Depict the Boulder County boundary

City limits for the City of Boulder, Colorado.

The Floodplain Mapping/Redelineation study deliverables depict and quantify the flood risks for the study area. The primary risk classifications used are the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event, the 0.2-percent-annual- chance flood event, and areas of minimal flood risk. The Floodplain Mapping/Redelineation flood risk boundaries are derived from the engineering information Flood Insurance Studies (FISs), previously published Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), flood hazard analyses performed in support of the FISs and FIRMs, and new mapping data, where available. The FISs and FIRMs are published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

The University of Colorado Boulder campus map is created, updated and published by the CU CAD/GIS Office. It consists of twenty feature classes that make up the campus basic geography and is published primarily for use by the campus community.

A 300 x 600 m integrated terrain unit map (ITUM) was produced at 1:500 scale inside the 350 x 650 m Martinelli grid, and the 1:500 digital elevation model (DEM). Vegetation was mapped using Komarkova's (1979) classification system (Braun-Blanquet) units. All map units were mapped to 1/8-inch minimum map-polygon-size resolution. The map is part of the Martinelli grid geographic information system (GIS). Many GIS projects use an approach in which existing mapped information is digitized into the GIS database directly from the original sources. The maps may have different map scale, map-unit resolutions, dates of data collection, and classification systems. When these different sources are combined in a GIS, artifacts may arise due to boundary mismatches and scale incompatibility (Dangermond and Harnden 1990). Integrated geobotanical mapping can minimize many of these problems. This method simultaneously maps vegetation and other terrain features that are interpreted on a common air-photo base (Everett et al. 1978, Walker et al. 1980). We use the term geobotany in its traditional European sense to refer to the study of plant communities and their relationships to geology, landforms, and soils (Braun-Blanquet 1932). Terrain geomorphic boundaries are used to guide the delineation on aerial photographs of most major vegetation boundaries similiar to the landscape-guided vegetation mapping approach developed in Europe (Zonneveld 1988) and the integrated terrain unit mapping approach developed by the Environmental System Research Institute in Redlands, CA (Dangermond and Harnden 1990). Additional information concerning the Niwot Ridge LTER GIS can be found in Walker et al. (1993). [1]Braun-Blanquet, J. 1932. Plant sociology: The study of plant communities. New York: McGraw-Hill, 439 pp. [2]Everett, K.R., P.J. Webber, D.A. Walker, R.J. Parkinson, and J. Brown. 1978. A geoecological mapping scheme for Alaskan coastal tundra. Third International Conference on Permafrost, 10-13 July 1978, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. [3]Komarkova, V. 1979. Alpine vegetation of the Indian Peaks area, Front Range, Colorado Rocky Mountains. Vaduz (Germany): J. Cramer, 591 pp. [4]Walker, D.A., K.R. Everett, P.J. Webber, and J. Brown. 1980. Geobotanical atlas of the Prudhoe Bay region, Alaska. United States Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, CRREL Report #80, Hanover, NH, 69 pp. [5]Zonneveld, I.S. 1988. The ITC method of mapping natural and semi- natural vegetation. Pp. 401-426 in Kuchler, A.W., and I.S. Zonneveld (eds.). Vegetation mapping. Boston: Kluwer Academic. [6]Dangermond, J., and E. Harnden. 1990. Map data standardization: A methodology for integrating thematic cartographic data before automation. ARC News 12(2): 16-19. [7]Walker, D.A., J.C. Halfpenny, M.D. Walker, and C.A. Wessman. 1993. Long-term studies of snow-vegetation interactions. Bioscience 43(5): 287-301. [8]Walker, D.A., B.E. Lewis, W.B. Krantz, E.T. Price, and R.D. Tabler. 1994. Hierarchic studies of snow-ecosystem interactions: A 100-year snow-alteration experiment. Pp. 407-414 In: Ferrik, M. (ed.). Proceedings of the Fiftieth Annual Eastern and Western Snow Conference, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, 8-10 June 1993. 441 pp.

Data comes from American Community Survey 5-year estimate 2019-2023 table C16001. It was joined to the Census Tract boundaries by Boulder County GIS. This data is used in a Language Access Map Viewer.

This is a comment on the preliminary Congressional Commission redistricting map. Along with providing feedback on that map, it offers a draft alternative that better meets the criteria of the Colorado Constitution. As background, I participated in redistricting initiatives in South Bend, Indiana, in the mid-1980s and for Indiana legislative seats after the 1990 census. I didn’t engage with redistricting during the rest of my 20-year military career. After retiring, and while serving as Public Trustee for El Paso County, I participated in redistricting efforts at the county and city level. I also stood for El Paso County Clerk in 2010. I have lived in Colorado since 2000. The draft alternative map is created using Dave’s Redistricting App (DRA) and can be found at https://davesredistricting.org/join/346f297c-71d1-4443-9110-b92e3362b105. I used DRA because it was more user-friendly in that it allows selection by precinct and by city or town, while the tool provided by the commission seems to allow only selection by census block (or larger clusters). The two tools also use slightly different population estimates, but this will be resolved when the 2020 data are released in August. These comments acknowledge that any map created using estimated populations will need to change to account for the actual census data.

Description of Draft Alternative

    My process started by

identifying large-scale geographic communities of interest within Colorado: the Western Slope/mountain areas, the Eastern Plains, Colorado Springs/El Paso County, the North Front Range, and Denver Metro. Two smaller geographic communities of interest are Pueblo and the San Luis Valley—neither is nearly large enough to sustain a district and both are somewhat distinct from their neighboring communities of interest. A choice thus must be made about which other communities of interest to group them with. El Paso County is within 0.3% of the optimal population, so it is set as District 5. The true Western Slope is not large enough to sustain a district, even with the obvious addition of Jackson County. Rather than including the San Luis Valley with the Western Slope, the preliminary commission map extends the Western Slope district to include all of Fremont County (even Canon City, Florence, and Penrose), Clear Creek County, and some of northern Boulder County. The draft alternative District 3 instead adds the San Luis Valley, the Upper Arkansas Valley (Lake and Chaffee Counties, and the western part of Fremont County), Park and Teller Counties, and Custer County. The draft alternative District 4 is based on the Eastern Plains. In the south, this includes the rest of Fremont County (including Canon City), Pueblo, and the Lower Arkansas Valley. In the north, this includes all of Weld County, retaining it as an intact political subdivision. This is nearly enough population to form a complete district; it is rounded out by including the easternmost portions of Adams and Arapahoe Counties. All of Elbert County is in this district; none of Douglas County is. The draft alternative District 2 is placed in the North Front Range and includes Larimer, Boulder, Gilpin, and Clear Creek Counties. This is nearly enough population to form a complete district, so it is rounded out by adding Evergreen and the rest of Coal Creek in Jefferson County. The City and County of Denver (and the Arapahoe County enclave municipalities of Glendale and Holly Hills) forms the basis of draft alternative District 1. This is a bit too large to form a district, so small areas are shaved off into neighboring districts: DIA (mostly for compactness), Indian Creek, and part of Marston. This leaves three districts to place in suburban Denver. The draft alternative keeps Douglas County intact, as well as the city of Aurora, except for the part that extends into Douglas County. The map prioritizes the county over the city as a political subdivision. Draft alternative District 6, anchored in Douglas County, extends north into Arapahoe County to include suburbs like Centennial, Littleton, Englewood, Greenwood Village, and Cherry Hills Village. This is not enough population, so the district extends west into southern Jefferson County to include Columbine, Ken Caryl, and Dakota Ridge. The northwestern edge of this district would run along Deer Creek Road, Pleasant Park Road, and Kennedy Gulch Road. Draft alternative District 8, anchored in Aurora, includes the rest of western Arapahoe County and extends north into Adams County to include Commerce City, Brighton (except the part in Weld County), Thornton, and North Washington. In the draft alternative, this district includes a sliver of Northglenn east of Stonehocker Park. While this likely would be resolved when final population totals are released, this division of Northglenn is the most notable division of a city within a single county other than the required division of Denver. Draft alternative District 7 encompasses what is left: The City and County of Broomfield; Westminster, in both Jefferson and Adams Counties; Federal Heights, Sherrelwood, Welby, Twin Lakes, Berkley, and almost all of Northglenn in western Adams County; and Lakewood, Arvada, Golden, Wheat Ridge, Morrison, Indian Hills, Aspen Park, Genesee, and Kittredge in northern Jefferson County. The border with District 2 through the communities in the western portion of Jefferson County would likely be adjusted after final population totals are released.

Comparison of Maps

Precise Population Equality
    The preliminary commission

map has exact population equality. The draft alternative map has a variation of 0.6% (4,239 persons). Given that the maps are based on population estimates, and that I left it at the precinct and municipality level, this aspect of the preliminary map is premature to pinpoint. Once final population data are released, either map would need to be adjusted. It would be simple to tweak district boundaries to achieve any desired level of equality. That said, such precision is a bit of a fallacy: errors in the census data likely exceed the 0.6% in the draft map, the census data will be a year out of date when received, and relative district populations will fluctuate over the next 10 years. Both the “good-faith effort†and “as practicable†language leave room for a bit of variance in service of other goals. The need to “justify any variance†does not mean “no variance will be allowed.†For example, it may be better to maintain unity in a community of interest or political subdivision rather than separate part of it for additional precision. The major sticking point here is likely to be El Paso County: given how close it seems to be to the optimal district size, will it be worth it to divide the county or one of its neighbors to achieve precision? The same question would be likely to apply among the municipalities in Metro Denver.

Contiguity
    The draft alternative map

meets this requirement. The preliminary commission map violates the spirit if not the actual language of this requirement. While its districts are connected by land, the only way to travel to all parts of preliminary Districts 3 and 4 without leaving the districts would be on foot. There is no road connection between the parts of Boulder County that are in District 3 and the rest of that district in Grand County without leaving the district and passing through District 2 in either Gilpin or Larimer Counties. There also is no road connection between some of the southwestern portions of Mineral County and the rest of District 4 without passing through Archuleta or Hinsdale Counties in District 3.

Voting Rights Act
    The preliminary staff

analysis assumes it would be possible to create a majority-minority district; they are correct, it can be done via a noncompact district running from the west side of Denver up to Commerce City and Brighton and down to parts of northeastern Denver and northern Aurora. Such a district would go against criteria for compactness, political subdivisions, and even other definitions of communities of interest. Staff asserts that the election of Democratic candidates in this area suffices for VRA. Appendix B is opaque regarding the actual non-White or Hispanic population in each district, but I presume that if they had created a majority-minority district they would have said so. In the draft alternative map, District 8 (Aurora, Commerce City, Brighton, and Thornton) has a 39.6% minority population and District 1 (Denver) has a 34.9% minority population. The proposals are similar in meeting this criterion.

Communities of Interest
    Staff presented a long list

of communities of interest. While keeping all of these intact would be ideal, drawing a map requires compromises based on geography and population. Many communities of interest overlap with each other, especially at their edges. This difficulty points to a reason to focus on existing subdivisions (county, city, and town boundaries): those boundaries are stable and overlap with shared public policy concerns. The preliminary commission map chooses to group the San Luis Valley, as far upstream as Del Norte and Creede, with Pueblo and the Eastern Plains rather than with the Western Slope/Mountains. To balance the population numbers, the preliminary commission map thus had to reach east in northern and central Colorado. The commission includes Canon City and Florence

Data comes from American Community Survey 5-year estimate 2019-2023 table C16001. It was joined to the Census Tract boundaries by Boulder County GIS. This data is used in a Language Access Map Viewer.

Census tracts are small, relatively permanent geographic entities within counties (or the statistical equivalents of counties) delineated by a committee of local data users. Generally, census tracts have between 2,500 and 8,000 residents and boundaries that follow visible features. When first established, census tracts are to be as homogeneous as possible with respect to population characteristics, economic status, and living conditions. (www.census.gov)

The total amount of rain that fell in Boulder County during the September Flood of 2013, from September 10 to September 16. This information was aquired by NOAA, Earth System Research Laboratory, Physical Science Division, Climate Analyis Branch, and taken from there web page titled Boulde area flood of September 2013: Precipitation. This information is from the Advanced Hydrological Prediction Service. The URL of the this page is http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/boulder/flood2013/precipplots/This page showed the total accumlation precpitation fro the period starting 12 UTC 9/9/2013 and ending 12 UTC 9/16/2013. There is a 6 hour time difference from UTC to Mountain Daylight Time, so map shows the total accumlation from 9/8 at 6:00PM to 9/16 at 6:00 PM. Process:The data was in .png file format and would need to be converted to .tif file for use in ArcMap.Add the raster dataset that you want to align in ArcMap.Add a layer that resides in your current map coordinates. For our purposes, the County boundary was used.Add the georeferencing toolbar.Using the georeferencing toolbar, Add control points that link known raster positions to your existing data.Save the georeferenced image when satisfied.Repeat for each of the precipitation rasters.Create feature classes for each raster timeframe.The following fields were added to record the precipitation amounts.RainfallMinRainfallMaxDigitize or sketch a polygon defining the features shape.Update the attributes for each field, using the precipitation amounts available in the raster legend.

Areas for potential urbanization and annexation as identified by Intergovernmental Agreements. These IGA boundaries were drawn using the maps or legal descriptions recorded with the official agreements. Unless specified in the recorded document, all interior roads are assumed to be included within the various planning areas. Check the official recorded agreement documents for more information- particularly regarding the roads located along the perimeter or intersecting the IGA boundaries.

This geographic layer is used as a reference to assist in emergency response for Boulder County Sheriff's Office Communication 911 workflow. This layer reflects where fire districts are primarily responsible for answering 911 fire and emergency calls. Response areas shown in this layer reflect unique fire workflow for CAD (911 Computer Aided Dispatch). This response area fire geography differs slightly from legal fire district boundaries used for property taxation.

I have been reading the comments and came across the map from Jose Martinez-Lopez. I generally like his revisions as it fixes several common complaints about your draft map: adds a majority-minority district, makes both districts 3 and 8 more competitive, restores Western Boulder county to district 2, and annexes Greeley to district 8. However, I believe Wheat Ridge should not be included in district 1 so I have revised the map to put it in district 8. District 1 then takes the Four Square Mile and Cherry Creek and district 6 takes Federal Heights and Fort Lupton.Here is the revised map: https://davesredistricting.org/join/6e66ae60-c38c-4103-8b10-c796a84fae25

This is my second input on the preliminary Congressional Commission redistricting map, based this time on the census numbers that were released in mid-August. These additional comments again use on Dave’s Redistricting App (DRA), which has the current data for counties and precincts. As of this writing, the commission’s tool did not seem to have the current data loaded. My revised draft alternative is at https://davesredistricting.org/join/b26ec349-27da-4df9-a087-ce77af348056. As background, I participated in redistricting initiatives in South Bend, Indiana, in the mid-1980s and for Indiana legislative seats after the 1990 census. I didn’t engage with redistricting during the rest of my 20-year military career. After retiring, and while serving as Public Trustee for El Paso County, I participated in redistricting efforts at the county and city level. I also stood for El Paso County Clerk in 2010. I have lived in Colorado since 2000. Description of Draft Alternative My process started by identifying large-scale geographic communities of interest within Colorado: the Western Slope/mountain areas, the Eastern Plains, Colorado Springs/El Paso County, the North Front Range, and Denver Metro. Two smaller geographic communities of interest are Pueblo and the San Luis Valley—neither is nearly large enough to sustain a district and both are somewhat distinct from their neighboring communities of interest. A choice thus must be made about which other communities of interest to group them with. A second principle I adopted was to prioritize keeping counties intact over municipalities. County boundaries are fixed, unlike municipal boundaries, and do not interlock based on annexation patterns. Precincts and census blocks do not overlap counties, but they may overlap municipal boundaries. Furthermore, county lines more often correspond to other layers of government than do municipal boundaries. This most matters along the western border of Weld County, which several municipalities overlap while also being rather entangled with each other. I was not able to find a particularly elegant alternative to using the county line that would not then require other communities of interest to be divided.I started with El Paso County, which exceeds the ideal district population (721,714) by 8,681 or 1.2%. It therefore must be split among different districts. El Paso, where I have lived for these past 20 years, is itself a coherent community that should remain as intact as possible – no plan that split it into two large pieces would comply with the commission’s mandate. The best options for moving population into other districts would be on the eastern and western edges. The northern part of El Paso County – Palmer Lake, Monument, Woodmoor, and Black Forest – is much more closely tied to the rest of El Paso County than it is to Douglas County. The small population along I-25 in southern El Paso County is also more closely tied to Fort Carson and the Fountain Valley than it is to Pueblo. The eastern parts of El Paso County, on the other hand – Ramah, Calhan, Yoder, Rush, Truckton – have far more in common with Lincoln County and the Eastern Plains than they do with Colorado Springs. Unfortunately, there is not enough population in the easternmost precincts to bring the county within the population limits. Once you get as far west as Peyton, you are reaching the edge of the Colorado Springs exurbs; once you get to Ellicott, you are reaching communities around Schriever Air Force Base that are part of the community of interest associated with the military. Rather than divide the community of interest there, it would be better to link the precincts in Ute Pass, the Rampart Range, and along the southern part of Gold Camp Road with Woodland Park and Teller County. While I will not claim that they are part of the Colorado Springs community, they are more linked to the larger town to their west than the northern and southern edges of El Paso County are to their neighboring counties. The use of census block data, not yet available on DRA, might allow more fine-tuning of this split that creates District 5 out of all but the western and eastern edges of El Paso County. The true Western Slope is not large enough to sustain District 3, even with the obvious addition of Jackson County and the necessary additions of Lake, Chafee, Park, and Teller Counties. The preliminary commission map would exclude most of the San Luis Valley (all but Hinsdale) from the Western Slope district. Based on the revised census numbers, a district that did this would need to add all of Clear Creek, Gilpin, and Fremont Counties to the Western Slope along with the small part of El Paso County. On its face, this maintains county integrity very well and would be a better map than the preliminary commission map that groups parts of Boulder County into the Western Slope. However, there are two problems with such a design. One would be that it breaks up communities of interest to the east: Gilpin and Clear Creek Counties are more associated with the Denver Metro, and Canon City with Pueblo, than any of them are with the Western Slope. The second problem is that it means any district centered in the North Front Range would need to take on arbitrary parts of neighboring Broomfield and Weld County or an even less-logical division of Arvada or Golden in Jefferson County. The draft alternative map submitted with these comments places the San Luis Valley with the Western Slope. To complete the required population, it adds western El Paso County (as described above), western Fremont County, Custer County, and Huerfano County to the Western Slope district. Certainly, arguments can be made about dividing communities of interest here as well, but ties do exist along the Wet Mountain Valley and across La Veta Pass. Throughout the map – throughout any map – tradeoffs must be made among which communities remain together. The draft alternative District 4 is based on the Eastern Plains. In the south, this includes eastern Fremont County (including Canon City), Pueblo County, Las Animas County, the Lower Arkansas Valley, and parts of far eastern El Paso County. In the north, this includes all of Weld and Elbert Counties, retaining them as intact political subdivisions. It does not extend into Larimer, Broomfield, Adams, Arapahoe, or Douglas Counties. The draft alternative District 2 is placed in the North Front Range and includes Larimer, Boulder, Gilpin, and Clear Creek Counties. This is nearly enough population to form a complete district, so it is rounded out by adding Evergreen and the rest of Coal Creek in Jefferson County. The City and County of Denver (and the Arapahoe County enclave municipalities of Glendale and Holly Hills) forms the basis of draft alternative District 1. This is approximately the right size to form a district, but the complexities of interlocking communities make it sensible to include Bow Mar and a small piece of southern Lakewood in this district and exclude the Indian Creek and Kennedy neighborhoods. This leaves three districts to place in suburban Denver. A great place for a boundary among these three districts that does not split communities of interest is in the area of low population to the northeast of Denver International Airport. District 7 in this numbering (which is arbitrary) would include all of Adams County to the west of the airport: to name only the largest communities, Commerce City, Brighton (except the part in Weld), Thornton, Northglenn, and Westminster. It would also include the City and County of Broomfield, and Arvada and the rest of Westminster in Jefferson County. District 6 would include all of the City of Aurora and the parts of Adams and Arapahoe Counties to its east. It would also include Parker, Stonegate, and Meridian in Douglas County; Centennial, Greenwood Village, and Cherry Hills Village in Arapahoe County; and the Indian Creek and Kennedy neighborhoods in Denver. District 8 would include the rest. It would include all of Jefferson County from Golden and Lakewood south (except for small parts of southeastern Lakewood and western Bow Mar) It would include the rest of Douglas County, including Highlands Ranch, Lone Tree, Castle Pines, and The Pinery. Comparison of Maps Precise Population Equality The preliminary commission map has exact population equality. The draft alternative map has a variation of 0.28% (2,038 persons). This is well within the courts’ guidelines for population equality, without even considering that errors in the census data likely exceed this variation, the census data are already a year out of date, and relative district populations will fluctuate over the next 10 years. Both the “good-faith effort†and “as practicable†language leave room for a bit of variance in service of other goals. The need to “justify any variance†does not mean “no variance will be allowed.†It may be better to maintain unity in a community of interest or political subdivision rather than separate part of it for additional precision. Contiguity The draft alternative map meets this requirement. The preliminary commission map violates the spirit if not the actual language of this requirement. While its districts are connected by land, the only way to travel to all parts of preliminary Districts 3 and 4 without leaving the districts would be on foot. There is no road connection between the parts of Boulder County that are in District 3 and the rest of that district in Grand County without leaving the district and passing through District 2 in either Gilpin or Larimer Counties. There also is no road connection between some of the southwestern portions of Mineral County and the rest of District 4 without passing through Archuleta or Hinsdale Counties in District 3. Voting Rights Act The draft alternative

The University of Colorado Boulder campus map is created, updated and published by the CU CAD/GIS Office. It consists of twenty-two separate feature classes: Property Boundaries, Building Footprints, River Lines, Lakes and Ponds, Ditches, Water Features, Dams, Road Edges, Sidewalk Edges, Structure Areas and Lines, Athletics Fields & Courts, Athletics Lines, Fence Lines, Outdoor Spaces, Parking Lots and Lines, Grounds Panels (softscape areas), Road Centerlines, Trees and Points of Interest. Each of these layers are updated as-needed by the CU CAD/GIS Office when new information is received, typically in the form of construction as-built drawings. The updates are posted to ArcGIS Online, Esri Living Atlas and Esri Community maps at least twice a year, quarterly when possible.

I share similar concerns as those raised by Suzanna Garcia's public comment about racial gerrymandering and competitiveness. Your proposed map essentially "cracks" the Denver metro Hispanic community stretching from Aurora to Berkley and Sherrelwood across 4 congressional districts. I believe this is a racial gerrymander meant to dilute the voting power of Hispanics in the Denver area. I am particularly concerned that Commerce City, which has one of the largest Hispanic populations in our state, is split in two with basically an "arm" shooting off from district 4 and into the eastern half of the city. District 4 is predominantly rural and yet this "arm" essentially pulls in half of Commerce City, which is a highly urban and industrial setting in the Denver metro. Commerce City has nothing in common with rural communities in Southern CO and I cannot see any reasonable justification for this. It is a racial gerrymander that I believe flagrantly violates the Voting Rights Act. Our community is facing serious issues around pollution and environmental racism because of the Suncor refinery. I believe it will basically be impossible for us to get our representative to address this if we are grouped mainly with rural counties up to 250 miles away from Commerce City. I agree with Ms. Garcia that a congressional district should be drawn that consolidates as much of the urban Hispanic community as possible by combining Aurora, northeast Denver, and the inner nothern suburbs including all of Commerce City. In my opinion, this is far more important than keeping the city of Denver whole- especially given that the airport neighborhoods are far more economically and culturally linked to Aurora and Commerce City than they are to downtown Denver.

I am also extremely concerned that the map doesn't seem to produce

competitive congressional districts. I thought a major purpose of the commission was to produce a competitive map. That was a huge part of the campaign for putting it in place and it was even in the language of the ballot measure we all voted on. It seems to me that there should be at least 3 districts that are competitive, if not more. I have drawn a map using Dave's Redistricting tool. This map is somewhat similar to the commission's map but I have made some adjustments to address the problems with racial gerrymandering and non-competitiveness. I have also restored Western Boulder county to district 2 and Castle Rock to district 4 because I saw in the public comments that these were frequent complaints. Now, district 6 is 37% Hispanic and 59% non-White. Additionally, district 3, 7, and 8 would all be competitive. In the 2018 AG's race, Brauchler would have won district 3 by 4% and district 7 by 2% while Weiser would have won district 8 by 3%. This is much more competitive than your current draft map. Thank you for reading my comment. MAP IS HERE: https://davesredistricting.org/join/f7835dfb-84af-41ec-aaa2-0081298fd57e

Plan Information Plan name: Mountains, Plains, Urban Description: District 3 is west of the divide plus San Luis Valley plus Teller, Park, Chaffee, Lake, and Clear Creek. District 4 covers Weld, rural plains counties, and the eastern slope south of El Paso. Metro Denver has central, north+Aurora, south, and west suburban districts. District 2 is Larimer, Boulder, and Gilpen, adjusting for municipalities and extending to Evergreen to balance population.Plan ObjectivesMy goals were(a) Use natural geographic features (e.g. mountain ridge lines, rivers) for district boundaries(b) Maintain as much continuity between old and new districts(c) Keep both municipalities and census-designated places within a single district.To achieve (a), D3 boundaries include the Sangre De Cristos and the continental divide. To cover enough population, Clear Creek, Park, and Teller are added, creating straight-line borders with other districts. D3 extends into the mountain portion of El Paso County next to Woodland Park to balance population. This creates a similar D3 boundary to the State's proposal, but with the San Luis Valley joined with the western Slope, Cañon City sharing a district with nearby Pueblo, and without the awkward extension into the Boulder mountain communities. In the metro area, municipal and CDP boundaries are generally used as boundaries instead of physical geographic features.I believe that objective (c) is achieved everywhere but Evergreen (not including Denver, which is too large for a single district, and a few small exclaves of oddly-shaped municipalities). I drew the D2/D7 boundary somewhat arbitrarily so as to reduce population deviation; there may be lines which do a better job of avoiding split mountain neighborhoods.The population deviation for all districts is less than 1,500. It might be possible to reduce it below 1,000 by extending D3 into the mountain portions of Fremont County and/or the US-285 corridor of Jefferson County around Pine Junction. However, it is my view that a variance of 1,500 (0.2% of the total district population) in order to respect county line boundaries represents a reasonable justification for variants from a good-faith effort at precise population equality.

My name is Lucia Guzman. Thank you for the opportunity to submit the following testimony. Though I am retired , i had the pleasure of serving our great state as the Democratic Senate Minority Leader for two years. During that time, i travelled to all parts of Colorado and have come to appreciate the diversity Colorado shares across the state. I remain deeply committed to my community , State Senate district 34, and the Latino community across Colorado. There is nothing more important than how all people are adequately represented in our democracy. Your charge is to draw 8 congressional districts using communities of interest based on federal legislative policy. I am submitting a map for your consideration. The following is the context for my map. Thank you for your consideration. CD1: Keeps Denver whole, with only enough cut off to balance the population. CD2: Keeps Boulder and Larimer Counties together CU and CSU both have similar interests as Colorado's largest research universities Both Counties have shared interests regarding the management of Rocky Mountain National Park Rural Boulder and Larimer County have shared interests regarding wildfire mgt CD3: Joins key Hispanic communities across Colorado, including Pueblo, the San Luis Valley and the Roaring Fork The district is minority influenced with the district being over a quarter Hispanic/Latino CD4: Keeps the Eastern Plains together, uniting key rural and agricultural interests For population balance this district picks up Greeley as well as the majority of Douglas County, with the exclusion of the Aurora portions CD5: Keeps El Paso county as whole as possible The rural eastern third of El Paso county is joined with the Eastern Plains CD6: Keeps Aurora whole in a single congressional district Keeps western Arapahoe county together CD7: Picks up Jefferson county portions of Bel Mar, Columbine and Littleton in order to pick up population and to keep these cities whole CD8: Keeps key Hispanic/Latino communities in the northern front range together, creating a Hispanic/Latino influenced district. The district is 34.7 percent Hispanic. Joins many of the northern front range communities that have experienced rapid growth over the past decade and are predicted to continue to grow at a rapid rate unites many communities that rely upon the I-25 corridor, all of which share similar federal transportation priorities includes all of Westminster, resulting in CD8 picking up a portion of Jefferson County. Map Link: https://davesredistricting.org/join/ef795861-c391-4bbO-b4c9-d733543f26bO

Plan Information Plan name: Willis competitive map Description: 4 competitive districts, 2 safe Dem, 2 safe GOP.Plan ObjectivesI gave up trying to make staff plan competitive. This map, which is somewhat similar to the current districts, has 2 safe Dem districts (CDs 1 & 2), 2 safe GOP districts (CDs 4 & 5), 3 competitive districts with a slight (2%, 2%, and 4% respectively) Dem lean (CDs 6,7, & 8), and 1 competitive district with a slight (4%) GOP lean (CD3). The San Luis Valley is kept whole and is combined with SW counties. District 8 is now higher Latinx than the initial suggestion (now 38.8 %). Had to split up Douglas for population, but no cities are split. Highlands Ranch is kept with southern suburbs. Castle Rock is with western suburbs and Parker is with Eastern Plains.Weld county is also split, with Greeley in CD4 and southern part of county mostly in CD8, a small portion in CD2 for population.Boulder City, Longmont, Lafayette, Loveland, and Fort Collins, make up CD2 with the rural parts of Boulder and Larimer counties in CD3 with other mountain communities.Population is within +/- 500 people of exact equality.

I have put together a map that I think solves multiple problems facing the commission, including reflecting communities of interest and creating competitive districts: https://davesredistricting.org/join/557caef3-b444-4719-b793-075134c19a10. District 1 (CPVI D+29): Denver-based districtDistrict 2 (CPVI D+14): Urban/Suburban district including Boulder, Broomfield, Longmont, Loveland, and Fort CollisDistrict 3 (CPVI R+4): Western Slope-based district, plus Western Boulder and Larimer Counties District 4 (CPVI R+11): Eastern Plains, suburban Douglas County, and southern Latino countiesDistrict 5 (CPVI R+10): Colorado Springs-based districtDistrict 6 (CPVI D+8): Aurora- and Araphoe County-based districtDistrict 7 (CPVI D+0.6): JeffCo plus Central CO-based districtDistrict 8 (CPVI R+1): Adams and Weld County suburbs from Commerce City/Thorton to Greeley/Windsor, heavily Latino Based on my experience drafting the map, I would like to note that it is more feasible to include the Southern, heavily Latino communities with the Eastern Plains rather than with the Western Slope as the commission has been trying to do. The Western Slope plus this Southern region is just too populous and thus the Western Slope would inevitably need to be heavily split in such an arrangement. Additionally, it is much harder to draw competitive districts this way.