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.

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.

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

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

Plan Information Plan name: Alt. North, East, Southwest, Central Description: Alternate version of my North, East, Southwest, Central map. This creates "high country", "northeast", and "southeast" rural + front range districts, a "south and west" district, and districts centered on Colorado Springs, Denver, Aurora, and Jefferson County with tweaks around the edges to balance population.This map has more split counties than my first "North, East, Southwest, Central" map but provides better regional affinity for Moffat, Baca, and Las Animas Counties.Plan ObjectivesCreates four districts with rural and front range counties as constituents, which I hope will increase collaboration across political divides.This is an alternate version of my "North, East, Southwest, Central" plan which creates more cohesive western slope and eastern plains districts by allowing for more intra-county divisions. Municipalities and Census-Designated Places are kept in single districts with the exception of Denver (too populous) and a few exclaves.The districts in this plan could be characterized as:CD 1: DenverCD 2: High country plus northwest metroCD 3: Western slope, San Luis Valley, and greater PuebloCD 4: Northeast Colorado and the north I-25 corridorCD 5: El Paso CountyCD 6: Southeast Colorado and south metroCD 7: West metroCD 8: Aurora and north metro

The Office of Emergency Management's warning siren dataset. This coverage contains the locations and attribute data for all warning sirens within the City and County of Denver. Sirens are placed to provide uniform coverage throughout the City and County of Denver, including DIA. The vendor, Federal Signal, developed computer models that took into account topography, atmospheric conditions, structures, and other factors to determine the optimal placement of the sirens. Once the general area was determined; field work finalized suitable areas for exact siren placement. The intent was to avoid obstruction by buildings, locations where the solar panels are blocked by trees, and also to avoid locations such as the front yard of a residential property.

Platted parcels of the City of Aurora, Colorado. For ownership parcels, please see the county's GIS parcel data. The City of Aurora, Colorado 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 was recently estimated over 400,000. Currently, the city is approximately 158 square miles and is annexing land in enclaves and to the east of the city.