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 feature class contains county boundaries for all 64 Colorado counties and 2010 US Census attributes data describing the population within each county.

Infrastructure, such as roads, airports, water and energy transmission and distribution facilities, sewage treatment plants, and many other facilities, is vital to the sustainability and vitality of any populated area. Rehabilitation of existing and development of new infrastructure requires three natural resources: natural aggregate (stone, sand, and gravel), water, and energy http://rockyweb.cr.usgs.gov/frontrange/overview.htm.

The principal goals of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Front Range Infrastructure Resources Project (FRIRP) were to develop information, define tools, and demonstrate ways to: (1) implement a multidisciplinary evaluation of the distribution and quality of a region's infrastructure resources, (2) identify issues that may affect availability of resources, and (3) work with cooperators to provide decision makers with tools to evaluate alternatives to enhance decision-making. Geographic integration of data (geospatial databases) can provide an interactive tool to facilitate decision-making by stakeholders http://rockyweb.cr.usgs.gov/frontrange/overview.htm.

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.

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. Face refers to the areal (polygon) topological primitives that make up MTDB. A face is bounded by one or more edges; its boundary includes only the edges that separate it from other faces, not any interior edges contained within the area of the face. The Topological Faces Shapefile contains the attributes of each topological primitive face. Each face has a unique topological face identifier (TFID) value. Each face in the shapefile includes the key geographic area codes for all geographic areas for which the Census Bureau tabulates data for both the 2010 Census and the annual estimates and surveys. The geometries of each of these geographic areas can then be built by dissolving the face geometries on the appropriate key geographic area codes in the Topological Faces Shapefile.

This digital map shows bedding attitude symbols display over the geographic extent of surficial deposits and rock stratigraphic units (formations) as compiled by Trimble and Machette 1973-1977 and published in 1979 (U.S. Geological Survey Map I-856-H) under the Front Range Urban Corridor Geology Program. Trimble and Machette compiled their geologic map from published geologic maps and unpublished geologic mapping having varied map unit schemes. A convenient feature of the compiled map is its uniform classification of geologic units that mostly matches those of companion maps to the north (USGS I-855-G) and to the south (USGS I-857-F). Published as a color paper map, the Trimble and Machette map was intended for land-use planning in the Front Range Urban Corridor. This map recently (1997-1999), was digitized under the USGS Front Range Infrastructure Resources Project (see cross-reference). In general, the mountainous areas in the west part of the map exhibit various igneous and metamorphic bedrock units of Precambrian age, major faults, and fault brecciation zones at the east margin (5-20 km wide) of the Front Range. The eastern and central parts of the map (Colorado Piedmont) depict a mantle of unconsolidated deposits of Quaternary age and interspersed outcroppings of Cretaceous or Tertiary-Cretaceous sedimentary bedrock. The Quaternary mantle is comprised of eolian deposits (quartz sand and silt), alluvium (gravel, sand, and silt of variable composition), colluvium, and few landslides. At the mountain front, north-trending, dipping Paleozoic and Mesozoic sandstone, shale, and limestone bedrock formations form hogbacks and intervening valleys.

Thirty-nine types of surficial geologic deposits and residual materials of Quaternary age are described and mapped in the greater Denver area, in part of the Front Range, and in the piedmont and plains east of Denver, Boulder, and Castle Rock. Descriptions appear in the pamphlet that accompanies the map. Landslide deposits, colluvium, residuum, alluvium, and other deposits or materials are described in terms of predominant grain size, mineral or rock composition (e.g., gypsiferous, calcareous, granitic, andesitic), thickness of deposits, and other physical characteristics. Origins and ages of the deposits and geologic hazards related to them are noted. Many lines between geologic units on our map were placed by generalizing contacts on published maps. However, in 1997-1999 we mapped new boundaries, as well. The map was projected to the UTM projection. This large map area extends from the Continental Divide near Winter Park and Fairplay ( on the west edge), eastward about 107 mi (172 km); and extends from Boulder on the north edge to Woodland Park at the south edge (68 mi; 109 km).

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

The 2020 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. 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. In MCD states where no MCD exists or no MCD is 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 generalized boundaries of legal MCDs are based on those as of January 1, 2020 as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS). The generalized boundaries of all CCDs, delineated in 21 states, are those as reported as part of the Census Bureau's Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) for the 2020 Census.

Map of Business improvement districts in Denver, CO.

Feature Layer: Metro Denver Neighborhood Designations 2020Description: Adams County Health Department gathered these data about census tracts within neighborhood boundaries from the US Census data site. Source: 2020 U.S. CensusType: Polygon and pointGeography: Census tracts within the Metro Denver AreaProcess: Census tract information was downloaded from the US Census data site for 2020, and boundaries were dissolved along neighborhood boundaries for the Metro Denver area. Description provided by Adams County Health Department.

Municipal boundaries in the Denver Region in 2024. Discrepancies between municipalities along county boundaries resolved using "agreement points" from the Colorado North Central Homeland Security Region (NCR) as a guide. The NCR "agreement points" are agreed upon locations between counties where a road enters/leaves their jurisdiction. Boundaries were not necessarily snapped to the NCR agreement points.

This vector shapefile is a polygon shapefile outlining the extent of the "NWT" project area, for the Niwot Ridge Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) project. The shapefile also covers the Green Lakes Valley portion of the Boulder Creek Critical Zone Observatory (CZO). Other datasets available in this series includes orthorectified aerial photograph mosaics (for 1953, 1972, 1985, approximately 1990, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008), digital elevation models (DEM's), and accessory map layers. Together, the DEM's and imagery will be of interest to students, research scientists, and others for observation and analysis of natural features and ecosystems. NOTE: This EML metadata file does not contain important geospatial data processing information. Before using any NWT LTER geospatial data read the arcgis metadata XML file in either ISO or FGDC compliant format, using ArcGIS software (ArcCatalog > description), or by viewing the .xml file provided with the geospatial dataset.

Citation Manley, W.F., Parrish, E.G., and Lestak, L.R., 2009, High-Resolution Orthorectified Imagery and Digital Elevation Models for Study of Environmental Change at Niwot Ridge and Green Lakes Valley, Colorado: Niwot Ridge LTER, INSTAAR, University of Colorado at Boulder, digital media. This vector shapefile is a source index map layer for the mosaic of orthorectified aerial photography from 1988 and 1990 for the Niwot Ridge Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) project. The index also covers the Green Lakes Valley portion of the Boulder Creek Critical Zone Observatory (CZO). The index polygons are attributed with source photo date and photo year. The mosaic is derived from approx. 1:40,000 scale, color infrared (CIR) photographs acquired by the United States Geological Survery (USGS) National Aerial Photography Program (NAPP). Other datasets available in this series includes orthorectified aerial photograph mosaics (for 1953, 1972, 1985, approximately 1990, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008), digital elevation models (DEM's), and accessory map layers. Together, the DEM's and imagery will be of interest to students, research scientists, and others for observation and analysis of natural features and ecosystems. NOTE: This EML metadata file does not contain important geospatial data processing information. Before using any NWT LTER geospatial data read the arcgis metadata XML file in either ISO or FGDC compliant format, using ArcGIS software (ArcCatalog > description), or by viewing the .xml file provided with the geospatial dataset.

Creates four districts with rural county constituencies. Only splits counties near the Denver metro area, plus a portion of El Paso next to Woodland Park. Max deviance.My focus was on low deviation numbers, resulting in a few odd boundaries which could be adjusted:* D2 portion of El Paso County could switch to D5, adding ~2600 deviation.* D2 portion east of Brighton could shift west, adding <1000 deviation.* With higher deviation, the D1/D6/D7 boundaries near southwest Denver could more closely match county boundaries.* Moffat County might be better aligned with D3 than D2, but this would add 13,000 deviation. Maybe shift Baca & Las Animas Counties to D6 and extend D2 into southwest Douglas and west Fremont Counties?Plan Information Plan name: North, East, Southwest, Central Description: Creates four districts with rural county constituencies. Only splits counties near the Denver metro area, plus a portion of El Paso next to Woodland Park. Max deviance <1200. Non-Denver municipalities only split at exclaves.Plan Objectives(1) Keep population deviation as low as possible.(2) Only deviate from county boundaries around the Denver metro area, plus US-24 adjacent to Woodland Park.(3) Don't split municipalities or CDPs, except exclaves (to keep districts contiguous) and the edges of Denver (to keep within population target).A variation on this map could relax goal #2 in order to put Moffat in CD-3, Baca & Las Animas in CD-6, and extend CD-2 into western Fremont and southwest Douglas Counties.Area/perimeter ratio for CD-2 could be increased by putting Brighton in CD-4 and the Weld County I-25 corridor in CD-2. Alternatively, Brighton could be in CD-8 if Thornton was split between CD-8 and CD-2.

This file is a digital polygon representation of the areal extent of abandoned underground coal mines and surface mines in the Boulder-Weld coal field, Denver Basin, Colorado. This file was created as part of the Front Range Infrastructure Resources Project (FRIRP) of the USGS, and provides information pertaining to energy resource issues within the Colorado Front Range urban corridor in and near the Denver metro area. These data contributed to the publication titled as follows: Maps showing the extent of mining, locations of mine shafts, adits, air shafts, and bedrock faults, and thickness of overburden above abandoned coal mines in the Boulder-Weld coal field, Boulder, Weld, and Adams counties, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Investigations Map I-2735, 1:48000-scale.

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

Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Service Protocol: Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Application Profile: Web Browser. Link Function: information

The purpose of this project is to map the surficial geology of the sea floor of Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS) and changes in surficial characteristics over time. This GIS project presents multibeam and other data in a digital format for analysis and display by scientists, policy makers, managers and the general public.

This project presents maps of the sea floor in GIS format of the Historic Area Remedition Site (HARS), located offshore of New York and New Jersey. The data were collected with a multibeam sea floor mapping system on surveys conducted November 23 - December 3, 1996, October 26 - November 11, 1998, and April 6 - 30, 2000. The maps show sea floor topography, shaded relief, and backscatter intensity (a measure of sea floor texture and roughness) at a spatial resolution of 3 m/pixel, and locations of dredged material placed on the sea floor. The sea floor of the HARS, approximately 9 square nautical miles in area, is being remediated by placing at least a one-meter of clean dredged material on top of the existing surface sediments that exhibit varying degrees degradation resulting from previous disposal of dredged and other material. Comparison of the topography and backscatter intensity from the three surveys show changes in topography and surficial sediment properties resulting from placement of dredged material in 1996 and 1997 prior to designation of the HARS, as well as placement of material for remediation of the HARS. This study is carried out cooperatively by the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

This web map created by the Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology GIS team, serves as a basemap specific to the state of Colorado. The basemap includes general layers such as counties, municipalities, roads, waterbodies, state parks, national forests, national wilderness areas, and trails.Layers:Layer descriptions and sources can be found below. Layers have been modified to only represent features within Colorado and are not up to date. Layers last updated February 23, 2023. Colorado State Extent: Description: “This layer provides generalized boundaries for the 50 States and the District of Columbia.” Notes: This layer was filtered to only include the State of ColoradoSource: Esri Living Atlas USA States Generalized Boundaries Feature LayerState Wildlife Areas:Description: “This data was created by the CPW GIS Unit. Property boundaries are created by dissolving CDOWParcels by the property name, and property type and appending State Park boundaries designated as having public access. All parcel data correspond to legal transactions made by the CPW Real Estate Unit. The boundaries of the CDOW Parcels were digitized using metes and bounds, BLM's GCDB dataset, the PLSS dataset (where the GCDB dataset was unavailable) and using existing digital data on the boundaries.” Notes: The state wildlife areas layer in this basemap is filtered from the CPW Managed Properties (public access only) layer from this feature layer hosted in ArcGIS Online Source: Colorado Parks and Wildlife CPW Admin Data Feature LayerMunicipal Boundaries:Description: "Boundaries data from the State Demography Office of Colorado Municipalities provided by the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA)"Source: Colorado Information Marketplace Municipal Boundaries in ColoradoCounties:Description: “This layer presents the USA 2020 Census County (or County Equivalent) boundaries of the United States in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is updated annually as County (or County Equivalent) boundaries change. The geography is sources from US Census Bureau 2020 TIGER FGDB (National Sub-State) and edited using TIGER Hydrology to add a detailed coastline for cartographic purposes. Geography last updated May 2022.” Notes: This layer was filtered to only include counties in the State of ColoradoSource: Esri USA Census Counties Feature LayerInterstates:Description: Authoritative data from the Colorado Department of Transportation representing Highways Notes: Interstates are filtered by route sign from this CDOT Highways layer Source: Colorado Department of Transportation Highways REST EndpointU.S. Highways:Description: Authoritative data from the Colorado Department of Transportation representing Highways Notes: U.S. Highways are filtered by route sign from this CDOT Highways layer Source: Colorado Department of Transportation Highways REST EndpointState Highways:Description: Authoritative data from the Colorado Department of Transportation representing Highways Notes: State Highways are filtered by route sign from this CDOT Highways layer Source: Colorado Department of Transportation Highways REST EndpointMajor Roads:Description: Authoritative data from the Colorado Department of Transportation representing major roads Source: Colorado Department of Transportation Major Roads REST EndpointLocal Roads:Description: Authoritative data from the Colorado Department of Transportation representing local roads Source: Colorado Department of Transportation Local Roads REST EndpointRail Lines:Description: Authoritative data from the Colorado Department of Transportation representing rail lines Source: Colorado Department of Transportation Rail Lines REST EndpointCOTREX Trails:Description: “The Colorado Trail System, now titled the Colorado Trail Explorer (COTREX), endeavors to map every trail in the state of Colorado. Currently their are nearly 40,000 miles of trails mapped. Trails come from a variety of sources (USFS, BLM, local parks & recreation departments, local governments). Responsibility for accuracy of the data rests with the source.These data were last updated on 2/5/2019” Source: Colorado Parks and Wildlife CPW Admin Data Feature LayerNHD Waterbodies:Description: “The National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHDplus) maps the lakes, ponds, streams, rivers and other surface waters of the United States. Created by the US EPA Office of Water and the US Geological Survey, the NHDPlus provides mean annual and monthly flow estimates for rivers and streams. Additional attributes provide connections between features facilitating complicated analyses.”Notes: This layer was filtered to only include waterbodies in the State of ColoradoSource: National Hydrography Dataset Plus Version 2.1 Feature LayerNHD Flowlines:Description: “The National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHDplus) maps the lakes, ponds, streams, rivers and other surface waters of the United States. Created by the US EPA Office of Water and the US Geological Survey, the NHDPlus provides mean annual and monthly flow estimates for rivers and streams. Additional attributes provide connections between features facilitating complicated analyses.”Notes: This layer was filtered to only include flowline features in the State of ColoradoSource: National Hydrography Dataset Plus Version 2.1 Feature LayerState Parks:Description: “This data was created by the CPW GIS Unit. Property boundaries are created by dissolving CDOWParcels by the property name, and property type and appending State Park boundaries designated as having public access. All parcel data correspond to legal transactions made by the CPW Real Estate Unit. The boundaries of the CDOW Parcels were digitized using metes and bounds, BLM's GCDB dataset, the PLSS dataset (where the GCDB dataset was unavailable) and using existing digital data on the boundaries.” Notes: The state parks layer in this basemap is filtered from the CPW Managed Properties (public access only) layer from this feature layer Source: Colorado Parks and Wildlife CPW Admin Data Feature LayerDenver Parks:Description: "This dataset should be used as a reference to locate parks, golf courses, and recreation centers managed by the Department of Parks and Recreation in the City and County of Denver. Data is based on parcel ownership and does not include other areas maintained by the department such as medians and parkways. The data should be used for planning and design purposes and cartographic purposes only."Source: City and County of Denver Parks REST EndpointNational Wilderness Areas:Description: “A parcel of Forest Service land congressionally designated as wilderness such as National Wilderness Area.”Notes: This layer was filtered to only include National Wilderness Areas in the State of ColoradoSource: United States Department of Agriculture National Wilderness Areas REST EndpointNational Forests: Description: “A depiction of the boundaries encompassing the National Forest System (NFS) lands within the original proclaimed National Forests, along with subsequent Executive Orders, Proclamations, Public Laws, Public Land Orders, Secretary of Agriculture Orders, and Secretary of Interior Orders creating modifications thereto, along with lands added to the NFS which have taken on the status of 'reserved from the public domain' under the General Exchange Act. The following area types are included: National Forest, Experimental Area, Experimental Forest, Experimental Range, Land Utilization Project, National Grassland, Purchase Unit, and Special Management Area.”Notes: This layer was filtered to only include National Forests in the State of ColoradoSource: United States Department of Agriculture Original Proclaimed National Forests REST Endpoint