Laws Type E — goals & caps summary

Points of alignment on the 2003 plan update; open question is allowable ATTO/ERNA caps

Modified

July 25, 2026

Draft / sandbox — what this means

What: This page is an open, versioned analysis artifact—methods and numbers stay visible while tools mature (Snow et al. 2026).

Why: Closed file-share workflows hide how compliance figures were produced. Publishing drafts lets partners and the public inspect assumptions early, without treating prototypes as adopted policy or Technical Group findings.1

Purpose

What: A short public digest of Type E transfer goals for LAW090, 094, 095, and 118/129—what is shared across working analysis and recent draft update language, and what remains quantitatively open (Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 2003).

Why: Full draft text is kept local so the public site stays focused on decision-relevant differences. Live scoring still uses working rules on revegetation sites; reference sites document the empirical basis for caps; Cap scenarios show how ≥10% outcomes move when cut points change.2

Shared direction (aligned)

Most of the update package clarifies monitoring geometry, list logic, and completion pathways—infrastructure rather than a fight over a single percentage. On those topics, working practice and draft language point the same way:

Topic Shared direction
Cover goal Keep ≥10% native perennial cover toward the Type E end state
LAW118/129 ATPO Cap cattle saltbush at 3% (Plan / ESD “gravely loam” planting-table language)
ATTO / ERNA10 Allow Torrey’s saltbush and rubber rabbitbrush to count toward goals within caps, then persist onto the allowable list
LAW118/129 geometry One management unit; 20 selected monitoring transects
LAW090 group ERNA10 Cap at 0.3% (matches working)
Composition Modest bump when two shrubs are added (toward 11 / 9)
Rest / self-sustaining Multi-year rest with ≥1 dry year (<80% normal precip) before “complete”
Process Joint spring check-ins; cleanup after complete; clear failure pathways

Open sticking point — allowable caps

What differs: how much ATTO / ERNA10 cover may count toward the 10% goal.

Why it matters: Cap height changes whether a parcel clears the cover bar under the same hits. Recognition of the two species is largely shared; the freeze on numbers is the remaining quantitative decision.

Parcel group Working (site default) Alternate draft stack Notes
LAW090/094/095 — ATTO 0.3% 0.1% Draft tighter; 2025 zero-filled reference mean ≈ 0.25%
LAW090/094/095 — ERNA10 0.3% 0.3% Aligned
LAW118/129 — ATTO 2.0% 2.8% Draft ≈ 2025 reference mean (2.79%)
LAW118/129 — ERNA10 2.0% 4.3% Draft ≈ 2025 reference mean (4.27%); largest gap vs working

Simulate with working / ladwp_draft / lower / higher on Cap scenarios—same data, different assumption stack.

References

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. 2003. “Mitigated Negative Declaration — Irrigation Project in the Laws Area.” Los Angeles, California: LADWP.
Snow, Tasha, Christopher Holdgraf, Wilson Sauthoff, Jessica Scheick, Ellianna Abrahams, Joanna Millstein, Sanjay Bhangar, et al. 2026. “A Path to Better Science Through Co-Creation and Open Infrastructure.” Perspectives of Earth and Space Scientists 7 (1): e2025CN000295. https://doi.org/10.1029/2025CN000295.

Footnotes

  1. Sandbox means placeholders and sparse labels are allowed during prototyping; challenge numbers in the code and sources, not from a screenshot alone.↩︎

  2. Full amendment language can be rendered on a local alternate Quarto site (amendment/); it is gitignored from the public Pages tree.↩︎