Black Hills · Growth, Fire, and Extraction

Dependency design · not executable yetRequired public feature nouns and vector/raster intersection are not implemented. This page does not display invented results.

The decision

Where in the South Dakota Black Hills are human development, historical wildfire, and extractive activity close enough that a planner may want to review several legitimate land-use considerations together?

The candidate AOI is the South Dakota portion of the Black Hills. Exact bounds must be fixed only after the authoritative feature sources pass coverage and edge checks; the page will not choose a visually dramatic subset first.

The missing information

A claims map, a fire-perimeter map, or a development map cannot show whether the same places contain several considerations. Spatial overlap would indicate a need for closer review—not that an activity caused harm and not that any actor is inherently bad.

The nouns

Noun	Public status	Publication requirement
Buildings	Missing	Vetted footprints or counts, dates, completeness limits
Fire history	Missing	Authoritative perimeters, event dates, geometry QA
Mining claims	Missing	Claim status/date semantics and duplicate handling
Protected areas	Missing	Designation categories and boundary provenance
VPD	Implemented (gridmet)	Optional weather context; not a wildfire-risk layer

The analytical sentence

The following is a target grammar, not runnable Python:

BUILDINGS → INTERSECT FIRE HISTORY → INTERSECT MINING CLAIMS → SUMMARIZE BY REVIEW UNIT

It becomes publishable only after public nouns and general spatial verbs pass the repository's CRS, boundary, and alignment contracts. The page deliberately does not write data.buildings(...) or v.intersect(...) as if those APIs already existed.

What happened?

Nothing has been computed. The blocked operations are a geometry-aware intersection that preserves source identity and a transparent grouped summary. Neither operation should be hidden in a Black Hills-specific verb.

QA publication gate

Before a result can appear, the executable page must show:

• building footprint or count coverage and known omission patterns;
• fire perimeters by event/year, including invalid-geometry counts;
• mining-claim status categories and temporal completeness;
• protected-area categories and boundary provenance;
• CRS, AOI-edge, duplicate-feature, and empty-overlap checks.

Decision view

Unavailable until the nouns pass QA. The intended sequence is four small source maps followed by an overlap map labeled “places for additional review,” never “risk.”

What this does and does not tell us

If implemented, the analysis could identify co-located mapped considerations. It would not establish wildfire probability, ecological effect, legal status, or causal relationships among development, fire, and extraction.

Fork this question

• Replace mining claims with roads once both nouns are vetted.
• Summarize overlap by a documented administrative unit.
• Add VPD only as separately labeled weather context.