with the dataset and shown below. Some PWSs that are not mapped may have come online after this iteration of the mapping project; these will be reconciled and mapped during the next phase of the WURP project. PWS IDs that represent regional or joint boards with (e.g. Tri Town Water Board, Randolph/Holbrook Water Board, Upper Cape Regional Water Cooperative) will not be mapped, because their individual municipal service areas are included in this datalayer.

Some PWSs that are not mapped may have come online after this iteration of the mapping project; these will be reconciled and mapped during the next phase of the WURP project. Those highlighted (e.g. Tri Town Water Board, Randolph/Holbrook Water Board, Upper Cape Regional Water Cooperative) represent regional or joint boards that will not be mapped, because their individual municipal service areas are included in this datalayer.

PWSs that do not have corresponding sources, may be part of consecutive systems, may have been incorporated into another PWSs, reclassified as a different type of PWS, or otherwise taken offline. PWSs that have been incorporated, reclassified, or taken offline will be reconciled during the next data update.

Methodologies and Data Sources

Several methodologies were used to create service area boundaries using various sources, including data received from the systems in response to requests for information from the MassDEP WURP project, information on file at MassDEP, and service area maps found online at municipal and PWS websites. When provided with water line data rather than generalized areas, 300-foot buffers were created around the water lines to denote service areas and then edited to incorporate generalizations. Some municipalities submitted parcel data or address information to be used in delineating service areas.

Verification Process

Small-scale PDF file maps with roads and other infrastructure were sent to every PWS for corrections or verifications. For small systems, such as a condominium complex or residential school, the relevant parcels were often used as the basis for the delineated service area. In towns where 97% or more of their population is served by the PWS and no other service area delineation was available, the town boundary was used as the service area boundary. Some towns responded to the request for information or verification of service areas by stating that the town boundary should be used since all or nearly all of the municipality is served by the PWS.

Sources of information for estimated drinking water service areas

The following information was used to develop estimated drinking water service areas:

EOEEA Water Assets Project (2005) water lines (these were buffered to create service areas)Horsely Witten Report 2008Municipal Master Plans, Open Space Plans, Facilities Plans, Water Supply System Webpages, reports and online interactive mapsGIS data received from PWSDetailed infrastructure mapping completed through the MassDEP WURP Critical Infrastructure InitiativeIn the absence of other service area information, for municipalities served by a town-wide water system serving at least 97% of the population, the municipality’s boundary was used. Determinations of which municipalities are 97% or more served by the PWS were made based on the Percent Water Service Map created in 2018 by MassDEP based on various sources of information including but not limited to:The Winter population served submitted by the PWS in the ASR submittalThe number of services from WQTS as a percent of developed parcelsTaken directly from a Master Plan, Water Department Website, Open Space Plan, etc. found onlineCalculated using information from the town on

IntroductionClimate Central’s Surging Seas: Risk Zone map shows areas vulnerable to near-term flooding from different combinations of sea level rise, storm surge, tides, and tsunamis, or to permanent submersion by long-term sea level rise. Within the U.S., it incorporates the latest, high-resolution, high-accuracy lidar elevation data supplied by NOAA (exceptions: see Sources), displays points of interest, and contains layers displaying social vulnerability, population density, and property value. Outside the U.S., it utilizes satellite-based elevation data from NASA in some locations, and Climate Central’s more accurate CoastalDEM in others (see Methods and Qualifiers). It provides the ability to search by location name or postal code.The accompanying Risk Finder is an interactive data toolkit available for some countries that provides local projections and assessments of exposure to sea level rise and coastal flooding tabulated for many sub-national districts, down to cities and postal codes in the U.S. Exposure assessments always include land and population, and in the U.S. extend to over 100 demographic, economic, infrastructure and environmental variables using data drawn mainly from federal sources, including NOAA, USGS, FEMA, DOT, DOE, DOI, EPA, FCC and the Census.This web tool was highlighted at the launch of The White House's Climate Data Initiative in March 2014. Climate Central's original Surging Seas was featured on NBC, CBS, and PBS U.S. national news, the cover of The New York Times, in hundreds of other stories, and in testimony for the U.S. Senate. The Atlantic Cities named it the most important map of 2012. Both the Risk Zone map and the Risk Finder are grounded in peer-reviewed science.Back to topMethods and QualifiersThis map is based on analysis of digital elevation models mosaicked together for near-total coverage of the global coast. Details and sources for U.S. and international data are below. Elevations are transformed so they are expressed relative to local high tide lines (Mean Higher High Water, or MHHW). A simple elevation threshold-based “bathtub method” is then applied to determine areas below different water levels, relative to MHHW. Within the U.S., areas below the selected water level but apparently not connected to the ocean at that level are shown in a stippled green (as opposed to solid blue) on the map. Outside the U.S., due to data quality issues and data limitations, all areas below the selected level are shown as solid blue, unless separated from the ocean by a ridge at least 20 meters (66 feet) above MHHW, in which case they are shown as not affected (no blue).Areas using lidar-based elevation data: U.S. coastal states except AlaskaElevation data used for parts of this map within the U.S. come almost entirely from ~5-meter horizontal resolution digital elevation models curated and distributed by NOAA in its Coastal Lidar collection, derived from high-accuracy laser-rangefinding measurements. The same data are used in NOAA’s Sea Level Rise Viewer. (High-resolution elevation data for Louisiana, southeast Virginia, and limited other areas comes from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)). Areas using CoastalDEM™ elevation data: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Corn Island (Nicaragua), Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Blas (Panama), Suriname, The Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago. CoastalDEM™ is a proprietary high-accuracy bare earth elevation dataset developed especially for low-lying coastal areas by Climate Central. Use our contact form to request more information.Warning for areas using other elevation data (all other areas)Areas of this map not listed above use elevation data on a roughly 90-meter horizontal resolution grid derived from NASA’s Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM). SRTM provides surface elevations, not bare earth elevations, causing it to commonly overestimate elevations, especially in areas with dense and tall buildings or vegetation. Therefore, the map under-portrays areas that could be submerged at each water level, and exposure is greater than shown (Kulp and Strauss, 2016). However, SRTM includes error in both directions, so some areas showing exposure may not be at risk.SRTM data do not cover latitudes farther north than 60 degrees or farther south than 56 degrees, meaning that sparsely populated parts of Arctic Circle nations are not mapped here, and may show visual artifacts.Areas of this map in Alaska use elevation data on a roughly 60-meter horizontal resolution grid supplied by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This data is referenced to a vertical reference frame from 1929, based on historic sea levels, and with no established conversion to modern reference frames. The data also do not take into account subsequent land uplift and subsidence, widespread in the state. As a consequence, low confidence should be placed in Alaska map portions.Flood control structures (U.S.)Levees, walls, dams or other features may protect some areas, especially at lower elevations. Levees and other flood control structures are included in this map within but not outside of the U.S., due to poor and missing data. Within the U.S., data limitations, such as an incomplete inventory of levees, and a lack of levee height data, still make assessing protection difficult. For this map, levees are assumed high and strong enough for flood protection. However, it is important to note that only 8% of monitored levees in the U.S. are rated in “Acceptable” condition (ASCE). Also note that the map implicitly includes unmapped levees and their heights, if broad enough to be effectively captured directly by the elevation data.For more information on how Surging Seas incorporates levees and elevation data in Louisiana, view our Louisiana levees and DEMs methods PDF. For more information on how Surging Seas incorporates dams in Massachusetts, view the Surging Seas column of the web tools comparison matrix for Massachusetts.ErrorErrors or omissions in elevation or levee data may lead to areas being misclassified. Furthermore, this analysis does not account for future erosion, marsh migration, or construction. As is general best practice, local detail should be verified with a site visit. Sites located in zones below a given water level may or may not be subject to flooding at that level, and sites shown as isolated may or may not be be so. Areas may be connected to water via porous bedrock geology, and also may also be connected via channels, holes, or passages for drainage that the elevation data fails to or cannot pick up. In addition, sea level rise may cause problems even in isolated low zones during rainstorms by inhibiting drainage.ConnectivityAt any water height, there will be isolated, low-lying areas whose elevation falls below the water level, but are protected from coastal flooding by either man-made flood control structures (such as levees), or the natural topography of the surrounding land. In areas using lidar-based elevation data or CoastalDEM (see above), elevation data is accurate enough that non-connected areas can be clearly identified and treated separately in analysis (these areas are colored green on the map). In the U.S., levee data are complete enough to factor levees into determining connectivity as well.However, in other areas, elevation data is much less accurate, and noisy error often produces “speckled” artifacts in the flood maps, commonly in areas that should show complete inundation. Removing non-connected areas in these places could greatly underestimate the potential for flood exposure. For this reason, in these regions, the only areas removed from the map and excluded from analysis are separated from the ocean by a ridge of at least 20 meters (66 feet) above the local high tide line, according to the data, so coastal flooding would almost certainly be impossible (e.g., the Caspian Sea region).Back to topData LayersWater Level | Projections | Legend | Social Vulnerability | Population | Ethnicity | Income | Property | LandmarksWater LevelWater level means feet or meters above the local high tide line (“Mean Higher High Water”) instead of standard elevation. Methods described above explain how each map is generated based on a selected water level. Water can reach different levels in different time frames through combinations of sea level rise, tide and storm surge. Tide gauges shown on the map show related projections (see just below).The highest water levels on this map (10, 20 and 30 meters) provide reference points for possible flood risk from tsunamis, in regions prone to them.

MassGIS had received quarterly updates of these data as part of its license for the HERE (Navteq) core map release (streets and related data); however, that license has expired. These ZIP Code boundaries are aligned to the street centerlines of the Q2 2018 HERE product (with a release date of April 1, 2018) and use a then-recent USPS source file.In March 2024, MassGIS modified the boundaries for all ZIP Code areas in Boston based on the U.S. Postal Service's ZIP Code Look Up by Address website. MassGIS also added polygons for ZIP Codes 02199 and 02203.Five-digit ZIP Codes were developed by the USPS and first introduced in 1963 for efficient mail delivery (the term ZIP stands for Zone Improvement Plan) but are difficult to map with complete certainty. In most cases, addresses in close proximity to each other are grouped in the same ZIP Code, which gives the appearance that ZIP Codes are defined by a clear geographic boundary. However, even when ZIP Codes appear to be geographically grouped, a clear ZIP Code boundary cannot always be drawn because ZIP Codes are only assigned to a point of delivery and not the spaces between delivery points. In areas without a regular postal route or no mail delivery, ZIP Codes may not be defined or have unclear boundaries.The USPS does not maintain an official ZIP Code map. The Census Bureau and many other commercial services will interpolate the data to create polygons to represent the approximate area covered by a ZIP code, but none of these maps are official or entirely accurate. Please see this good discussion of the issues of mapping ZIP Codes.See full metadata.Map service also available.

The 2015 cartographic boundary KMLs are simplified representations of selected geographic areas from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). These boundary files are specifically designed for small-scale thematic mapping. When possible, generalization is performed with the intent to maintain the hierarchical relationships among geographies and to maintain the alignment of geographies within a file set for a given year. Geographic areas may not align with the same areas from another year. Some geographies are available as nation-based files while others are available only as state-based files. The records in this file allow users to map the parts of Urban Areas that overlap a particular county. After each decennial census, the Census Bureau delineates urban areas that represent densely developed territory, encompassing residential, commercial, and other nonresidential urban land uses. In general, this territory consists of areas of high population density and urban land use resulting in a representation of the "urban footprint." There are two types of urban areas: urbanized areas (UAs) that contain 50,000 or more people and urban clusters (UCs) that contain at least 2,500 people, but fewer than 50,000 people (except in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam which each contain urban clusters with populations greater than 50,000). Each urban area is identified by a 5-character numeric census code that may contain leading zeroes. The primary legal divisions of most states are termed counties. In Louisiana, these divisions are known as parishes. In Alaska, which has no counties, the equivalent entities are the organized boroughs, city and boroughs, municipalities, and for the unorganized area, census areas. The latter are delineated cooperatively for statistical purposes by the State of Alaska and the Census Bureau. In four states (Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia), there are one or more incorporated places that are independent of any county organization and thus constitute primary divisions of their states. These incorporated places are known as independent cities and are treated as equivalent entities for purposes of data presentation. The District of Columbia and Guam have no primary divisions, and each area is considered an equivalent entity for purposes of data presentation. The Census Bureau treats the following entities as equivalents of counties for purposes of data presentation: Municipios in Puerto Rico, Districts and Islands in American Samoa, Municipalities in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Islands in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The entire area of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas is covered by counties or equivalent entities. The boundaries for counties and equivalent entities are as of January 1, 2010.

Chart and table of population level and growth rate for the Boston metro area from 1950 to 2025. United Nations population projections are also included through the year 2035.

The following describes standards for assigning Important Farmland Classes to soil survey map units of Massachusetts soil survey areas.

Criteria for the designation “Prime Farmland” per Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

The prime farmland class is assigned to soil map units, the major component/s relative value data[1] for which, meet prime farmland criteria per 7CFR657.5 as edited to exclude soil properties and climate not relevant to Massachusetts, and to quantify adequate available water holding capacity as follows:

available water capacity of 3.5 in (8.9 cm) or more[2] within a depth of 40 in (1 m) or the depth to an impermeable layer if less than 40 in (1 m) and,pH between 4.5 and 8.4 in all horizons within a depth of 40 in (1 m) and,water table, if present, not shallower than 15 in (38 cm) during May through October and,infrequent (less often than once in 2 years) or no flooding during May through October and,the product of Kw (erodibility factor, whole soil) of the mineral soil surface and percent slope is less than 2.0[3]; and,permeability rate of at least 0.06 in (0.15 cm) per hour in the upper 20 in (50 cm); and,upper 6 in (15 cm) of the soil surface contains less than 10 percent rock fragments by volume coarser than 3 in (7.6 cm) diameter; and,not more than 0.1 percent of the soil surface is covered by stones 10 in (25cm) to 24 in (60cm) diameter, and/or boulders >24 in (60 cm) diameter, and.less than 2 percent bedrock exposure.

Qualifiers for data application to Massachusetts soil survey map unit prime farmland criteria per CFR:

Entire pH data range is applied to the pH criterion. All soil survey map unit components that otherwise meet prime farmland criteria have mineral horizon pH ranges w/in the CFR criterion. Tillage and accepted agricultural practices negate the pH limitation where attribute relative value is less than 4.5. Map units having a predominance of soils of coarse-loamy or coarse-silty particle size class overlying densic contact on 0 to 8% slopes with available water capacity data values <3.5 in (8.1 cm), and that meet remaining criteria per CFR are designated prime farmland. Although attribute data indicates the available water holding capacity minimum of 3.5 in (8.1 cm) is not met, these soils maintain a reservoir of moisture that supports plant growth due to reduced gravitational water loss and meets criteria per CFR of adequate moisture supply for the crops commonly grown. This qualifier is applicable to soil map components with moderately coarse to medium textured mantles overlying lodgment till.Where the product of K and slope percent is 2 or less for the lower part of a 3 to 8 percent map unit slope phase range but exceeds 2 for the upper part of the slope range, and remaining criteria per CFR are met, the map unit is designated prime farmland. Map units that meet all prime farmland criteria per CFR except the relative value data representing the predominant components reflects available water capacity of less than 3.5 in (8.9 cm) through the upper 40 in (1 m) but has sufficient available water capacity in the upper profile, are designated prime farmland. This qualifier is applicable to soil survey map unit components having moderately coarse to medium textured mantles overlying coarse textured deposits.Complexes and Associations - Soil map units with more than 50 percent components that meet any of the above scenarios are designated prime.

Criteria for the designation “Farmland of Statewide Importance"

Soil map units, the predominant composition of which does not meet criteria for prime farmland and have all the following characteristics…available water capacity of 2.0 in (5.1 cm) or more[4] within a depth of 40 in (1 m); and,pH between 4.5 and 8.4 in all horizons within a depth of 40 in (1 m) and,water table, if present, not shallower than 15 in (38 cm) during May through October; and,infrequent (less often than once in 2 years) or no flooding during May through October; and,the product of Kw (erodibility factor, whole soil) of the mineral soil surface and percent slope is less than 4.2[5]; and,permeability rate of at least 0.06 in (0.15 cm) per hour in the upper 20 in (50 cm); and,upper 6 in (15 cm) with less than 35 percent rock fragments by volume coarser than 3 in (7.6 cm); and,not more than 3 percent of the soil surface is covered by stones 10 in (25 cm) to 24 in (60 cm) diameter and, not more than 0.1 percent of the surface is covered by boulders >24 in (60 cm) diameter, andless than 2 percent bedrock exposures.

Qualifiers for data application to Massachusetts Farmland of Statewide Importance Criteria

Where the product of K and slope percent is 4.2 or less for the lower part of an 8 to 15 percent map unit slope phase range but exceeds 4.2 for the upper part of the slope range, and remaining criteria are met, the map unit is designated farmland of statewide importance. Complexes and Associations - Soil map units with more than 50 percent components that meet the above criteria are designated farmland of statewide importance.

Important Farmland Soil Map Unit Designation Overriding Scenarios

Application of anomalous or non-representative data elements to important farmland criteria may result in inaccurate class placement. The consideration of the characteristics of the soil survey map unit as a whole as assessed by Massachusetts NRCS staff overrides point specific data.

K factors and available water capacity data for the same nominal component may vary among soil survey areas resulting in different data-derived farmland classes. The characteristics of the predominant condition based on acreage extent will be applied state-wide for prime farmland and farmland of state-wide importance designations.

The following address specific scenarios where calculations based on attribute data may inaccurately place a map unit in prime farmland or farmland of statewide Importance classes. Soil map units having any of the following characteristics are precluded from important farmland designations:A major component that is shallow to lithic contact: complex slopes, surface stones and boulders associated with these map units, and very shallow components within these landscapes are significant limitations to agriculture.Slope phase range that includes 20 percent or more. Per recommendation from MA NRCS ecological sciences staff, 20 percent slope or greater is limiting for equipment operations.Hydric soil composition greater than or equal to 50 percent.Quartzipsamment composition greater than or equal to 50 percent: droughty, inherently low fertility. A major component of urban land and/or major component classified to level above series i.e. Udorthents.Map unit complexes associated with the undulating, rolling, irregular slopes of the Cape Cod terminal moraines.

Soil map units having any of the following characteristics are precluded from the designation, Prime Farmland:

Composition of soil components in the sandy-skeletal particle size class greater than or equal to 50 percent.Slope phase range that exceeds 8 percent.[6]

Unique Farmland

Soil survey map units designated as Unique Farmland, are those suitable for, and have an established history of cranberry production. The Unique Farmland designation is excluded from soil survey areas with few or no lands with cranberry production.

[1] Relative value refers to the value assigned to specific data elements in the National Soils Information System. Application of anomalous or non-representative values to important farmland criteria may result in inaccurate class placement. The consideration of the characteristics of the soil map unit as a whole overrides point specific data as determined by Massachusetts NRCS staff.

[2]Available water capacity needs determined from “Conservation Irrigation Guide for Massachusetts, 1981”

[3]Slope range values applied to this criterion exclude the lowest whole number in the range to separate overlap with the adjacent lower slope phase as follows: 0-3, 4-8, 9-15.

[4]Available water capacity needs determined from Conservation Irrigation Guide for Massachusetts, 1981

[5]Product of K and slope criterion based on historical precedent, MA Soil Conservation Service document, “Additional Farmland of State or Local Importance”,1/17/1986. Slope range values applied to this criterion exclude the lowest whole number in the range to separate overlap with the adjacent lower slope phase as follows: 0-3, 4-8, 9-15.

[6]Based on data, some map units meet Prime Farmland criteria on the lower part of the 8-15 percent slope range. About a dozen map units with available water capacity >3.5 inches and Kw of .1, .2, .15, or .17 were noted, all of which have loamy surface textures and parent material like other map units with higher Kw factors. The decision to exclude slopes greater than 8 percent from Prime Farmland is based on the preponderance of attribute data for similar soils.

Find Massachusetts health data by community, county, and region, including population demographics. Build custom data reports with over 100 health and social determinants of health data indicators and explore over 28,000 current and historical data layers in the map room.

Effective January 2024.More information: Visit the Geographic Information System (GIS) webpage for access to additional City maps.Informing Worcester is the City of Worcester's open data portal where interested parties can obtain public information at no cost.