The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. County subdivisions are the primary divisions of counties and their equivalent entities for the reporting of Census Bureau data. They include legally-recognized minor civil divisions (MCDs) and statistical census county divisions (CCDs), and unorganized territories. For the 2010 Census, the MCDs are the primary governmental and/or administrative divisions of counties in 29 States and Puerto Rico; Tennessee changed from having CCDs for Census 2000 to having MCDs for the 2010 Census. In MCD States where no MCD exists or is not defined, the Census Bureau creates statistical unorganized territories to complete coverage. The entire area of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas are covered by county subdivisions. The boundaries of most legal MCDs are as of January 1, 2015, as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS). The boundaries of all CCDs, delineated in 20 states, are those as reported as part of the Census Bureau's Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) for the 2010 Census.

Geospatial data about Denver, Colorado County Boundary Lines. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

Geospatial data about Adams County, Colorado County Boundary. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

The physical location covered by an interagency, dispatch center for the effective coordination, mobilization and demobilization of emergency management resources. A dispatch center actively supports incidents within its boundaries and the resources assigned to those incidents. June 2025 Change: Updated the border between COGJC & CONCC.April 2025 Changes: Changed the small portion of Benton Lake (squiggles) that falls within the Helena Dispatch Area from Lewiston to Helena.Updated the boundaries for Burns Interagency Comm. Center, Central Oregon Interagency Dispatch Center, and John Day Interagency Comm. Center.January 2025 Changes:Merged Craig & Ft Collins Dispatch to make Northern Colorado Dispatch Center. Changed border between Northern Co Dispatch and Pueblo.Added new tabular information for Northern Colorado Dispatch CenterUpdated dispatch boundary between Grand Junction COGJC and Moab Interagency Fire Center UTMFCDissolved Great Falls into Helena dispatch.Added the Plains Unit to Missoula dispatch. Removed Plains unit area from Kalispell Dispatch.Updated the border between Richfield Interagency Fire Center (UTRFC) and Moab Interagency Fire Center (UTMFC).Moved Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge GA-OKR from 4th to 3rd Tier. Florida Interagency Coordination Center (FL-FIC) is the dispatch for this area.

The Sheeprocks (UT) was revised to resync with the UT habitat change as reflected in the Oct 2017 habitat data, creating the most up-to-date version of this dataset. Data submitted by Wyoming in February 2018 and by Montana and Oregon in May 2016 were used to update earlier versions of this feature class. The biologically significant unit (BSU) is a geographical/spatial area within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat that contains relevant and important habitats which is used as the basis for comparative calculations to support evaluation of changes to habitat. This BSU unit, or subset of this unit is used in the calculation of the anthropogenic disturbance threshold and in the adaptive management habitat trigger. BSU feature classes were submitted by individual states/EISs and consolidated by the Wildlife Spatial Analysis Lab. They are sometimes referred to as core areas/core habitat areas in the explanations below, which were consolidated from metadata submitted with BSU feature classes. These data provide a biological tool for planning in the event of human development in sage-grouse habitats. The intended use of all data in the BLM's GIS library is to support diverse activities including planning, management, maintenance, research, and interpretation. While the BSU defines the geographic extent and scale of these two measures, how they are calculated differs based on the specific measures to reflect appropriate assessment and evaluation as supported by scientific literature.There are 10 BSUs for the Idaho and Southwestern Montana GRSG EIS sub-region. For the Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Plan Amendment FEIS the biologically significant unit is defined as: a geographical/spatial area within greater sage-grouse habitat that contains relevant and important habitats which is used as the basis for comparative calculations to support evaluation of changes to habitat. Idaho: BSUs include all of the Idaho Fish and Game modeled nesting and delineated winter habitat, based on 2011 inventories within Priority and/or Important Habitat Management Area (Alternative G) within a Conservation Area. There are eight BSUs for Idaho identified by Conservation Area and Habitat Management Area: Idaho Desert Conservation Area - Priority, Idaho Desert Conservation Area - Important, Idaho Mountain Valleys Conservation Area - Priority, Idaho Mountain Valleys Conservation Area - Important, Idaho Southern Conservation Area - Priority, Idaho Southern Conservation Area - Important, Idaho West Owyhee Conservation Area - Priority, and Idaho West Owyhee Conservation Area - Important. Raft River : Utah portion of the Sawtooth National Forest, 1 BSU. All of this areas was defined as Priority habitat in Alternative G. Raft River - Priority. Montana: All of the Priority Habitat Management Area. 1 BSU. SW Montana Conservation Area - Priority. Montana BSUs were revised in May 2016 by the MT State Office. They are grouped together and named by the Population in which they are located: Northern Montana, Powder River Basin, Wyoming Basin, and Yellowstone Watershed. North and South Dakota BSUs have been grouped together also. California and Nevada's BSUs were developed by Nevada Department of Wildlife's Greater Sage-Grouse Wildlife Staff Specialist and Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team Representative in January 2015. Nevada's Biologically Significant Units (BSUs) were delineated by merging associated PMUs to provide a broader scale management option that reflects sage grouse populations at a higher scale. PMU boundarys were then modified to incorporate Core Management Areas (August 2014; Coates et al. 2014) for management purposes. (Does not include Bi-State DPS.) Within Colorado, a Greater Sage-Grouse GIS data set identifying Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) and Preliminary General Habitat (PGH) was developed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. This data is a combination of mapped grouse occupied range, production areas, and modeled habitat (summer, winter, and breeding). PPH is defined as areas of high probability of use (summer or winter, or breeding models) within a 4 mile buffer around leks that have been active within the last 10 years. Isolated areas with low activity were designated as general habitat. PGH is defined as Greater sage-grouse Occupied Range outside of PPH. Datasets used to create PPH and PGH: Summer, winter, and breeding habitat models. Rice, M. B., T. D. Apa, B. L. Walker, M. L. Phillips, J. H. Gammonly, B. Petch, and K. Eichhoff. 2012. Analysis of regional species distribution models based on combined radio-telemetry datasets from multiple small-scale studies. Journal of Applied Ecology in review. Production Areas are defined as 4 mile buffers around leks which have been active within the last 10 years (leks active between 2002-2011). Occupied range was created by mapping efforts of the Colorado Division of Wildlife (now Colorado Parks and Wildlife –CPW) biologists and district officers during the spring of 2004, and further refined in early 2012. Occupied Habitat is defined as areas of suitable habitat known to be used by sage-grouse within the last 10 years from the date of mapping. Areas of suitable habitat contiguous with areas of known use, which do not have effective barriers to sage-grouse movement from known use areas, are mapped as occupied habitat unless specific information exists that documents the lack of sage-grouse use. Mapped from any combination of telemetry locations, sightings of sage grouse or sage grouse sign, local biological expertise, GIS analysis, or other data sources. This information was derived from field personnel. A variety of data capture techniques were used including the SmartBoard Interactive Whiteboard using stand-up, real-time digitizing atvarious scales (Cowardin, M., M. Flenner. March 2003. Maximizing Mapping Resources. GeoWorld 16(3):32-35). Update August 2012: This dataset was modified by the Bureau of Land Management as requested by CPW GIS Specialist, Karin Eichhoff. Eichhoff requested that this dataset, along with the GrSG managment zones (population range zones) dataset, be snapped to county boundaries along the UT-CO border and WY-CO border. The county boundaries dataset was provided by Karin Eichhoff. In addition, a few minor topology errors were corrected where PPH and PGH were overlapping. Update October 10, 2012: NHD water bodies greater than 100 acres were removed from GrSG habitat, as requested by Jim Cagney, BLM CO Northwest District Manager. 6 water bodies in total were removed (Hog Lake, South Delaney, Williams Fork Reservoir, North Delaney, Wolford Mountain Reservoir (2 polygons)). There were two “SwampMarsh” polygons that resulted when selecting polygons greater than 100 acres; these polygons were not included. Only polygons with the attribute “LakePond” were removed from GrSG habitat. Colorado Greater Sage Grouse managment zones based on CDOW GrSG_PopRangeZones20120609.shp. Modified and renumbered by BLM 06/09/2012. The zones were modified again by the BLM in August 2012. The BLM discovered areas where PPH and PGH were not included within the zones. Several discrepancies between the zones and PPH and PGH dataset were discovered, and were corrected by the BLM. Zones 18-21 are linkages added as zones by the BLM. In addition to these changes, the zones were adjusted along the UT-CO boundary and WY-CO boundary to be coincident with the county boundaries dataset. This was requested by Karin Eichhoff, GIS Specialist at the CPW. She provided the county boundaries dataset to the BLM. Greater sage grouse GIS data set identifying occupied, potential and vacant/unknown habitats in Colorado. The data set was created by mapping efforts of the Colorado Division of Wildlife biologist and district officers during the spring of 2004, and further refined in the winter of 2005. Occupied Habitat: Areas of suitable habitat known to be used by sage-grouse within the last 10 years from the date of mapping. Areas of suitable habitat contiguous with areas of known use, which do not have effective barriers to sage-grouse movement from known use areas, are mapped as occupied habitat unless specific information exists that documents the lack of sage-grouse use. Mapped from any combination of telemetry locations, sightings of sage grouse or sage grouse sign, local biological expertise, GIS analysis, or other data sources. Vacant or Unknown Habitat: Suitable habitat for sage-grouse that is separated (not contiguous) from occupied habitats that either: 1) Has not been adequately inventoried, or 2) Has not had documentation of grouse presence in the past 10 years Potentially Suitable Habitat: Unoccupied habitats that could be suitable for occupation of sage-grouse if practical restoration were applied. Soils or other historic information (photos, maps, reports, etc.) indicate sagebrush communities occupied these areas. As examples, these sites could include areas overtaken by pinyon-juniper invasions or converted rangelandsUpdate October 10, 2012: NHD water bodies greater than 100 acres were removed from GrSG habitat and management zones, as requested by Jim Cagney, BLM CO Northwest District Manager. 6 water bodies in total were removed (Hog Lake, South Delaney, Williams Fork Reservoir, North Delaney, Wolford Mountain Reservoir (2 polygons)). There were two “SwampMarsh” polygons that resulted when selecting polygons greater than 100 acres; these polygons were not included. Only polygons with the attribute “LakePond” were removed from GrSG habitat. Oregon submitted updated BSU boundaries in May 2016 and again in October 2016, which were incorporated into this latest version. In Oregon, the Core Area maps and data were developed as one component of the Conservation Strategy for sage-grouse. Specifically, these data provide a tool in planning and identifying appropriate mitigation in the event of human development in sage-grouse habitats. These maps will assist in making

Vegetation and water surface cover was mapped for the entire Colorado River bottomland within the project area (Utah/Colorado border to lower boundary of Canyonlands National Park) using high resolution photographs flown in September of 2010. Vegetation cover was mapped initially by the National Park Service and heavily edited for use in the project. Channel mapping was initially done by John Dohrenwend, with polygons heavily edited for use in the project. Cover was identified as most prominent (Dominant), next most prominent (Common), next most prominent (Present) and last most prominent (also Present). Codes for cover types and cover type descriptions are available within the dataset and metadata.

A polygonal representation of the City and County of Denver's jurisdictional boundary. This datasets also includes all enclaves administered by other jurisdications that are located within the City and County of Denver's boundary.

This a map showing distances from the Colorado River bottomland boundary between the Utah Colorado border and the upper pool of Lake Powell, Utah (146 miles). The bottomland boundary was mapped from publicly available NAIP imagery flown on June 28, 2011, and from project imagery flown in 2010. The bottomland boundary includes tributary channels and associated alluvial deposits, as those features are part of potential project areas and are important for habitat. The boundary extends only a short distance up larger tributaries (e.g. Dolores and Green Rivers)

The Palisade 1:24,000 quadrangle is in Mesa County in western Colorado. Because the map area is dominated by various surficial deposits, the map depicts 22 different Quaternary units. Two prominent river terraces are present in the quadrangle containing gravels deposited by the Colorado River. The map area contains many mass movement deposits. Extensive landslide deposits are present along the eastern part of the quadrangle. These massive landslides originate on the flanks of Grand Mesa, in the Green River and Wasatch Formations, and flow west onto the Palisade quadrangle. In addition, large areas of the eastern and southern parts of the map are covered by extensive pediment surfaces. These pediment surfaces are underlain by debris flow deposits also originating from Grand Mesa. Material in these deposits consists of mainly subangular basalt cobbles and boulders and indicate that these debris flow deposits have traveled as much as 10 km from their source area. The pediment surfaces have been divided into 5 age classes based on their height above surrounding drainages. Two common bedrock units in the map area are the Mancos Shale and the Mesaverde Group both of Upper Cretaceous age. The Mancos shale is common in low lying areas near the western map border. The Mesaverde Group forms prominent sandstone cliffs in the north-central map area. The map is accompanied by a separate pamphlet containing unit descriptions, a section on geologic hazards (including landslides, piping, gullying, expansive soils, and flooding), and a section on economic geology (including sand and gravel, and coal). A table indicates what map units are susceptible to a given hazard. Approximately twenty references are cited at the end of the report.

Colombia CO: Imports: Lead Time: Border Compliance data was reported at 112.000 Hour in 2019. This stayed constant from the previous number of 112.000 Hour for 2018. Colombia CO: Imports: Lead Time: Border Compliance data is updated yearly, averaging 112.000 Hour from Dec 2014 (Median) to 2019, with 6 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 112.000 Hour in 2019 and a record low of 112.000 Hour in 2019. Colombia CO: Imports: Lead Time: Border Compliance data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Colombia – Table CO.World Bank.WDI: Trade Statistics. Border compliance captures the time and cost associated with compliance with the economy’s customs regulations and with regulations relating to other inspections that are mandatory in order for the shipment to cross the economy’s border, as well as the time and cost for handling that takes place at its port or border. The time and cost for this segment include time and cost for customs clearance and inspection procedures conducted by other government agencies.;World Bank, Doing Business project (http://www.doingbusiness.org/). NOTE: Doing Business has been discontinued as of 9/16/2021. For more information: https://bit.ly/3CLCbme;Unweighted average;Time is measured in hours, and 1 day is 24 hours (for example, 22 days are recorded as 22 × 24 = 528 hours). If customs clearance takes 7.5 hours, the data are recorded as is. Alternatively, suppose that documents are submitted to a customs agency at 8:00 a.m., are processed overnight and can be picked up at 8:00 a.m. the next day. In this case the time for customs clearance would be recorded as 24 hours because the actual procedure took 24 hours. Data are presented for the survey year instead of publication year.

These data were compiled for monitoring riparian zone trends and changes in the Lower Colorado Delta as part of the Minute 139 of the 1944 Water Treaty between the United States and Mexico. The quality and quantity of the Delta’s riparian and aquatic ecosystems have been dramatically reduced over the past century, due largely to significant alterations to natural hydrologic and sediment regimes. The Minute 319 Agreement states that 130 million cubic meters of water was to be released during the spring of 2014. Water was released from Morelos Dam at the Northern International Border (NIB) near Yuma, Arizona, to the river’s delta in Mexico, allowing water to reach the Gulf of California for the first time in 13 years since 2000. Our study evaluated the short and long-term effects of environmental flows to hydrological processes in this borderland delta region. Because of the landscape changes and the anticipated impacts of added water in 2014 from Minute 319 water release, we explor ...

This is an ArcGIS Online web service updated by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife GIS Unit on March 4, 2025 for distributing Colorado administrative GIS data in a web service format for public distribution.

I do not live in Colorado, which is obvious because of my zip code. But since I don't live in Colorado I will only comment on the obvious communities of interest problems which are urban and rural areas. The biggest problem is that little arm in district 4 that takes in some of the Denver suburbs. Another issue I have is you could have followed county borders a little better while still keeping communities of interest intact. I do like how you took in some of the Hispanic areas (+ Pueblo) in the southern part of Colorado and brought it in with the 4th. I made a map taking in much of the criticisms I had and kept all that I liked. It is still quite similar to your map. Since I am just a regular person and the census just came out I don't have the perfect population for each district but I did everything I could with Daves Redistricting. I added a geojson file and a png of the map.

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - No changes v1.0 - Initial public release Description Borders of all Water Management Areas (WMAs) across the 11 western-most states of the coterminous United States are available filtered through a single source. The legal name for this set of boundaries varies state-by-state. The data is provided as two compressed shapefiles. One, stateWMAs, contains data for all 11 states. For 10 of those states, Arizona being the exception, the polygons represent the legal management boundaries used by those states to manage their surface and groundwater resources respectively. WMAs refer to the set of boundaries a particular state uses to manage its water resources. Each set of boundaries was collected from the states individually, and then merged into one spatial layer. The merging process included renaming some columns to enable merging with all other source layers, as well as removing columns deemed not required for followup analysis. The retained columns for each boundary are: basinNum - the state provided unique numerical ID; basinName - the state provided English name of the area, where applicable; state - the state name; and uniID - a unique identifier we created by concatenating the state name, and underscore, and the state numerical ID. Arizona is unique within this collection of states in that surface and groundwater resources are managed using two separate sets of boundaries. During our followup analysis (Grogan et al., in review) we decided to focus on one set of boundaries, those for surface water. This is due to the recommendation of our hydrologists that the surface water boundary set is a more realist representation of how water moves across the landscape, as a few of the groundwater boundaries are based on political and/or economic considerations. Therefore, the Arizona surface WMAs are included within stateWMAs. The Arizona groundwater WMAs are provided as a separate file, azGroundWMAs, as a companion to the first file for completeness and general reference. WMA spatial boundary data sources by state: Arizona: Arizona Surface Water Watersheds; Collected February, 2020; https://gisdata2016-11-18t150447874z-azwater.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/surface-watershed/explore?location=34.158174%2C-111.970823%2C7.50 Arizona: Arizona Ground Water Basins; Collected February, 2020; https://gisdata2016-11-18t150447874z-azwater.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/groundwater-basin-2/explore?location=34.158174%2C-111.970823%2C7.50 California: California CalWater 2.2.1; Collected February, 2020; https://www.mlml.calstate.edu/mpsl-mlml/data-center/data-entry-tools/data-tools/gis-shapefile-layers/ Colorado: Colorado Water District Boundaries; Collected February, 2020; https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdss/gis-data-category Idaho: Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) Administrative Basins; Collected November, 2015; https://data-idwr.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/fb0df7d688a04074bad92ca8ef74cc26_4/explore?location=45.018686%2C-113.862284%2C6.93 Montana: Collected June, 2019; Directly contacted Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) Office of Information Technology (OIT) Nevada: Nevada State Engineer Admin Basin Boundaries; Collected April, 2020 https://ndwr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=1364d0c3a0284fa1bcd90f952b2b9f1c New Mexico: New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (OSE) Declared Groundwater Basins; Collected April, 2020 https://geospatialdata-ose.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ose-declared-groundwater-basins/explore?location=34.179783%2C-105.996542%2C7.51 Oregon: Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) Administrative Basins; Collected February, 2020; https://www.oregon.gov/OWRD/access_Data/Pages/Data.aspx Utah: Utah Adjudication Books; Collected April, 2020; https://opendata.gis.utah.gov/datasets/utahDNR::utah-adjudication-books/explore?location=39.497165%2C-111.587782%2C-1.00 Washington: Washington Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA); Collected June, 2017; https://ecology.wa.gov/Research-Data/Data-resources/Geographic-Information-Systems-GIS/Data Wyoming: Wyoming State Engineer's Office Board of Control Water Districts; Collected June, 2019; Directly contacted Wyoming State Engineer's Office

This map shows areas covered by the high flow of the Colorado River mainstem between the Utah Colorado border and the upper pool of Lake Powell, Utah (146 miles). The channel boundary was mapped from public available NAIP imagery flown on June 28, 2011, when the river flow was 886 m3/s at the Cisco gage. Area not covered by 2011 flow is represented by bottomland boundary.

The primary criteria for selection of boundaries are geology and topography, in afew instances political boundaries were used2) The lower Colorado River Valley extends along the Colorado River from Hoover Damto the U.S -Mexican border; it also Includes the lowland areas along the Colorado Riversuch as Mohave Valley and Clbola Valley, which are delineated by dashed lines andconsidered subdivisions of the Lower Colorado River Valley.

The project area, covering 2,142 square kilometres, includes the following three map areas: Colorado Creek (115 J/10), Selwyn River (115 J/9), and Prospector Mountain (115 I/5). Most of the area is in the Dawson Range subdivision of the Yukon Plateau in west-central Yukon Territory. In this study, the bedrock geology of the area was mapped at a scale of 1:50 000. The oldest rocks in the region are metamorphosed Proterozoic to Paleozoic(?) sedimentary and igneous rocks of the Yukon Metamorphic Complex. They are intruded by batholiths and plutons of hornblende and (or) biotite granodiorite, monzonite, and quartz monzonite of three Mesozoic suites. The older two, which show penetrative metamorphic textures, are the Triassic(?) Klotassin Suite and the Jurassic(?) Big Creek Suite. The third is the unmetamorphosed Dawson Range Suite of Middle Cretaceous age. Slightly younger igneous units consist of felsic to intermediate volcanic and subvolcanic rocks of the Mount Nansen Suite. Early Tertiary igneous rocks include extrusive andesite, basalt, and minor rhyodacite of the Carmacks Suite, and the slightly younger monzonite to quartz monzonite of the Prospector Mountain Suite. The district contains numerous mineral deposits and occurrences of economic interest. Copper and molybdenum deposits are associated with felsic plutons of at least two ages. Lode gold deposits and one gold-bismuth vein are associated with felsic volcanic rocks and associated subvolcanic intrusions of the Mount Nansen Suite. Placer gold deposits are derived from these rocks. Lead-zinc-silver veins are associated with late-stage intrusions of the Dawson Range and Prospector Mountain Suites. Skarn deposits occur in rocks of the Yukon Metamorphic Complex along borders of younger plutonic rocks. This Open File includes three 1:50 000-scale bedrock geology maps of the areas, including mineral occurrences.

City limits of the City of Aurora, Colorado. The City of Aurora, Colorado (at 164.8 square miles) sits in three different counties: Adams County, Arapahoe County, and Douglas County and lies just east of the City and County of Denver. The city's population is estimated at over 400,000 and is currently the 50th largest city in the U.S.A. The city is annexing land in enclaves and to the east of the city, please check back frequently for the latest data.

Colombia CO: Import: Cost: Border Compliance data was reported at 545.000 USD in 2019. This stayed constant from the previous number of 545.000 USD for 2018. Colombia CO: Import: Cost: Border Compliance data is updated yearly, averaging 545.000 USD from Dec 2014 (Median) to 2019, with 6 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 545.000 USD in 2019 and a record low of 545.000 USD in 2019. Colombia CO: Import: Cost: Border Compliance data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Colombia – Table CO.World Bank.WDI: Trade Statistics. Border compliance captures the time and cost associated with compliance with the economy’s customs regulations and with regulations relating to other inspections that are mandatory in order for the shipment to cross the economy’s border, as well as the time and cost for handling that takes place at its port or border. The time and cost for this segment include time and cost for customs clearance and inspection procedures conducted by other government agencies.;World Bank, Doing Business project (http://www.doingbusiness.org/). NOTE: Doing Business has been discontinued as of 9/16/2021. For more information: https://bit.ly/3CLCbme;Unweighted average;Insurance cost and informal payments for which no receipt is issued are excluded from the costs recorded. Costs are reported in U.S. dollars. Contributors are asked to convert local currency into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rate prevailing on the day they answer the questionnaire. Contributors are private sector experts in international trade logistics and are informed about exchange rates and their movements. Data are presented for the survey year instead of publication year.

Colombia CO: Export: Cost: Border Compliance data was reported at 630.000 USD in 2019. This stayed constant from the previous number of 630.000 USD for 2018. Colombia CO: Export: Cost: Border Compliance data is updated yearly, averaging 630.000 USD from Dec 2014 (Median) to 2019, with 6 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 630.000 USD in 2019 and a record low of 630.000 USD in 2019. Colombia CO: Export: Cost: Border Compliance data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Colombia – Table CO.World Bank.WDI: Trade Statistics. Border compliance captures the time and cost associated with compliance with the economy’s customs regulations and with regulations relating to other inspections that are mandatory in order for the shipment to cross the economy’s border, as well as the time and cost for handling that takes place at its port or border. The time and cost for this segment include time and cost for customs clearance and inspection procedures conducted by other government agencies.;World Bank, Doing Business project (http://www.doingbusiness.org/). NOTE: Doing Business has been discontinued as of 9/16/2021. For more information: https://bit.ly/3CLCbme;Unweighted average;Insurance cost and informal payments for which no receipt is issued are excluded from the costs recorded. Costs are reported in U.S. dollars. Contributors are asked to convert local currency into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rate prevailing on the day they answer the questionnaire. Contributors are private sector experts in international trade logistics and are informed about exchange rates and their movements. Data are presented for the survey year instead of publication year.