Fremont Public Library District

Avon Fremont Drainage District

This release presents the GIS data (in GDB, shapefile, and e00 [coverage] formats) and metadata for a 1:24,000-scale geologic map of the Poncha Pass area in central Colorado. A cartographic version of the geologic map, including map unit descriptions, interpretative text, and accessory figures and tables, is being separately published as a U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map (SIM). The map area is irregular in shape, covering all of one 7.5' quadrangle (Poncha Pass) and parts of five others (Mount Ouray, Maysville, Salida West, Salida East, and Wellsville). The map boundaries were drawn to cover all of the "Poncha mountain block", coincident with the approximately 15-kilometer-long northwestern end of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. The map data convey the areal distribution of: (1) Proterozoic basement rocks forming the core of the Poncha mountain block, (2) overlying Tertiary volcanic rocks, (3) Miocene and younger basin-fill deposits, (4) Quaternary surficial glacial and alluvial deposits, and (5) faults and folds affecting all of the above units.

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

Descriptions of Metropolitan Transportation Commission's 34 Super DistrictsSuper District #1 - Greater Downtown San Francisco: This area, the northeastern quadrant of the city, is bounded by Van Ness Avenue on the west, 11th Street on the southwest, and Townsend Street on the south. This Super District includes the following neighborhoods and districts: Financial District, Union Square, Tenderloin, Civic Center, South of Market, South Park, Rincon Hill, Chinatown, Jackson Square, Telegraph Hill, North Beach, Nob Hill, Russian Hill, Polk Gulch and Fisherman's Wharf. Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island are also part of Super District #1.Super District #2 - Richmond District: This area, the northwestern quadrant of the city, is bounded by Van Ness Avenue on the east, Market Street on the southeast, and 17th Street, Stanyan Street, and Lincoln Way on the south. Super District #2 includes the following neighborhoods and districts: the Presidio, the Western Addition District, the Marina, Cow Hollow, Pacific Heights, Cathedral Hill, Japantown, Hayes Valley, Duboce Triangle, the Haight-Ashbury, the Richmond District, Inner Richmond, Outer Richmond, Laurel Heights, Sea Cliff, and the Golden Gate Park.Super District #3 - Mission District: This area, the southeastern quadrant of the city, is bounded by Townsend Street, 11th Street, Market Street, 17th Street, Stanyan Street, and Lincoln Way on the northern boundary; 7th Avenue, Laguna Honda, Woodside Avenue, O'Shaughnessy Boulevard and other smaller streets (Juanita, Casita, El Verano, Ashton, Orizaba) on the western boundary; and by the San Mateo County line on the southern boundary. Super District #3 includes the following neighborhoods and districts: China Basin, Potrero Hill, Inner Mission, Outer Mission, Twin Peaks, Parnassus Heights, Dolores Heights, Castro, Eureka Valley, Noe Valley, Bernal Heights, Glen Park, Ingleside, Ocean View, the Excelsior, Crocker-Amazon, Visitacion Valley, Portola, Bayview, and Hunters Point.Super District #4 - Sunset District: This area, the southwestern quadrant of the city, is bounded by Lincoln Way (Golden Gate Park) on the north; 7th Avenue, Laguna Honda, Woodside Avenue, O'Shaughnessy Boulevard and other smaller streets (Juanita, Casita, El Verano, Ashton, Orizaba) on the eastern boundary; and by the San Mateo County line on the southern boundary. Super District #4 includes the following neighborhoods and districts: Inner Sunset, the Sunset District, Sunset Heights, Parkside, Lake Merced District, Park-Merced, Ingleside Heights, West Portal and St. Francis Wood.Super District #5 - Daly City/San Bruno: This northern San Mateo County Super District includes the communities of Daly City, Colma, Brisbane, South San Francisco, Pacifica, San Bruno, Millbrae, and the north part of Burlingame. The boundary between Super District #5 and Super District #6 is Broadway, Carmelita Avenue, El Camino Real, Easton Drive, the Hillsborough / Burlingame city limits, Interstate 280, Skyline Boulevard, the Pacifica city limits, and the Montara Mountain ridgeline extending to Devil's Slide on the coast.Super District #6 - San Mateo/Burlingame: The central San Mateo County Super District includes the communities of Hillsborough, San Mateo, Foster City, Belmont, the southern part of Burlingame, and the coastside communities of Montara, Moss Beach, El Granada, and Half Moon Bay. The southern boundary of Super District #6 is the Foster City city limits, the Belmont/San Carlos city limits, Interstate 280, Kings Mountain, Lobitos Creek extending to Martins Beach on the coast.Super District #7 - Redwood City/Menlo Park: The southern San Mateo County Super District includes the communities of San Carlos, Redwood Shores, Redwood City, Atherton, Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Woodside, Portola Valley, and the coastside communities of San Gregorio and Pescadero.Super District #8 - Palo Alto/Los Altos: This Santa Clara County Super District includes the communities of Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and the western part of Mountain View. Boundaries include the San Mateo County line, US-101 on the north, and Cal-85 (Stevens Creek Freeway) and Stevens Creek on the east.Super District #9 - Sunnyvale/Mountain View: This is the "Silicon Valley" Super District and includes the communities of Mountain View (eastern part and shoreline), Sunnyvale, Santa Clara (northern part), Alviso, and San Jose (northern part). Also included in this Super District is the "Golden Triangle" district. Super District #9 is bounded by US-101, Cal-85, Stevens Creek on the western boundary; Homestead Road on the southern boundary; Pierce Street, Civic Center Drive and the SP tracks in Santa Clara City; and Interstate 880 as the eastern boundary.Super District #10 - Cupertino/Saratoga: This Super District is located in south central Santa Clara County and includes the communities of Cupertino, Saratoga, Santa Clara City (southern part), Campbell (western part), San Jose (western part), Monte Sereno, Los Gatos and Redwood Estates. This area is bounded by Stevens Creek and the Santa Cruz Mountains on the west, Homestead Road on the north, Interstate 880/California Route 17 on the east; Union Avenue, Camden Avenue and Hicks Road (San Jose) also on the eastern boundary; and the Santa Clara/Santa Cruz county line on the south.Super District #11 - Central San Jose: This central Santa Clara County Super District is comprised of San Jose (central area), Santa Clara City (downtown area), and Campbell (east of Cal-17). The general boundaries of Super District #11 are Interstate 880/California Route 17 on the west; US-101 on the east; and the Capitol Expressway, Hillsdale Avenue, Camden Avenue, and Union Avenue on the south boundary.Super District #12 - Milpitas/East San Jose: This eastern Santa Clara County Super District includes the City of Milpitas, and the East San Jose communities of Berryessa, Alum Rock, and Evergreen. Boundaries include Interstate 880 and US-101 freeways on the west; San Jose City limits (Evergreen) on the south; and the mountains on the east.Super District #13 - South San Jose: This south-central Santa Clara County Super District includes the southern part of San Jose including the Almaden and Santa Teresa neighborhoods. Super District #13 is surrounded by Super District #10 on the west; Super District #11 on the north; Super District #12 on the northeast; and Super District #14 on the south at Metcalf Road (Coyote).Super District #14 - Gilroy/Morgan Hill: This area of Santa Clara County is also known as "South County" and includes the communities of Gilroy, Morgan Hill, San Martin and the Coyote Valley. Also included in this Super District are Loma Prieta (western boundary of the Super District) and Mount Hamilton in the northeastern, rural portion of Santa Clara County. This area is bounded by Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties on the south, and Merced and Stanislaus Counties on the eastern border.Super District #15 - Livermore/Pleasanton: This is the eastern Alameda County Super District including the Livermore and Amador Valley communities of Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, San Ramon Village, and Sunol. This Super District includes all of eastern Alameda County east of Pleasanton Ridge and Dublin Canyon.Super District #16 - Fremont/Union City: The southern Alameda County Super District includes the communities of Fremont, Newark and Union City. The boundaries for this Super District are the Hayward/Union City city limits on the north side; the hills to the immediate east; the Santa Clara/Alameda County line on the south; and the San Francisco Bay on the west.Super District #17 - Hayward/San Leandro: This southern Alameda County Super District includes the communities of Hayward, San Lorenzo, San Leandro, Castro Valley, Cherryland, and Ashland. The northern border is the San Leandro/Oakland city limits.Super District #18 - Oakland/Alameda: This northern Alameda County Super District includes the island city of Alameda, Oakland, and Piedmont. The Oakland neighborhoods of North Oakland and Rockridge are in the adjacent Super District #19. The border between Super Districts #18 and #19 are the Oakland/Emeryville city limits; 52nd and 51st Streets; Broadway; and Old Tunnel Road.Super District #19 - Berkeley/Albany: This northern Alameda County Super District includes all of Emeryville, Berkeley, and Albany, and the Oakland neighborhoods in North Oakland and Rockridge. The Super District is surrounded by the Alameda/Contra Costa County lines; the San Francisco Bay; and the Oakland Super District.Super District #20 - Richmond/El Cerrito: This is the western Contra Costa Super District. It includes the communities of Richmond, El Cerrito, Kensington, Richmond Heights, San Pablo, El Sobrante, Pinole, Hercules, Rodeo, Crockett, and Port Costa. The eastern boundary to Super District #20 is defined as the Carquinez Scenic Drive (east of Port Costa); McEwen Road; California Route 4; Alhambra Valley Road; Briones Road through the Regional Park; Bear Creek Road; and Wildcat Canyon Road to the Alameda/Contra Costa County line.Super District #21 - Concord/Martinez: This is one of three central Contra Costa County Super Districts. Super District #21 includes the communities of Concord, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Clayton, and Pacheco. This area is bounded by Suisun Bay on the north; Willow Pass and Marsh Creek on the east; Mt Diablo on the southeast; and Cowell Road, Treat Boulevard, Oak Grove Road, Minert Road, Bancroft Road, Oak Park Boulevard, Putnam Boulevard, Geary Road, and Pleasant Hill Road on the south; and Briones Park, Alhambra Valley Road and Cal-4 on the west.Super District #22 - Walnut Creek: This central Contra Costa County Super District includes the communities of Walnut Creek, Lafayette, Moraga and Orinda. The latter three communities are more popularly known as Lamorinda. The border with Super District #23 generally follows the southern city limits of Walnut Creek.Super

Water levels were measured during March 2014 in wells in the Antelope Valley and Fremont Valley groundwater basins, southwestern Mojave Desert, California, in cooperation with the Antelope Valley-East Kern Water District, Palmdale Water District, and Littlerock Creek Irrigation District. These data document recent conditions and, when compared with previous data, changes in groundwater levels. A regional water-table map was constructed using data from about 200 wells.

An area encompassing all the National Forest System lands administered by an administrative unit. The area encompasses private lands, other governmental agency lands, and may contain National Forest System lands within the proclaimed boundaries of another administrative unit. All National Forest System lands fall within one and only one Administrative Forest Area. Click this link for full metadata description: Metadata

I thank the commission for their work in producing a preliminary map. However, I think there are some serious issues that must be resolved.

The proposed map from the commission would produce 3 solid democrat

districts, 1 lean democratic district, 3 solid republican districts, and 1 slight republican district. Given that CO is a lean democrat state (when compared to the nation as a whole), this map is a bit biased toward republicans, which a number of commenters have noted. It would usually produce an equal 4 rep-4 dem split even when democrats receive 9% more votes statewide. Further, a 51 dem-49 rep statewide environment could realistically produce a 5 rep-3 dem split (since district 8 has a similar partisan lean to the state overall), which would be an anti-majoritarian result. Additionally, the map does not promote much competition, which I think is unfortunate because an explicit goal for the commission is to "maximize the number of politically competitive districts." Under this map, only 2 districts are realistically competitive (districts 7 and 8).

I have drawn a modified version of the map:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/16862e17-faa4-4302-93a9-d208e6fa1f57.

This map would produce 3 solid democrat districts, 1 lean democratic

district, 2 solid republican districts, 1 lean republican district, and 1 slight republican district. Under this map, 3 districts are now competitive (3, 7, and 8) with 1 favoring democrats and 2 favoring republicans. Additionally, district 8 moves to be slightly left of the state as a whole reducing the likelihood of an anti-majoritarian result in either direction. Finally, this map would be a bit more proportional than the commission's map.

The largest changes to the map would be as follows: Greeley and Windsor are

added to district 2 given that many commenters from these cities suggested they had a shared community of interest with Fort Collins. Erie and Mead are added to district 8 in order to be grouped with similar nearby small towns and cities such as Frederick and Firestone. Milliken and Johnstown are added to district 4 because they are geographically, demographically, and culturally similar to much of northern/eastern Weld county. Much of western Boulder and Larimer counties are added to district 3 since these areas share common economic and cultural interests with the other slope-centric regions throughout district 3. Hinsdale, Archuleta, and Fremont are added to district 5 to maintain population parity and because these districts have the most in common with other counties in district 5. Teller county is also added to district 5 since it is part of the Colorado Springs metro area. Eastern El Paso county is added to district 3 for population parity and because of regional similarity. I urge the commission to consider this proposal because it improves competitiveness and proportionality while maintaining communities of interest.

This Data Release provides tabular and geospatial data digitized by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) from a U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBoM) report titled Mineral Investigation of Sangre de Cristo Wilderness Study Area, Alamosa, Custer, Fremont, Huerfano, and Saguache Counties, Colorado. The original preliminary paper report, numbered Mineral Land Assessment 65-83 (MLA 65-83; Ellis and others, 1983), presented the results of a mineral resource potential survey of areas in and around the Sangre de Cristo Range flanking the northeastern extent of San Luis Valley in south-central Colorado. Included in this Data Release are georeferenced scans of the regional plate maps, digitized sample site locations, analytical chemistry, and structural geologic data from MLA 65-83 in a modern and searchable geospatial database. In addition to the maps and associated point locations, the dataset contains 1,262 rows and 58 columns of contextual and numeric information in the main data table, as well as a table describing 97 samples excluded from the MLA report, a table of summary deposit information, a table of USBoM inventory data for the prepared and stored rock samples, and geospatial boundary data of the Sangre de Cristo Wilderness, Wilderness Study Area (WSA), and mineralized sampling areas. Prospecting, claiming, and some mining of largely polymetallic precious- and base-metal veins occurred in the Sangre de Cristo Range from the late 1800s through the early 1930s, with sporadic prospecting and some mining through the late 1980s (Ellis and others, 1983). Many of the vein networks are found along the western side of the mountains that are bounded by the Sangre de Cristo normal fault, a principal structure delineating a major segment of the Rio Grande rift. There also are mines along the crest and the northeast side of the range such as the Rita Alta copper mine. However, the locations of many claims, prospects, and mines were hand located on topographic and mine maps without modern spatial coordinate data and there were few analytical chemistry data available with properly associated geologic context. As a mandated component of the 1964 Wilderness Act, the USGS and USBoM were charged with identifying and assessing mineral resources in Federal lands known as Wilderness Study Areas (WSA; for example, Johnson and others, 1984). The Sangre de Cristo WSA included the mountainous areas from Poncha Pass in the north to the Blanca Peak area in the south. Most of the study area was ultimately designated as Wilderness in 1993. The unique sand dunes and associated watersheds on the western side of the central portion of the range, originally designated Great Sand Dunes National Monument in 1932, were redesignated as a National Park and Preserve in 2004. During the wilderness study, approximately 85 percent of the Sangre de Cristo WSA was covered by aerial photographic inspection and sites were visited by Ellis and others (1983) as access allowed. One thousand three hundred and ten (1,310) samples were collected and fire assayed for gold and silver as well as spectrographically analyzed for 40 other elements including copper, lead, molybdenum, tungsten, and uranium. Select samples were also analyzed for specific elements by various other state-of-the-art analytic methods of the time: copper, lead, and molybdenum by atomic absorption, tungsten by colorimetry, and uranium by fluorimetry. Integration of mapping, field characterization, mineralogical, and chemical data resulted in the identification of 18 more or less distinct mineralized areas. Sample locations (1,310) and a variety of enlargement maps (13) and mine maps (60) were compiled and integrated into the MLA 65-83 report along with extensive tabulation on paper with all data organized by mineralized area. During the late 1990's and 2000's the USGS completed extensive research in the Rio Grande Rift (for example, Hudson and Grauch, 2013) including the Sangre de Cristo Mountains and adjacent San Luis Valley. Much of the work focused on interpretation of new geophysical data and new geologic mapping as well as new analyses of mineralized areas and associated geologic structures. Overall, the absolute age, petrogenetic, and metallogenic affinities of the mineralized areas are poorly understood. However, some combination of magmatic, hydrothermal, structural, chemical, and fluid-related processes all contributed to the formation of the Sangre de Cristo mineral system. The digital data and information provided in this Data Release allows for public access to the information contained in the archived paper data record, report, and plates. This publication is useful in developing a better understanding of the geologic and tectonic framework, occurrences, and controls on mineralization and other Earth resources such as groundwater. References Cited Above: Ellis, C.E., Hannigan, B.J., and Thompson, J.R., 1983, Mineral Investigation of Sangre de Cristo Wilderness Study Area, Alamosa, Custer, Fremont, Huerfano, and Saguache Counties, Colorado: U.S. Bureau of Mines Mineral Land Assessment preliminary report MLA 65-83, 190 p., 2 plates, available at https://doi.org/10.5066/P98D3WXM. Hudson, M.R., and Grauch, V.J.S., 2013, Introduction, in Hudson, M.R., and Grauch, V.J.S., eds., New Perspectives on Rio Grande Rift Basins: From Tectonics to Groundwater: Geological Society of America Special Paper, v. 494, p. v-xii, https://doi.org/10.1130/SPE494. Johnson, B.R., Lindsey, D.A., Ellis, C.E., Hannigan, B.J., and Thompson, J.R., 1984, Mineral Resource Potential of the Sangre de Cristo Wilderness Study Area, South-central Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1635-A and Pamphlet, 13 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/mf1635A.

This dataset accompanies publication 'Geologic Map of the Poncha Pass Area, Chaffee, Fremont, and Saguache Counties, Colorado'.

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.

All Saints Catholic Church is located at 500 Iroquois Drive and maintains Mount Calvary Cemetery located at 7025 West 64th Street, both in Fremont, Michigan.The plotted area of the cemetery spans 3.2 acres and currently contains 160 plotted lots. Each lot is ideally broken out into four (4) graves, although these plots may hold additional graves for buries or cremains. At the time this project was completed, Mount Hope Cemetery contained 660 graves within the 160 lots.

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

This dataset contains several memos describing geothermal targets outlined by Flint personnel in Colorado. Phase 1 involved an ASTER and LANDSAT thermal infrared imagery assessment conducted by CIRES of the University of Colorado, which identified areas of warm ground that might indicate geothermal heating. CIRES used the thermal ground anomalies, together with other GIS layers, to come up with a set of areas ("polygons") having high geothermal potential.

This was followed by a "ground truthing" or site assessment by Geothermal Development Associates of Reno Nevada, during the summer and fall of 2011. Of the many areas targeted and visited, several stood out for their overall geothermal potential.

In the first memo, "Colorado Targets", GDA's Richard "Rick" Zehner describes the geothermal geology of the following properties, which were deemed to have the highest geothermal potential: 1. Routt (aka Strawberry Park) Hot Springs in Routt County; 2. Rico area, Delores County; 3. Pagosa Springs, Archuleta County; 4. San Luis Valley, Alamosa and Conejos Counties; 5. Lemon Hot Springs, San Miguel County

The second memo, "Comments on Rick's Report", from CIRES investigators, is a critical evaluation of Zehner's memo, in relation to CIRES' satellite thermal anomaly maps.

The third memo, "Penrose Area" is a detailed description of preliminary investigations into the geothermal potential of that area in Fremont County.