Exhibit 5 Appendix B - Biological Rev 2 (2025-10-24) — Glendale City Council, June 9, 2026

The Garden River Bridge at the Los Angeles River
Cities of Glendale and Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California Bi
ological Resources Assessment
Prepared for:

City of Glendale
Public Works Engineering Division
613 E. Broadway
Glendale, CA 91206
Prepared by:

Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
3602 Inland Empire Blvd, Ste C310
Ontario, CA 91764
Contact: Miranda Villalobos
909.245.1129 Office
909.241.7433 Mobile
February 2023
Updated: October, 2025
EXHIBIT 5

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction...........................................................................................................................1

1.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................1

1.2 Project Description ............................................................................................................4

2.0 Methods ................................................................................................................................5

2.1 Biological Resources Assessment ......................................................................................5

2.2 Jurisdictional Delineation ..................................................................................................6

3.0 Regulatory Framework ..........................................................................................................6

3.1 Federal Regulations ...........................................................................................................6 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344 et seq.) ..................................................................................6 Federal Endangered Species Act ...............................................................................................7 Migratory Bird Treaty Act .........................................................................................................7 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) ...................7 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) .................7

3.2 State Regulations ...............................................................................................................7 California Endangered Species Act............................................................................................7 California Native Plant Society ..................................................................................................8 California Fish and Game Code .................................................................................................8 Regional Water Quality Control B oar d .....................................................................................8 Calif
ornia Department of Fish and Wild life ..............................................................................8

3.3 Local Regu lations ...............................................................................................................9 County of Los Angeles Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance ........................................................9 City of Los Angeles Tree Preservation Ordinance .....................................................................9 City of Glendale Indigenous Tree Ordinance ............................................................................9

4.0 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................9

4.1 Surrounding Land Use Types .............................................................................................9

4.2 Topography And Soils ........................................................................................................9

5.0 Results ................................................................................................................................ 12 Site Conditions ........................................................................................................................... 12 Vegetation and Land Use Types ................................................................................................ 12 Wildlife....................................................................................................................................... 15 Wildlife Movement and Connectivity ........................................................................................ 15 EXHIBIT 5
Federal and State Jurisdictional Resources ............................................................................... 15 Special-Status Species ............................................................................................................... 16 Protected Trees ......................................................................................................................... 17 Nesting Birds.............................................................................................................................. 17 Habitats of Concern ................................................................................................................... 17 Delineation Results Summary ................................................................................................... 19

6.0 Conclusions......................................................................................................................... 22 Impacts on Nesting Birds ........................................................................................................... 22 Impacts on Bat Species .............................................................................................................. 22 Impacts on Protected Trees ...................................................................................................... 22 Impacts on Jurisdictional Waters .............................................................................................. 22

7.0 References ...................................................................................................................... 26

2 EXHIBIT 5

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Regional Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – Site Vicinity Map
Figure 3 – Soils Map
Figure 4 – Vegetation/Land Use Types Map
Figure 5 – Critical Habitat Map
Figure 6 – USACE/RWQCB Jurisdictional Map
Figure 7 – CDFW Jurisdictional Map
Figure 8 – Western Sycamore Tree Removal Area
Figure 9 – USACE/RWQCB Jurisdictional Impacts Map
Figure 10 – CDFW Jurisdictional Impacts Map

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Summary of Vegetation/Land Use Types within Project Area Work Limits Table 2 – Summary of Jurisdictional Areas

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Flora/Fauna Compendium
Attachment 2 – Special-Status Species Table
Attachment 3 – Site Photographs
Attachment 4 – Jurisdictional Delineation Report
EXHIBIT 5

LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS

APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AMSL Above Mean Sea Level
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CWA Clean Water Act
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
ESA Endangered Species Act
Ft. Feet
GIS Geographical Information System
MSL mean sea level
OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark
RVA Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SEA Significant Ecological Area
SCE Southern California Edison
TNW Traditionally Navigable Water
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
EXHIBIT 5
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc. (RVA) conducted a biological resources assessment for the proposed Garden River Bridge Project (Project) located within the Cities of Glendale and Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California. A literature/database review was conducted and included a review of state and federal databases of sensitive species known to occur in the area.

The field review included a pedestrian survey by biologists of established study area, which included the 2.94-acre Project site, the site’s overlapping 3.80-acre work area limits, and a 500 - foot survey buffer . A habitat assessment was conducted for sensitive and general plant communities, as well as birds and other sensitive animal species. RVA also determined any federal or state jurisdictional features within the proposed project boundaries, and the extent of disturbance to waters and riparian vegetation. This report of findings includes study area baseline information, a description of the habitats found on site, regulatory requirements, and recommendations for avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, where applicable.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed Project would span the LA River at approximately LA River Mile 31, latitude

34.1563
o and longitude - 118.2823o, within Township 1 North, Range 13 West. The proposed Project would extend from the City of Glendale on the north side of the LA River to the City of Los Angeles on the south. The bridge and associated connections to the existing bicycle/pedestrian trails along the LA River would be constructed w ithin Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 5593-001-900, 5593-002-917, 5593-002-916, 5593-002-270, 5627-020-907, and 5627-020-908. Located just north of where Interstate Highway 5 intersects with State Highway 134, the proposed bridge would serve as a point of connection across the LA River from the corner of Flower Street and Fairmont Avenue on the north side of the LA River (City of Glendale), to North Zoo Drive in Griffith Park on the south side of the LA River (City of Los Angeles) (see Figure 1 – Regional Vicinity Map and Figure 2 – Site Vicinity Map).

EXHIBIT 5
2 EXHIBIT 5

GLENDALE GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE PROJECT
Site Vicini
ty Map
Figure 2
USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program, Geographic Names Information System, National Hydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National S
tructures Dataset, and
National Transportation Dataset; USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line data; USFS Road data; Natural Earth Data; U.S. Department of State HIU; NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. Data refreshed October 3, 2025.

Legend
Project Work Area Limits
0 0.2 0.4
Miles
¯
EXHIBIT 5
4 1.2 P ROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Glendale, in partnership with the City of LA, proposes the construction of a three - span, curvilinear, landscaped bridge for use by pedestrians, bicyclists, and maintenance vehicles.

The intent of this multi-community resource is to increase access t o Glendale Narrows Riverwalk, and Griffith Park; to improve connections; and to increase the safety of paths used for pedestrians and cyclists. Dedicated ac cess ac ross the LA River at this key location would improve public safety and accessibility to important community resources by creating a connectio n between Glendale and Los Angeles across the LA River for pedestrians and cyclists.

The proposed bridge would be concrete with two supporting piers in the Los Angeles River. It would feature extensive landscaping on the approaches, as well as on the bridge itself, and is thus named the “Garden River Bridge.” A number of raised and in-ground planting beds would create dedicated zones for bicycle and pedestrian circulation, shade structures, canopied seating areas, dispersed gathering spaces, and scenic views of the LA River.

The LA River is a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)-built flood risk management facility, in which the USACE holds primary authority over any proposed changes. The City of LA owns, operates, and maintains the south side of the LA River, located within t he southern portion of the proposed Project area; als o within this area, a fifteen -foot easement is held by Southern C
alifornia Edison (SCE). The LA River channel limits are owned, operated, and managed by the City of LA; the City of Glendale would enter into an operations a nd management agreement for the proposed Project. On the north bank of the LA River, parcels within the northern portion of the proposed Project limits are owned by the City of LA, the City o f Glendale, and the Los Angeles County Flood C o ntrol District (LACFCD). Furthermore, easements that cross the proposed Project area on the northern side are held by the City of Glendale for poles, sewers and structures, and the Riverwalk pedestrian/bike trail.

EXHIBIT 5
5 2.0 METHODS

2.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
Prior to the on-site field assessment, biologists established a study area, which included the 2.94- acre Project site, the site’s overlapping 3.80 -acre work area limits, and a 500 -foot survey buffer (herein collectively referred to as the study area). The study area was reviewed to determine whether the Project’s work area limits or the general vicinity support special status or otherwise sensitive species and/or their habitat, and to address the potential effects associated with the proposed Project on those resources. The species and habitats addressed in this document are based on a literature and database review and field investigation.

Prior to conducting the site survey, species and habitat information was gathered and reviewed for the Burbank, California USGS quadrangle to determine which species and/or habitats would be expected to occur within the survey area. The following resources were reviewed:
• California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB);
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Species Occurrence Database; • USFWS mapping of designated critical habitat;
• California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI) database; • Calflora Database; and
• LA County Significant Ecological Area (SEA) mapping tool On December 20, 2022, RVA biologists Miranda Villalobos and Justinne Manahan visited the study area to conduct a field assessment and to document sensitive biological resources. Survey methods included walking the entire study area while conducting a thorough examination of the surrounding area. Areas inaccessible by foot were examined using binoculars. The field assessment consisted of observing and recording plant and animal species in a field notebook. A complete list of plant species and wildlife species observed can be found in Attachment 1, Flora/Fauna Compendium, of this report. On October 20, 2025, an updated desktop analysis was conducted to identify any newly listed species not previously recorded in the area and to verify current environmental conditions. The review included the CNDDB , the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Occurrence Database, and recent Google Earth imagery.

Vegetation communities within the study area were mapped according to Holland (1986) when possible, while plant species were identified using The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California (2012) and U.C. Berkeley’s “Jepson eFlora” online database (2023). The study area does not meet the parameters of any natural vegetation classification system. Wildlife species were identified by sight, call, and/or tracks when present.

The field assessment was conducted between 9:00 am and 11:30 am, the temperature was 64 degrees Fahrenheit with mostly sunny skies, 2 -mile-per-hour winds from the southwest, and

54.1% humidity. A shallow sheet of water with moderate siltation was present within the LA River, with an approximate wetted depth of up to 12 inches.

EXHIBIT 5
6 2.2 JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION
On December 20, 2022, RVA biologists Miranda Villalobos and Justinne Manahan also conducted a jurisdictional delineation to evaluate the study area for the limits of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. regulated by the USACE and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and streambed and associated riparian habitat as regulated by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The jurisdictional delineation was based on the methods outlined in the Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laborato ry 1987), the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (USACE 2008a), and A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USACE 2008b). The following relevant literature and materials were also reviewed prior to conducting the delineation:
• Historical aerial photographs of the study area contours to determine the potential locations of jurisdictional waters or wetlands;
• USGS topographic map (Figure 2 – Site Vicinity Map) to determine the presence of any “blue line” drainages or other mapped water features;
• United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil mapping data; and • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps to identify areas mapped as wetland features.

Channel widths within the LA River were measured according to a discernable OHWM to determine waters of the U.S. The RWQCB jurisdictional follows guidance from Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and typically follows the same jurisdictional areas as USACE. Widths of the streambed and bank were also measured to determine waters of the State by delineating the top of bank measurement.

3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

3.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS
CLEAN WATER ACT (33 U.S.C. 1344 ET SEQ.)
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. The USEPA promulgated Section 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR Part 230); however, the USACE Regulatory Program evaluates and issues permits fo r proposed discharges into waters of the United States. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that applicants for federal permits or licenses provide certification from the state that any discharges will comply with state -established water quality standard requirements.

Applicants/Requestors must obtain a Section 401 certification or waiver for the proposed action before the USACE can authorize a permit under Section 408 and Section 404. EC 1165-2-220 specifies that the USACE will coordinate internally to ensure that the Section 404 permit and the Section 408 Permissions are consistent.

RIVER AND HARBORS ACT (33 U.S.C. 403)
Section 10 of the River and Harbors Act regulates the construction of structures in or over any navigable Waters of the U.S. ( WoUS) or outside the defined limits of navigable WoUS if the EXHIBIT 5
7 structure or work affects the course, location, or condition of the water body. The law regulates disposal of dredged or fill materials, dredging, excavation, filling, modification and recanalizatio n of WoUS and pertains to the smallest to the largest of construction undertakings including without limitation any aerial or subaqueous power transmission lines, aids to navigation, artificial canal, bank protection (e.g., riprap, revetment, bulkhead), boat ramp, boom breakwater, dolphin, groin, intake or outfall pipes, jetty, mooring structures such as pilings, permanently moored floating vessel, riprap, revetment, tunnel, weir, wharf. This section applies to all construction whether permanent, semi-permanent, or temporary.

Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended, and codified in 33 U.S.C 408 (Section 408) provides that the Secretary of the Army may, upon the recommendation of the USACE Chief of Engineers, grant permission to other entities for the permanent or temporary alteration or use of any USACE Civil Works project. This requires a determination by the Secretary that the requested alteration would not be injurious to the public interest and would not impair the usefulness of the USACE project. The purpose of the Section 408 review is to ensure that the Congressionally - authorized purpose and benefits of the Civil Works project are protected and maintained (e.g., flood risk management, navigation, coastal storm damage reduction) and to ensure that what is being proposed is not injurious to the public interest.

EDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enacted in 1973 to conserve threatened and endangered species and their ecosystems. Actions that jeopardize endangered or threatened species and their habitats upon which they rely are considered “take” under the ESA. Take of a federally listed threatened or endangered species is prohibited without a special permit. The ESA allows for take of a threatened or endangered species incidental to development activities once a habitat conservation plan (HCP) has been prepared to the satisfaction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and an incidental take permit has been issued. The ESA also allows for the take of threatened or endangered species after Section 7(a)(2) consultation with the USFWS has deemed that development of the federal action associated with activities will not jeopardize the continued existence of the species.

IGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) was enacted in 1918 to protect native migratory birds or any part, nest, or egg of such bird unless allowed by another regulation adopted in accordance with the act. Enforced in the U.S. by the USFWS, the MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Chapter 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (Code F ed. Regs., Title 50, Ch. 21). Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (e.g., killing or abandonment of eggs or young) may be considered “take” and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment.

F
ISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT OF 1958, AS AMENDED, (16 U.S.C. 661 ET SEQ.) The FWCA requires that federal agencies consult with the USFWS and the head of the agency exercising administration over the wildlife resources of the particular state, “whenever the EXHIBIT 5
8 waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed or authorized to be impounded, diverted, the channel deepened, or the stream or other body of water otherwise controlled or modified for any purpose whatever” (16 U.S.C. 662).

N
ATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969, AS AMENDED, (42 U.S.C. 4321 ET SEQ.) NEPA requires federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to decision making. This biological assessment has been prepared following the 2020 CEQ NEPA Regulations (40 CFR 1500- 1508) and the USACE ER 200-2- 2 (33 CFR 230) and satisfies the NEPA requirement.

3.2 STATE REGULATIONS

CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
The CESA, like the Federal ESA, contains a process for the listing of species and regulatin g potential impacts to listed species. State threatened and endangered species include both plants and wildlife but do not include invertebrates. The designation “rare” applies only to Californ ia native plants. State threatened and endangered plant species are regulated largely under the Native Plant Preservation Act in conjunction with the CESA.

State threatened and
endangered animal species are legally protected against take. The CESA authorizes CDFW to enter into a memorandum of agreement for take or listed species to issue an incidental take permit for a state-listed threatened and endangered species only if specific criteria are met.

ALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY
The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a private organization that monitors and protects sensitive plant species. The CNPS compiles and maintains a list of rare, threatened, o r endangered plant species that often serves as a basis for designation or a species as threatened or endangered by CDFW.

ALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE
The California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) provides protection from take for a variety of species, referred to as fully protected species. Take is defined in Section 86 as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” Section 5050 lists protected amphibians and reptiles. Section 3315 prohibits take of fully protected fish species. Eggs and nests of all birds are protected under Section 3503, nesting birds (including raptors and passerines) under Sections 3503.5 and 3513, birds of prey under Section 3503.5, and fully protected birds under Section 3511. Migratory non-game birds are protected under Section 3800. Mammals are protected under Section 4700.

EGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates activities pursuant to Section 401(a)(1) of the CWA. Section 401 of the CWA specifies that certification from the State is required for any applicant requesting a federal license or permit including a Section 404 permit.

Through the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the Regional Board asserts jurisdiction over Waters of the State of California which is generally the same as WoUS but may also include waters not in federal jurisdiction. The State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of EXHIBIT 5
9 Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State was adopted in April 2020 and put into effect statewide on May 28, 2020 (State Water Resources Control Board, 2020).

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
The CDFW regulates water resources under Section 1600 -1616 of the California Fish and Game Code. Section 1602 states: “An entity may not substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, o r ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake (CDFW, 2015).” CDFW jurisdiction includes ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial watercourses (including dry washes) and lakes characterized by the presence of (1) definable bed and banks and (2) existing fish or wildlife resources. Furthermore, CDFW jurisdiction often extends to habitats adjacent to watercourses, such as oak woodlands in canyon bottoms or willow woodlands that support hydrologic functions within the riparian system. CDFW jurisdiction typically does not include features without a discernible bed and bank, such as swales, vernal pools, or wet meadows.

EXHIBIT 5
10 3.3 LOCAL REGULATIONS
The Project spans both City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County jurisdictions and is subject to the requirements set forth in the following ordinances:

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES OAK TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
County Ordinance No 22.56.2060 defines protected trees are any species of the oak tree genus which is 8 inches or more in diameter; multi-trunked oaks are measured by a combined diameter of twelve inches or more of the two larger trunks.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
Ordinance No. 186,873 (Chapter IV, Article 6 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code) protects trees and shrubs (including coast live oak, western sycamore, Southern California black walnut, California bay laurel, Mexican elderberry, and toyon) with trunk diameters (measured at 4.5 feet above grade) of 4 inches or greater. City ROW trees are “protected” at any size or species under the Department of Recreation Urban Forestry Program.

ITY OF GLENDALE INDIGENOUS TREE ORDINANCE
Since 1982, native trees growing within the City of Glendale limits have been under the protections established in the Indigenous Tree Ordinance. The ordinance protects indigenous trees by requiring an indigenous tree permit for work that is performed on a protected tree or through the review of site plans when construction is proposed near protected trees. The City of Glendale’s list of protected trees consists of the following species:
• Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)
• Mesa oak (Quercus engelmannii )
• California (western) sycamore (Platanus racemosa)
• Valley oak (Quercus lobata)
• Scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia )
• California bay (Umbellularia californica)
Protected trees additionally include any city-owned or park tree.

4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

4.1 SURROUNDING LAND USE TYPES
The study area encompasses approximately 10 acres within portions of the City of Los Angeles and City of Glendale where the cities each border a side of the Los Angeles River channel, as well as a portion of the Los Angeles River channel. Land use types occurring in the vicinity of the Project site include industrial uses to the north, within the City of Glendale, and open space (Griffith Park area) to the south, within the City of Los Angeles.

4.2 TOPOGRAPHY AND SOILS
Topography is relatively flat along the concrete -lined bottom of the Los Angeles River channel, the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk/trail to the north, and the Los Angeles River Bike Path and North Zoo Drive to the south.

EXHIBIT 5
12 The site’s elevational profile varies from north to south, with the elevation at approximately 450 feet (ft.) above mean sea level (AMSL) at the top of the channel at the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk/trail to the north, approximately 433 ft. AMSL along the bottom of the channel, and at approximately 456 ft. AMSL at the top of the channel at the Los Angeles River Bike Path to the south.

Figure 3 – Soils Map, provides an overview of soil types within the study area . A review of the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Web Soil Survey indicates that Project’s work area limits include:
• 1001: Urban land-Metz-Pico complex; 0 to 2 percent slopes • 1264: Xeropsamments, frequently flooded; 0 to 2 percent slopes • 1012: Urban land-Tujunga-Typic Xerothents, sandy substratum complex; 0 to 2 percent slopes.

EXHIBIT 5

GLENDALE GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE PROJECT
S
oils Map
Figure 3
Flowe
r St
Flower St
Fairmont Ave
Zoo Dr
Griffith Park
Ferraro Fields
Zoo Dr
Playground
Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Los Angeles, California State P
arks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS, Microsoft, Vantor
Legend
Project Work Area Limits
1001: Urban land-Metz-Pico complex, 0 to 2
percent slopes.
1012: Urban land-Tujunga-Typic Xerorthents,
sandy substratum complex, 0 to 2 percent
slopes.
1264: Xeropsamments, frequently flooded, 0 to
2 percent slopes.
0 240 480
Feet
¯
EXHIBIT 5
13 5.0 RESULTS

SITE CONDITIONS
The study area is located within urban areas within the cities of Glendale to the north and Los Angeles to the south, within Los Angeles County. On-site land uses are considered disturbed and naturally occurring habitats have been eliminated due to channelization and development along the Lost Angeles River channel. The study area is within a concrete -lined portion of the channel and is bordered by pavement trails and roads (the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk, Flower Street, and Fairmont Street to the north; the Los Angeles River Bike Path and North Zoo Drive to the south) on both sides of the channel.

Within the study area, the Los Angeles River is confined by a half-trapezoidal (to the south), half- vertical concrete wall (to the north) channel. During the site visit, a moderately shallow level o f water was present (about 12 to 20 inches) with minimal deposition and some algae growth present.

VEGETATION AND LAND USE TYPES
Vegetation present in and around the study area is relatively sparse and reflects ornamental plantings (e.g., trees and shrubs along walkways and within planters) or occurrences of herbaceous weedy species. Five overall vegetation types/land use types were identified during the biological assessment: developed, developed – concrete-lined channel, open water (concrete-lined channel), native/landscaped, and western sycam ore (see Figure 4 – Vegetation/Land Use Types Map and Table 2 – Summary of Vegetation/Land Use Types within the Project Area Work Limits).

Developed
The study area is surrounded by paved and/or concreted developed areas, such as adjacent sidewalks/walkways, roads, and the paved walking/bike trails. These developed areas do not contain or support vegetation.

Developed – Concrete-Lined Channel
The portion of the Los Angeles River channel in which the proposed Project would be constructed is concrete-lined and concrete-bottomed; as such, minimal to no vegetation is present within the concrete-lined portions of the channel. The minimal vegetation present consists of weedy herbaceous species growing out of some concrete cracks and weep holes along the surface and bottom of the trapezoidal/sloped side of the channel. Among the species observed were: spotted spurge ( Euphorbia maculata), pond water -starwort ( Callitriche stagnalis), rosilla ( Helenium puberulum), and big -flowered blumea ( Blumea megacephala). Observed not as often were instances of mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) emerging from some of the weep holes.

EXHIBIT 5
Open Water (Concrete-Lined Channel)
The low-flow portion of the concrete-lined, concrete-bottomed Los Angeles River channel is inundated with enough water to cover the surface of the channel bottom. Any vegetation observed was very minimal and consisted of algal growth.

Native/Landscaped
Native/landscaped vegetation consists of various native and non- native plantings in and around the study area within planters along the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk to the north (the majority of the vegetation being outside the Project’s northern site boundary). Species within these planters include: desertbroom (Baccharis sarathroides), African sumac (Searsia lancea), cheeseweed ( Malva parviflora), tumbleweed ( Kali tragus sp. tragus), and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis). A few early -stage coast live oak trees ( Quercus agrifolia) were also observed within these planter areas.

Park Landscaped
The area ju st south of Zoo Drive and just north of the Griffith Park soccer field contains a scattering of trees including western sycamore ( Platanus racemosa) and coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) in addition to some bare/sparsely vegetated unpaved areas.

Western Sycamore
A line of western sycamore (Platanus racemosa) trees is present within the southern portion of the proposed Project’s work area limits. These trees are bordered on one side by the paved Los Angeles River Bike Path and by the paved North Zoo Drive road on the other. No other vegetation was observed growing under or around these trees.

Table 1 – Summary of Vegetation/Land Use Types within the Project Work Area Limits Vegetation Type/Land Use Type Approximate Acreage
Developed 1.72
Developed – Concrete-Lined Channel 1.04
Open Water (Concrete-Lined Channel) 2.79
Native/Landscaped* 0.03
Park Landsacped 1.15
Landscaped Western Sycamore 0.55
*As noted, the majority of the native/landscaped vegetation type is located outside of proposed Project boundaries, along the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk.

Upstream of the Project (more than 1,000 ft. outside of the Project work area limits), there is a soft-bottomed portion of the Los Angeles River channel that supports vegetation within the wetted portion of the channel. Vegetation in this area primarily consists of California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus) and some willow trees ( Salix sp.). This area is located far outside of the Project’s work area limits and would not be impacted by Project activities.

EXHIBIT 5

GLENDALE GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE PROJECT
Figure 4
V
egetation/Land Use Types Map
Flowe r St
Fairmon
t Ave
Zoo Dr
Griffith Park
Ferraro Fields
Zoo Dr
Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Los Angeles, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, T
omTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS, Microsoft, Vantor Legend
Project Work Area Limits
Developed
Developed - Concrete-
Lined Channel
Open Water (Concrete-
Lined Channel)
Native/Landscaped
Park Landscaping
Western Sycamore
(Platanus racemosa)
0 225 450
Feet
¯
EXHIBIT 5
16 WILDLIFE
Due to urbanization and minimal habitat within the study area, very few wildlife species were observed. This may also have been due to cooler winter temperatures at the time of the site assessment. Wildlife species observed during the site survey included: rock dove (Columba livia), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), black -necked stilt ( Himantopus mexicanus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans).

Additionally, within the soft -bottomed, vegetated portion of the channel, located upstream of the Project site, American wigeon ( Mareca americana) and American coot ( Fulica americana) were observed.

WILDLIFE MOVEMENT AND CONNECTIVITY
Native habitat patches, wildlife corridors, linkages, and Local Connectivity Areas exist within the landscape in and around the Los Angeles River. A wildlife corridor is a strip of habitat that connects two otherwise separated larger habitat areas. Connecting isolated habitats helps to reduce population isolation, increases the species’ range, and allows for greater survival of the population. The combination of the Los Angeles River channel and the adjacent highways and development has effectively created a blockage to the wildlife movement that would have historically occurred between the Santa Monica Mountains to the west and Verdugo Mountains and San Gabriel Mountains to the east. Bats and birds are less restricted by development, thoug h human occupation may discourage passage. Ground dwelling animals that occur in the vicinity of the Los Angeles River migrate into the study area via the available, though limited, pathways.

These pathways can be composed of narrow riparian strips, but more often are provided by culverts, paved pathways along the Los Angeles River, and concrete tunnels beneath highways.

Despite the man-made nature of these pathways, wildlife are known to utilize them. Althoug h the riverbed is highly developed, it likely provides at least some connectivity for species moving or migrating through the region, particularly for aerial species such as bats and birds. Outside of the river channel, various areas contain habitats that support species movement, migration , stopover, overwintering, and breeding, such as trees and vegetation in local parks, greenbelts, and landscaping. Developed features within the study area, such as culverts, tunnels, and bridges additionally provide breeding and/or nesting habitat for both bird and bat species within and outside of the Los Angeles River.

The Los Angeles River may serve as a wildlife corridor that allows animals to migrate between larger native habitat patch areas.

FEDERAL AND STATE JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCES
The study area contains one drainage feature, the Los Angeles River, a concrete -lined flood control channel, a portion of which is located within the Project site. The Los Angeles River is a blue-line perennial stream that is designated as a Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) for its entire length and flows for approximately 51 miles until it releases flows into the Pacific Ocean. Flows observed within the channel during the time of survey were primarily from recent winter rain and urban runoff. No additional jurisdictional resources are within the study area boundaries.

EXHIBIT 5
The segment of the channelized Los Angeles River exhibits physical evidence of an OHWM; observed staining of the concrete side slopes indicate the OHWM is approximately 12 inches above the toe of the slope. Widths of the LA River within the Project work area limits average approximately 241.78 feet. USACE and RWQCB jurisdiction associated with the LA River within the Project work area limits totaled approximately 2.80 acres (508.74 linear feet) (Figure 6 – U SACE/RWQCB Jurisdictional Map).

CDFW jurisdiction associated with the Los Angeles River within the Project work area limi ts extends top of the channel, bank to bank. Due to the lack of soils and vegetation within the conc
rete channel, there is no associated riparian habitat present in this portion of the Los Angeles River. Bank to bank widths within CDFW jurisdiction was approximately 308.57 fe et. CDFW jurisdiction totaled approximately 3.84 acres (641.63 linear feet) of unvegetated streambed within the Project work area limits (Figure 7 – C DFW Jurisdictional Map).

SPEC

IAL-STATUS SPECIES
A list of special- status species with the potential to be in the study area was obtained using th e California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), and U.S
. Fish and Wildlife Se rvice (USFWS) Species Occurrence Database. Habitat assessments fo r all listed species within the Burbank quadrangle were evaluated in Attachment 2, Special- Status Species Table.

Based on the habitat requirements for specific species, soil types, and disturbed nature of the study area, it was determined the study area has less than reasonable potential to provide suit
able habitat for the special-status plant s pecies identified in the CNDDB query and for most spe
cial-status wildlife species.

Special-Status Plant Communities
The CNDDB identifies areas of southern coast live oak riparian forest approximately 1 m ile southwest of the Project site, within Griffith Park. Project activities will not extend into Griffith Park and will not alter conditions within the study area that could adversely affect the southern coast like oak riparian forest within Griffith Park.

Special-Status Plant Species
No special-status plants were detected within the survey area. As discussed, the proposed Project would be constructed within a concrete -lined, developed portion of the Los Angeles River channel. Due to the concrete -lined nature of the channel and surrounding urbanization, th e proposed Project would not support the special -status plant species identified in the CNDDB query of the Burbank quadrangle.

Special-Status Wildlife Species
One special-status avian species, t he American p eregrine f alcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), has the potential t o o ccur within the P roject area. While t he American p eregrine f alcon ha s been Federally delisted due to population recovery, i t continues to be recognized as a Fully P rotected sp
ecies in C alifornia. American peregrine falcon ad apts well to ur ban environments, often using 17 EXHIBIT 5
18 tall buildings, bridges, and other man-made structures as nesting sites. Although the Project site itself does not contain s uitable nesting habitat, it provides potential foraging habitat for the falcon g
iven the presence of prey species such as fish, pigeons, and small mammals associated with the LA River.

One reptile species, the California legless lizard (A nniella spp.), has a moderate potential to occur within or near the Project site. California legless lizard is a species of spec ial concern. T his species has been documented upstream in riparian habitat located offsite within the Glendale Narrows rip
arian habitat directly upstream. While the Project site is concrete-lined and lacks the vegetative cover and loose, sandy soils preferred by this species for burrowing, occasional individuals may occur as they forage beyond their typical habitat boundaries.

Four special-status bat species were identified in the CNDDB query to have moderate potential to utilize the study area to some extent – pallid bat ( A ntrozous pallidus), western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus), hoary bat ( Lasiurus cinereus), and western yellow bat ( Lasiurus xanthinus). All four of these bat species are designated as species of special concern. The s tudy area p rovides potentially suitable foraging an d/or roosting habitat for bat species as s ome bat spe
cies are known to forage and roost along the Los Angeles River channel. Developed features within the study area, such as culverts, tunnels, and bridges provide breeding and/or nesting habitat for special status bat species within the study area.

PROTECTED TREES
The Project would be subject to both county and city tree ordinances. As discussed, there are western sycamore trees along the Los Angeles River Bike Path and North Zoo Drive, within the southern footprint of the Project’s work area limits , and some early stage coast live oak t rees in the planter areas along the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk within the northern footprint of the w or k area limits. The construction of an ADA access ramp and plaza area between the Zoo Drive crosswalk and the bridge will require the removal of approximately eighteen (18) western Sycamore trees located between Zoo Drive and the LA River Bike Path.

NESTING BIRDS
Developed and undeveloped portions of the study area contain suitable nesting habitat for a variety of avian species. The trees along the Los Angeles River Bike Path and the shrubs along the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk c ontain suitable habitat within the Pr oject’s work area limits. The flowing water in this portion of the Los Angeles River provides important foraging sites for many birds.

HABITATS OF CONCERN
Habitats of concern along the LA River include s ensitive natural communities, EFH, and USFWS critical habitat.

Sensitive natural communities: There are no sensitive natural communities documented within the study area . The CNDDB identifies areas of southern coast live oak riparian forest approximately 1 mile southwest of the study area , within Griffith Park. The Project would not involve encroaching into these areas and would not impact these areas.

EXHIBIT 5
19 Habitat Conservation Plans: There are no habitat conservation plans for the Project site o r surrounding area.

EFH: As the LA River is a concrete -bottom channel at this location with no associated riparian habitat, the study area is not an EFH.

USFWS critical habitat: There is no designated USFWS critical habitat within the study area or the vicinity. The nearest critical habitat is approximately 8.1 miles to the northwest and north fo r Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae; see Figure 5 – Critical Habitat Map) .

EXHIBIT 5
20 EXHIBIT 5
21 DELINEATION RESULTS SUMMARY
Within the study area, there is one feature subject to the jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW. The Los Angeles River within the Project area does not meet the wetland criteria for USACE or RWQCB jurisdictional wetlands. Please refer to the following table, Figure 6 – USACE/RWQCB Jurisdictional Map, and Figure 7 – CDFW Jurisdictional Map for a detailed summary of the federal and state jurisdictional areas.

Table 2 – Summary of Jurisdictional Areas
Jurisdictional
Feature
USACE
Jurisdiction
(acres)
RWQCB
Jurisdiction
(acres)
CDFW
Jurisdiction
(acres)
Length
(linear
feet)
Latitude/
Longitude
Class of
Aquatic
Resource
LA River 2.80 2.80 3.84 ~650 34.156321°/
-
118.282288°
Non-
Section
10- non
wetland
Total 2.80 2.80 3.84 ~650 n/a n/a
EXHIBIT 5

GLENDALE GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE PROJECT
Figure 6
USACE and R
WQCB Jurisdiction
Fairmo nt
Ave
Zoo Dr
Zoo Dr
Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Los Angeles, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, T
omTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS, Microsoft, Vantor EXHIBIT 5

IMPACTS ON NESTING BIRDS
The study area contains suitable nesting habitat within the surrounding trees and shrubs along the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk and the Los Angeles River Bike Path. As these areas of trees and shrubs within the study area contain potential nesting habitat, construction activities should be conducted outside avian nesting season pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The general avian nesting season for passerines is from February 1 st to September 15 th but can vary based on migratory patterns, species, weather patterns, etc. If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, the following Mitigation Measure is recommended:

MM-BIO-1 Pr
e-Construction Nesting Bird Survey
If construction activities such as earthwork, clearing, grubbing, etc. cannot feasibly be conducted outside the general nesting bird season for migratory birds (February 1 st to September 15 th), a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey, including suitable habitat within a 500-foot radius, within three days prior to any disturbance of the site. If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around the nests, and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests.

IMPACTS ON REPTILE SPECIES
Given the close proximity of known occurrences of California leg less lizard within the upstream riparian habitat within Glendale Narrows , there is a potential for this species to occur within the Project site . Although the site lacks their prefer red habitat due to the concrete -lined nature , individuals may occasionally disperse into or forage within the area. If present during construction activities, th is species could be adversely affected by ground dist urbance and e quipment movement. To avoid and minim ize potential impacts to California leg less lizard , the following Mitigation Measure is recommended:

MM-BIO-2
Pre-Construction Clearance Survey
Prior to the start of any g round-disturbing act ivities, a qualified biologist shall cond uct a pre - construction survey of the Project site within two hours before the start of work to determine presence of the Cali fornia legless lizard . If individuals are detected during the survey or encountered during construction, the individual shall be allowed to move out of harm’s way on its own, or if necessary, may be relocated by a qualified biologist to suitable upstream habitat within the LA River.

IMPACTS ON BAT SPECIES
The study area contains potentially suitable foraging and/or roosting habitat for bat species. Bats are known to forage and/or roost along the Los Angeles River channel where concrete -lined portions of the channel (e.g., bridges, channel outlets, etc.) provide habitat via cracks and crevices and where open water provides foraging habitat. The proposed project activities would not alter conditions within the project site with respect to suitability of habitat for bat foraging or roosting.

Nonetheless, because the study area contains suitable bat foraging and/or roosting habitat, the following Mitigation Measure is recommended:

EXHIBIT 5
26 MM-BIO-3 Bat Roost and Emergence Survey
A pre-construction survey for bat roosts shall be conducted by performing a daytime pedestrian survey to inspect potential habitat within 100 feet of the Project’s work area limits for indications of bat use (e.g. occupancy, guano staining, smells, or sounds) and a dusk emer gence survey. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist. If it is determined habitat within the survey area is being used, or likely to be us ed as a bat roost, and may be affected by constructio n activities, then specific measures will be developed and implemented to minimize potential impacts on the roost. Such measures may include minimizing construction activities near the roost during maternity season (May 1st through August 15th) or other measures developed by the qualified biologist in coordination with CDFW.

IMPACTS

ON PROTECTED TREES
The Project ’s work area limits include County and City protected trees including western Sycamore and coast live oak trees. The construction of an ADA access ramp and plaza area between the Zoo Drive crosswalk and the bridge will require the removal of approximately 18 western Sycamore trees. Please
see Figure 8- Western Sycamore Tree Removal Area.

DISTU
RBANCE OR R emoval of any protected trees within the work area limits will require a Tr ee Remo
val Permit from the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Street Services Urban Forestry Division. If protected trees cannot be transplanted and relocated within the study area , they must be replaced at a 4:1 ratio.

IMPACTS ON JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
USACE Jurisdictional Impacts
Non-wetland waters of the U. S. subject to USACE jurisdiction within the Project area work limits total approximately 1.85 acres. Of this, a total of 1.00 acre of temporary impacts would occur to USACE jurisdiction resulting from water diversion activities and th e excavation for two bridge pier foundations. Additionally, a total of 0.03 acre of permanent impacts to US ACE jurisdiction would occur from the construction of the two bridge piers. Please see Figure 9 – USACE & RWQCB Jurisdictional Impacts Map for a visual overview of these impacts.

RWQCB
Jurisdictional Impacts
Non-wetland waters of the State subject to RWQCB jurisdiction within the Project area work limits total approximately 1.85 acres. Of this, a total of 1.00 acre of temporary impacts would occur to RWQCB jurisdiction resulting from water diversion activities and the excavation for two bridge pier foundations. Additionally, a total of 0.03 acre of permanent imp acts to RWQCB juris diction would occur from the construction of the two bridge piers. Please see Figure 9 – USACE & RWQCB Jurisdictional Impacts Map for a visual overview of these impacts.

EXHIBIT 5
27 CDFW Jurisdictional Impacts
Waters of the State in the form of unvegetated streambed subject to CDFW jurisdiction within the Project area work limits total approximately 2.31 acres. Of this, a total of 1.03 acre of temporary impacts would occur to CDFW jurisdiction resulting from water diversion activities, excavation activities for two bridge piers, and to excavate areas to install the bridge abutment and retaining wall. Additionally, a total of 0.04 acre of permanent impacts to CDFW jurisdiction would occur from the construction of the two bridge piers and from the abutment for the bridge on the south side of the channel. Please see Figure 10 – CDFW Jurisdictional Impacts Map fo r a visual overview of these impacts.

Addressing Jurisdictional Impacts
Based on the results of the Jurisdictional Delineation, the Los Angeles River is a blue-line stream jurisdictional under waters of the U.S. and falls under USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdiction. As the Project would include both temporary and permanent impacts within jurisdictional waters and a TNW, the Project would need to obtain a regulatory Section 10/404 Nationwide Permit, RWQCB Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and CDFW Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement approvals prior to development of the site.

Other recommendations related to reducing impacts during construction:

MM BIO-4 Environmental Training
A W orker E nvironmental Awareness Program (WEAP) s hall be presented to all employees, representatives, agents, contractors, and subcontractors concentrating on the proper identification of s ensitive resources w hile in t he field, suggested s trategies in avoi ding im pact t o s ensitive resources, and proper reporting methods for field crews if sensitive resources are observed dur ing construction activities.

MM BIO-5 Access Routes and Work Area
The P roject shall establish an d delineate work areas and ac ce ss r outes, within ar eas an d r outes within jurisdictional features, to m inimize im pacts to sensitive resources t o the g reatest e xtent feasible.

Recommended Best Management Pr actices (BMPs) related to Operations and Maintenance:

1. To av
oid light spillover into the Los Angeles River habitat, any proposed lighting fixtures on the bridge structure shall incorporate internal baffles, or similar, to direct the light towards the ground and shall have a zero side-angle cut-off to the horizon.

2. Construction activities should be limited to daylight hours.

EXHIBIT 5

GLENDALE GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE PROJECT
Figure 8
W
estern Sycamore Tree Removal Area
Flower St
Fairm ont Ave
Zoo Dr
Zoo Dr
Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Los Angeles, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, T
omTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS, Microsoft, Vantor Legend
Project Work Area Limits
Western Sycamore
Removal
Area (~18 trees)
Proposed Bridge
Proposed Plaza, Staris, &
ADA
Ramp Areas
0 170 340
Feet
¯
EXHIBIT 5
29 EXHIBIT 5
30 EXHIBIT 5
31 7.0 REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1994. Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements Section 1600-1607 California Fish and Wildlife Code.

Caltrans and CDFW, California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California, 2010
Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS): USFWS Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species
Guerra, Roberto. "An Inventory of Loss on the Los Angeles River." High Country News, 25 June 2018, https://www.hcn.org/issues/50-11/photos-an-inventory-of-loss-on-the-los - angeles-river
Holland, Robert F. “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.” October 1986.

Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. January 2012.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, April 2022. Hydric Soils List of California . (http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/)
Spencer, W.D., P. Beier, K. Penrod, K. Winters, C. Paulman, H. Rustigian-Romsos, J. Strittholt, M.

Parisi, and A. Pettler. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration.

U.C. Berkeley. “The Jepson Herbarium: Jepson eFlora.” 2022.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. "Los Angeles River." U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, n.d., https://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Missions/Asset-Management/Los- Angeles-
River/#:~:text=Three%20frogs%20may%20occur%20in%20the%20Glendale,(Sceloporus% 20occidentalis)%2C%20and%20side%2Dblotched%20lizard%20(Uta%20stansburiana) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2007. Practices for Documenting Jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA, Regional Guidance Letter 07 -01.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2008. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark in the Arid West Region of the Western United States.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2001. Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Preliminary Wetland Delineations.

EXHIBIT 5
32 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey. (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Habitat and Resource Conservation, Wetland Geodatabase. (http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/NWI/index.html) EXHIBIT 5
33 Attachment 1 – Flora/Fauna Compendium
This list documents plant and animal species observed during the habitat assessment on December 2 0 , 2022. Other species may have been overlooked or undetectable due to their activity patterns or growing season.

Common Name Scientific Name
Flora: Coast live oak
Western sycamore
Tumbleweed
Coyote bush
Desert broom
African sumac
Cheeseweed
Spotted spurge
Pond water-starwort
Rosilla
Big-flowered blumea
Mulefat
California bulrush
Willow sp.

Quercus agrifolia
Platanus racemose
Kali tragus subsp. tragus
Baccharis pilularis
Baccharis sarothroides
Searsia lancea
Malva parviflora
Euphorbia maculata
Callitriche stagnalis
Helenium puberulum
Blumea megacephal a
Baccharis salicifolia
Schoenoplectus californicus
Salix sp.

Fauna: Mourning dove
Rock dove
Black phoebe
Black-necked stilt
American wigeon
American coot
Zenaida macroura
Columba livia
Sayornis nigricans
Himantopus mexicanus
Mareca americana
Fulica americana
EXHIBIT 5
34 Attachment 2 – Special-Status Species Table

Scientific Name
Common Name Federal/State Listing Global Rank/
State Rank
CA Rare
Plant
Rank
Habitats Observed
On Site? Potential to Occur
Reptiles
Actinemys pallida
southwestern pond turtle Proposed Threatened/None G2/SN R N/A Streams, ponds, lakes, wetlands
with terrestrial habitat nearby for
nesting
No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Species
is considered ABSENT.

Anniella spp.

California legless lizard None/None G3G4/ S 3S4 N/A
Sparsely vegetated areas of
coastal dune, valley -foothill,
chaparral, and coastal scrub
habitats
No
Species documented to
occur directly upstream
from Project site in the
native riparian habitat.

Species has a

MODERATE POTENTIAL
TO OCCUR.

Anniella stebbinsi
Southern California legless
lizard
None/None G3/S3 N/A
Broadleaved upland forest,
Chaparral, Coastal dunes, Coastal
scrub
No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Species
is considered ABSENT.

Arizona elegans
occidentalis
California glossy snake
None/None G5T2/ S2 N/A
Desert habitats, chaparral,
sagebrush, valley -foothill
hardwood, pine-juniper, annual
grass
No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Species
is considered ABSENT.

Phrynosoma blainvillii
Phrynosoma blainvillii
coast horned lizard

None/None G4/S4 N /A Deserts, chapparal, grassland,
often near ant hills No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Species
is considered ABSENT.

Amphibians

Phrynosoma blainvillii
western spadefoot

Proposed Threatened/None G2G3/S 3S4 N/A
Grassland, chaparral , scrub, oak
woodlands , sandy, gravelly washes
and small seasonal streams.

Treeless habitats preferred where
there is ponding
No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Species
is considered ABSENT.

Mammals
Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat None/None G4/S3 N /A
Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Desert
wash, Great Basin grassland,
Great Basin scrub, Mojavean
desert scrub, Riparian woodland,
Sonoran desert scrub, Upper
No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Species
is considered ABSENT.

EXHIBIT 5
35 Scientific Name
Common Name Federal/State Listing Global Rank/
State Rank
CA Rare
Plant
Rank
Habitats Observed
On Site? Potential to Occur
montane coniferous forest, Valley &
foothill grassland
Eumops perotis
californicus
western mastiff bat
None/None G4G5T4/S3S4 N/A
Chaparral, Cismontane woodland,
Coastal scrub, Valley & foothill
grassland
No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Species
is considered ABSENT.

Lasionycteris noctivagans
silver-haired bat None/None G4/S3S4 N/A Conifer ous, mixed coniferous and deciduous forest, old growth forests No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Species
is considered ABSENT.

Lasiurus cinereus
hoary bat None/None G3G4/S 4 N/A
Broadleaved upland forest,
Cismontane woodland, Lower
montane coniferous forest, North
coast coniferous forest
No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Species
is considered ABSENT.

Lasiurus xanthinus
western yellow bat None/None G4G5/S 3 N/A Desert wash No No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Species
is considered ABSENT.

Neotoma lepida intermedia
San Diego desert woodrat None/None G5T3T 4/S3S4 N/A Coastal scrub No No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Species
is considered ABSENT.

Nyctinomops macrotis
big free-tailed bat None/None G5/S3 N /A
Rugged, rocky habitats in arid
landscapes; desert shrub,
woodlands, and evergreen forests
No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Species
is considered ABSENT.

Taxidea taxus
American badger None/None G5/S3 N /A
Alkali marsh, Alkali playa, Alpine,
Alpine dwarf scrub, Bog & fen,
Brackish marsh, Broadleaved
upland forest, Chaparral,
Chenopod scrub, Cismontane
woodland, Closed-cone coniferous
forest, Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal
dunes, Coastal prairie, Coastal
scrub, Desert dunes, Desert wash,
Freshwater marsh, Great Basin
grassland, Great Basin scrub,
Interior dunes, Ione formation,
Joshua tree woodland, Limestone,
Lower montane coniferous forest,
Marsh & swamp, Meadow & seep,
Mojavean desert scrub, Montane
dwarf scrub, North coast coniferous
forest, Oldgrowth, Pavement plain,
No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site.

Species is considered
ABSENT.

EXHIBIT 5
36 Scientific Name
Common Name Federal/State Listing Global Rank/
State Rank
CA Rare
Plant
Rank
Habitats Observed
On Site? Potential to Occur
Redwood, Riparian forest, Riparian
scrub, Riparian woodland, Salt
marsh, Sonoran desert scrub,
Sonoran thorn woodland,
Ultramafic, Upper montane
coniferous forest, Upper Sonoran
scrub, Valley & foothill grassland
Plants/Vegetation
Atriplex parishii
Parish's brittlescale None/None G1G2/ S1 1B.1
Alkali playa, Chenopod scrub,
Meadow & seep, Vernal pool,
Wetland
No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Species
is considered ABSENT.

Berberis nevinii
Nevin's barberry Endangered/Endangered G1/S1 1 B.1 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Riparian scrub No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Species
is considered ABSENT.

Calochortus clavatus var.
gracilis
slender mariposa-lily
None/None G4T2T3/ S2S3 1B.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley & foothill grassland No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Species
is considered ABSENT.

Calochortus plummerae
Plummer's mariposa-lily None/None G4/S4 4 .2
Chaparral, Cismontane woodland,
Coastal scrub, Lower montane
coniferous forest, Valley & foothill
grassland
No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Species
is considered ABSENT.

Calystegia felix
lucky morning-glory None/None G1Q/S1 1 B.2
Meadows, Seep, riparian scrub ,
associated with wetlands and
marshes
No
This species is
considered extirpated
from Los Angeles
County.

Centromadia parryi ssp.
australis
southern tarplant
None/None G3T2/S2 1B.1
Wetlands, salt-marsh, vernal pools,
valley grassland and freshwater
wetlands
No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Species
is considered ABSENT.

Chorizanthe parryi var.
fernandina
San Fernando Valley
spineflower
None/Endangered G3T1/S1 1B.1 Coastal scrub, Valley & foothill grassland No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Species
is considered ABSENT.

Dodecahema
leptoceras
slender- horned
spineflower
Endangered/Endangered G1/S1 1B.1 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Species
is considered ABSENT.

Dudleya multicaulis
many- stemmed dudleya None/None G2/S2 1 B.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley & foothill grassland No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Species
is considered ABSENT.

EXHIBIT 5
37 Scientific Name
Common Name Federal/State Listing Global Rank/
State Rank
CA Rare
Plant
Rank
Habitats Observed
On Site? Potential to Occur
Horkelia cuneata var.
puberula
mesa horkelia
None/None G4T1/S1 1B.1 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Species
is considered ABSENT.

Malacothamnus davidsonii
Davidson's bush-mallow None/None GNR/S2 1B .2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Riparian woodland No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Species
is considered ABSENT.

Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum
white rabbit- tobacco
None/None G4/S2 2 B.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland,
Coastal scrub, Riparian woodland No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site.

Species is considered
ABSENT.

Quercus Dumosa
Nuttall's scrub oak None/None G3/S3 1 B.1 Chapparal, sandy soils along the coast No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site.

Species is considered
ABSENT.

Ribes divaricatum var.
parishii
Parish's gooseberry
None/None G5TX/S X 1A Riparian, Coastal Sage Scrub,
Wetland No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site.

Species is considered
ABSENT.

Symphyotrichum
defoliatum
San Bernardino aster
None/None G2/S2 1B.2
freshwatermarsh, Freshwater
Wetlands, Coastal Sage Scrub,
Southern Oak Woodland
No This species is
considered extirpated.

Symphyotrichum greatae
Greata's aster None/None G2/S2 1 B.3 Chaparral, canyons No No suitable habitat
occurs on site.

Species is considered
ABSENT.

Insects
Bombus crotchii
Crotch bumble bee None/None G2/S1 S2 N/A Grasslands and shrublands , coastal sage scrub No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Species
is considered ABSENT.

Bombus pensylvanicus
American bumble bee None/None G3G4/S 2 N/A
Farmlands, Open Fields No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Species
is considered ABSENT.

Woodland and Forests
California Walnut
Woodland
California Walnut
Woodland
None/None G2/S2.1 N/A Cismontane woodland No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Habitat
type is considered
ABSENT.

EXHIBIT 5
38 Scientific Name
Common Name Federal/State Listing Global Rank/
State Rank
CA Rare
Plant
Rank
Habitats Observed
On Site? Potential to Occur
Southern Coast Live Oak
Riparian Forest
Southern Coast Live Oak
Riparian Forest
None/None G4/S4 N/A Riparian forest No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Habitat
type is considered
ABSENT.

Southern Cottonwood
Willow Riparian Forest
Southern Cottonwood
Willow Riparian Forest
None/None G3/S3.2 N/A Riparian forest No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Habitat
type is considered
ABSENT.

Southern Sycamore Alder
Riparian Woodland
Southern Sycamore Alder
Riparian Woodland
None/None G4/S4 N/A Riparian woodland No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Habitat
type is considered
ABSENT.

Birds
Aimophila ruficeps
canescens
southern California rufous-
crowned
None/None G5T3/S4 N/A Dry Hillsides, canyons No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Habitat
type is considered
ABSENT.

Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl None/Candidate Endangered G4/S 2 N/A
Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub,
Great Basin grassland, Great Basin
scrub, Mojavean desert scrub,
Sonoran desert scrub, Valley &
foothill grassland
No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Species
is considered ABSENT.

Coturnicops
noveboracensis
yellow rail
None/None G4/S2 N /A Wet Meadows and marshes with
shallow waters No
Site lacks fresh and
brackish sedge-filled
marshes this species
requires. Species is
considered Absent.

Empidonax traillii extimus
southwestern willow
flycatcher
Endangered/Endangered G5T2/S3 N/A Riparian woodland No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site. Species
is considered ABSENT.

American peregrine falcon Delisted/Delisted G4T4/ S3S4 N/A Variety, nest in other birds nests and
on indentation on a cliff side of
human made structures.

No
No suitable nesting
habitat occurs on site.

River provides suitable
foraging habitat.

Species has LOW

POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
ON SITE.

Polioptila californica
californica Threatened/None G4G5T3 Q/S2 N/A Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal scrub No No suitable habitat occurs on site.

EXHIBIT 5
39 Scientific Name
Common Name Federal/State Listing Global Rank/
State Rank
CA Rare
Plant
Rank
Habitats Observed
On Site? Potential to Occur
coastal California
gnatcatcher
Species is considered
ABSENT.

Riparia riparia
bank swallow None/Threatened G5/S3 N/A R iparian, Coastal No Bank swallows are
extirpated from
southern California.

No suitable mud
banks exists for their
nesting habitat.

Species is considered
ABSENT.

Vireo bellii pusillus
least Bell's vireo Endangered/Endangered G5T2/S3 N/A Riparian forest, Riparian scrub, Riparian woodland No
No suitable habitat
occurs on site.

Species is considered
ABSENT.

Mollusks
Glyptostoma gabrielense
San Gabriel chestnut None/None G2/S3 N /A
Aquatic, Riparian canyons,
endemic to the San G abriel
Mountains near Pasadena,
requires moist rip arian canyons or
other areas with seasonal
moisture.

No
This species requires
moist, rocky hillsides
and is limited to an
“island” habitat in the
San Gabriel Mountains.

No habitat is found
onsite. Species is
considered ABSENT.

Gonidea angulate
western ridged mussel None/None G3/S1 S2 N/A Aquatic No The Los Angeles River
Channel may provide
suitable habitat for this
species. However, the
CNDDB considers this
species’ presence as
Extirpated. Species is
considered ABSENT.

EXHIBIT 5
40 Attachment 3 – Site Photographs
EXHIBIT 5
34 Attachment 3 – Site Photographs

EXHIBIT 5

Attachment 4- Jurisdictional Delineation
EXHIBIT 5
The Garden River Bridge at the Los Angeles River

City Glendale and City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California

Jurisdictional Delineation Report

Prepared for:

City of Glendale
Public Works Engineering Division
613 E. Broadway
Glendale, CA 91206

Prepared by:

Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
3602 Inland Empire Blvd, Ste C310
Ontario, CA 91764
Contact: Miranda Villalobos
909.245.1129 Office
909.241.7433 Mobile

February 2023
EXHIBIT 5

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Location .............................................................................................................. 1

1.2 P roject Description ......................................................................................................... 4

2.0 Regulatory Background ........................................................................................................ 4

2.1 Applicable Aquatic Resource Protection Regulations..................................................... 4 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344 et seq.) ................................................................................ 4 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.............................................................................. 5 California Fish and Game Code Section 1600-1602 ................................................................ 6

3.0 Methods ............................................................................................................................... 6

4.0 Results .................................................................................................................................. 7

4.1 Hydrology ........................................................................................................................ 7

4.2 Topography And Soils ..................................................................................................... 7

4.3 Site Conditions .............................................................................................................. 10

4.4 Vegetation/Land Use .................................................................................................... 10

4.5 Federal and State Jurisdictional Resources .................................................................. 13

6.0 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 17

7.0 References..................................................................................................................... 18

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Regional Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – Site Vicinity Map
Figure 3 – HUC Map
Figure 4 – Soils Map
Figure 5 – Vegetation/Land Use Types Map
Figure 6 – USACE & RWQCB Jurisdiction Map
Figure 7 – CDFW Jurisdiction Map

EXHIBIT 5

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Summary of Jurisdictional Areas

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Site Photographs
Attachment 2 – Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet

EXHIBIT 5
1 1.0 I NTRODUCTION
Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc. (RVA) conducted a jurisdictional delineation for the proposed Garden River Bridge Project (Project) in Los Angeles County, California. The delineation was performed to identify areas anticipated to be jurisdictional under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Act; and streambed and riparian habitats under California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) pursuant to California Fish and Game Code (Section 1602). This information is necessary to evaluate potential jurisdictional impacts and permit requirements associated with the Project and can be used by the agencies to assess Project conformance with State and Federal regulations.

1.1 P ROJECT LOCATION
The Project would span the LA River at approximately LA River Mile 31, latitude 34.1563 o and longitude -118.2823o. The proposed Project would extend from the City on the north side of the LA River to the City of Los Angles on the south side. The bridge and associated connections to the existing bicycle/pedestrian trails along the LA River would be constructed within Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 5593- 001-900, 5593-002-917, 5593- 002-916, 5593- 002-270, 5627- 020- 907, and 5627-020-908. The proposed Project is located within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

7.5-minute Burbank quadrangle in Section 00, Township 1 North, Range 13 west. Located just north of where Interstate Highway 5 intersects with State Highway 134, the proposed bridge would serve as a point of connection across the LA River from the corner of Flower Street and Fairmont Avenue on the north side of the LA River (City of Glendale), to North Zoo Drive in Griffith Park on the south side of the LA River (City of Los Angeles) (see Figure 1 – Regional Vicinity Map and Figure 2 – Site Vicinity Map).

EXHIBIT 5
2 EXHIBIT 5

GLENDALE GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE PROJECT
Si
te Vicinity Map
Figure 2
USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program, Geographic Names Information S
ystem, National Hydrography
Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National Structures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset; USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line data; USFS Road data; Natural Earth Data; U.S. Department of State HIU; NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. Data refreshed October 3, 2025.

Legend
Project Work Area Limits
0 0.2 0.4
Miles
¯
EXHIBIT 5
4 1.2 P ROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Glendale, in partnership with the City of LA, proposes the construction of a three- span, curvilinear, landscaped bridge for use by pedestrians, bicyclists, and maintenance vehicles.

The intent of this multi-community resource is to increase ac cess to Glendale Narrows Riverwalk, a
nd Griffith Park; to improve connections; and to increase the safety of paths used for pedestrians an d c yclists. Dedicated access across the LA River at this key location would improve public safety and accessibility t o important community resources by creating a connectio n between Glendale and Los Angeles across the LA River for pedestrians and cyclists.

The LA River Channel is a U.S. Army C orps of Engineers (USACE)-built flood risk manageme nt facility, in which USACE holds primary authority over any proposed changes. The City of LA owns, operates, and maintains the south side of the LA River, located within the southern portion of the proposed Project area ; also within this area, a fifteen -fo ot easement is held by Souther n California Edison (SCE). The LA River channel limits are owned, operated, and managed by the City of LA; the City of Glendale would enter into an operations and management agreement for the proposed Project. On the north bank of the LA River, parcels within the northern portion of the proposed Project limits are owned by the City of LA, the City of Glendale, and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD). Furthermore, easements that cross the proposed Action ar
ea on the northern side are held by the City of Glendale for poles, sewers and structures, and the Riverwalk pedestrian/bike trail.

2.0 R EGULATORY BACKGROUND
Several regulations have been e stablished b y Federal, State, and local ag encies t o protect and conserve aquatic resources. The descriptions below provide a brief overview of agency re
gulations that may be applicable t o the Project. Regulatory a gencies make the final determination of whether a project requires authorization pursuant to these regulations.

2.1 A PPLICABLE AQUATIC RESOURCE PROTECTION REGULATIONS CLEAN WATER ACT (33 U.S.C. 1344 ET SEQ.)
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, i ncluding wetlands. The U.S. E nvironmental Protection Agency ( USEPA) promulgated Section 404(b)(1) g uidelines (40 C FR P art 230); ho wever, the USACE R egulatory Program evaluates and issues permits for proposed discharges i nto waters of the United States.

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that applicants for federal permits or licenses provide certification from the state that any discharges will comply with state-established water quality standard requirements. Applicants/Requestors must obtain a Section 401 certification or waiver EXHIBIT 5
5 for the proposed action before USACE can authorize a permit under Section 408 and Section 404.

EC 1165-2-220 specifies that USACE will coordinate internally to ensure that the Section 404 permit and the Section 408 Permissions are consistent.

Waters of the U.S.

On December 30, 2022, the USEPA and USACE announced the final “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’” rule. On January 18, 2023, the rule was published in the Federal Register , with the rule going into effect on March 20, 2023. In this rule , consistent with the general framework of the 1986 regulations, the USEPA and USACE interpret the term “waters of the United States” to include (40 C.F.R. §120.2(a)(1)-(5):
• Traditional navigable waters , the territorial seas, and interstate waters (i.e., paragrap h (a)(1) waters)
• Impoundments of “waters of the United States” (i.e., paragraph (a)(2) impoundments) • “Tributaries” to traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, interstate waters, or paragraph (a)(2) impoundments when tributaries meet either the relatively permanent standard or the significant nexus standard (i.e., jurisdictional tributaries) • Wetlands “adjacent ” t o paragraph (a)(1) waters; wetlands adjacent to and with a continuous surface connection to relatively permanent paragraph (a)(2) impoundments or jurisdictional tributaries when the jurisdictional tributaries meet the relatively permanent standard; and wetlands adjacent to paragraph (a)(2) impoundments or jurisdictional tributaries when the wetlands meet the significant nexus standard (i.e., jurisdictional adjacent wetlands)
• Intrastate lakes and ponds, streams or wetlands not identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) that meet either the relatively permanent standard or the significant nexus standard (i.e., paragraph (a)(5) waters)
P

ORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Water Code Section 13000 et seq.) provides for statewide coordination of water quality regulations. The State Water Resources Control Board was established as the statewide authority and nine separate RWQCBs were developed to oversee water quality on a day -to-day basis. The RWQCB is the primary agency responsible for protecting water quality in California. As discussed above, the RWQCB regulates discharges to surface waters under the federal CWA. In addition, the RWQCB is responsible for administerin g the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the state is given authority to regulate waters of the state, which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including salin e waters. As such, any person proposing to discharge waste into a water body that could affect its water quality must first file a Report of Waste Discharge if Section 404 is not required for the activity. “Waste” is partially defined as any waste substance associated with human habitation, including fill material discharged into water bodies .

EXHIBIT 5
6 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE SECTION 1600-1602
Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake that supports fish or wildlife. A Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration must be submitted to CDFW for “any activity that may substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake.” CDFW has jurisdiction over riparian habitats associated with watercourses and wetland habitats supported by a river, lake, or stream. Jurisdictional waters are delineated by the outer edge of riparian vegetation (i.e., drip line) or at the top of the bank of streams or lakes, whichever is wider. CDFW jurisdiction does not include tidal areas or isolated resources. CDFW reviews the proposed actions and, if necessary, submits (to the applicant) a proposal that includes measures to protect affected fish and wildlife resources. The final proposal that is mutually agreed upon by CDFW and applicant is the Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement .

3.0 M ETHODS
Prior to the on-site delineation, RVA biologists conducted a review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and geographic information systems (GIS) datasets of mapped California Blue Line Streams to assist in determining the potential locations of jurisdictional aquatic resources. Google Earth Pro aerial imagery was also utilized to assess current and historic presence or absence of flow in the Project area.

RVA biologists Miranda Villalobos and Justinne Manahan conducted the jurisdictional delineation field visit on December 20, 2022 from approximately 9:30am to 11:30am. Field conditions were sunny, cool, and breezy, with temperatures ranging from 40 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) to 55°F. The Project survey area included the proposed Project site work area limits, with an approximately 100-foot buffer.

Lateral limits of non -wetland waters of the U.S./State for USACE and RWQCB were identified using field indicators of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as described in A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USACE 2008). For each feature exhibiting the potential presence of an OHWM, RVA biologists completed a 2010 Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet following the guidance provided in the Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USACE 2010).

CDFW potential jurisdictional boundaries were determined based on the presence of streambed and associated riparian habitat and/or wetland areas. Streambeds considered within CDFW jurisdiction were delineated based on the definition of streambed as "a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supporting fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports riparian vegetation" (Title 14, Section 1.72). Riparian habitat refers to vegetation and habitat EXHIBIT 5
7 associated with a stream. The CDFW jurisdictional habitat includes all riparian shrub or tree canopy that may extend beyond the banks of a stream.

While conducting the delineation, potentially jurisdictional features were recorded using a hand- held Trimble Geo 7x Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. Site conditions and photographs were documented utilizing a photograph application that marked the photos with the approximate latitude and longitude coordinates where each photo was taken. Plants were identified and catalogued in field notebooks and photographed with approximate locations noted.

4.0 R ESULTS

4.1 H YDROLOGY
The Project site is located within Los Angeles Watershed (HUC 1807105) (see Figure 3). The Project site is located within the Los Angeles River just upstream of the confluence of the L os Angeles River and Verdugo Wash. The Los Angeles River is a blue -line perennial stream that is designated as a Traditionally Navigable Water (TNW) for its entire length and flows for approximately 51 miles until it releases flows into the Pacific Ocean. The Los Angeles River at the location of the project site flows in a west to east direction. Flows observed within the channel during the time of survey were primarily from recent winter rain and urban runoff .

4.2 T OPOGRAPHY AND SOILS
Topography is relatively flat along the concrete -lined bottom of the Los Angeles River channel, the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk/trail to the north, and the Los Angeles River Bike Path and North Zoo Drive to the south.

The site’s elevational profile varies from north to south, with the elevation at approximately 450 feet (ft.) above mean sea level (AMSL) at the top of the channel at the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk/trail to the north, approximately 433 ft. AMSL along the bottom of the channel, and at approximately 456 ft. AMSL at the top of the channel at the Los Angeles River Bike Path to the south.

Figure 4 – Soils Map, provides an overview of soil types within the Project site. A review of the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Web Soil Survey indicates that Project site soils include:
• 1001: Urban land-Metz-Pico complex; 0 to 2 percent slopes • 1264: Xeropsamments, frequently flooded; 0 to 2 percent slopes • 1012: Urban land-Tujunga-Typic Xerothents, sandy substratum complex; 0 to 2 percent slopes

EXHIBIT 5
8 EXHIBIT 5

GLENDALE GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE PROJECT
Soi
ls Map
Figure 4
Flower
St
Flower St
Fairmont Ave
Zoo Dr
Griffith Park
Ferraro Fields
Zoo Dr
Playground
Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Los Angeles, California State Parks, © OpenS
treetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph,
GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS, Microsoft, Vantor
Legend
Project Work Area Limits
1001: Urban land-Metz-Pico complex, 0 to 2
percent slopes.
1012: Urban land-Tujunga-Typic Xerorthents,
sandy substratum complex, 0 to 2 percent
slopes.
1264: Xeropsamments, frequently flooded, 0 to
2 percent slopes.
0 240 480
Feet
¯
EXHIBIT 5
10 4.3 S ITE CONDITIONS
The Project site is located within urban areas within the cities of Glendale to the north and Los Angeles to the south, within Los Angeles County. On-site land uses are considered disturbed and naturally occurring habitats have been eliminated due to channelization and development alon g the Los Angeles River channel. The Project site is within a concrete -lined portion of the channel and is bordered by pavement trails and roads (the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk and Fairmont Street to the north; the Los Angeles River Bike Path and North Zoo Drive to the south) on both sides of the channel.

Within the study area, the Los Angeles River is confined by a half-trapezoidal (to the south), half- vertical concrete wall (to the north) channel. During the site visit, a moderately shallow level of water was present (about 2 inches ) with minimal sediment deposition and some algae growth present.

4.4 V EGETATION/LAND USE
Vegetation present in and around the proposed Project site is relatively sparse and reflects ornamental plantings (e.g., trees and shrubs along walkways and within planters) or occurrences of herbaceous weedy species. Five overall vegetation types/land use types were identified during the biological assessment: developed, developed – concrete-lined channel, open water (concrete-lined channel), native/landscaped, and western sycamore (see Figure 4 – Vegetation/Land Use Types Map and Table 1 below).

Developed
The proposed Project area is surrounded by paved and/or concreted developed areas, such as adjacent sidewalks/walkways, roads, and the paved walking/bike trails. These developed areas do not contain or support vegetation.

Open Water (Concrete -Lined Channel)
The low-flow portion of the concrete -lined, concrete -bottomed Los Angeles River channel is inundated with enough water to cover the surface of the channel bottom. No vegetation was observed within the open water areas of the channel.

EXHIBIT 5
Native/Landscaped
Native/landscaped vegetation consists of various native and non- native plantings in and around the study area within planters along the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk to the north (the majority of the vegetation being outside the Project’s northern site boundary). Species within these planters include: desertbroom (Baccharis sarathroides), African sumac (Searsia lancea), cheeseweed ( Malva parviflora), tumbleweed ( Kali tragus sp. tragus), and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis). A few early -stage coast live oak trees ( Quercus agrifolia) were also observed within these planter areas.

EXHIBIT 5

GLENDALE GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE PROJECT
Figure 5
Vegetation/Land Use Types Map
Flower St
Fairmont
Ave
Zoo Dr
Griffith Park
Ferraro Fields
Zoo Dr
Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Los Angeles, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomT
om, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS, Microsoft, Vantor Legend
Project Work Area Limits
Developed
Developed - Concrete-
Lined Channel
Open Water (Concrete-
Lined Channel)
Native/Landscaped
Park Landscaping
Western Sycamore
(Platanus racemosa)
0 225 450
Feet
¯
EXHIBIT 5
13 4.5 F EDERAL AND STATE JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCES
The survey area contains one drainage feature, the Los Angeles River, a concrete- lined flood control channel , a portion of which is located within the Project site work area limits . As di
scussed, t he Los Angeles River is a blue -line perennial stream that is designated as a Trad
itionally Navigable Water ( TNW) for its entire length and flows for approximately 51 mil es until it releases flows into the Pacific Ocean. Flows observed within the channel during the time of survey were primarily from recent winter r ain a nd urban runoff . No additional jurisdictional res
ources are within the study area boundaries.

This segment of the channelized L os Angeles River within the Project area exhibits physical evid
ence of an OHWM ; observed staining of the concrete side slopes indicate the OHW M is approximately 12 inches above the toe of the slope. Widths of the LA River within the Project work area limits average approximately 241.78 feet. USACE and RWQCB jurisdiction associated with the LA River within the Project work area limits total approximate ly

2.80 a cres (approximately 508.74 linear feet ) (Figure 6 – USACE/RWQCB Jurisdictional Map).

CDFW jurisdiction associated with the L os Angeles River within the Project work area limi ts ex
tends top of the c hannel, bank to bank . Due to the lack of soils and vegetation within the concrete channel, there is no associated riparian habitat present in this portion of the Los Angeles River. Bank to bank widths within CDFW jurisdiction were approximately 308.57 feet. CDFW jurisdiction totaled approximately 3.84 acres (approximately 641.63 linear fee t) of unvegetated streambed (Figure 7 – CDFW Jurisdictional Map ).

No State or Federal jurisdictional wetlands were observed within Project work area limits or within close proximity to work area limits. The closest area of the Los Angeles River channel exhibiting potential wetland features is located more than 300 ft. upstream of the Project work area limits and would not be impacted by Project activities. As described, the segment of the Los Angeles River channel associated with the Project site is c oncrete-lined and features mini mal v
egetation. Due to the concrete - line d nature of this segment of the channel, there were no suitable areas in which digging a test pit for potential wetland features was possible.

Please refer to the following table, Figure 5 – USACE/RWQCB Jurisdictional Map, and Figure 6 – CDFW Jurisdictional Map for a detailed s ummary of the f ederal and s tate jurisdictional areas.

EXHIBIT 5
14 Table 1: Summary of Jurisdictional Areas
Jurisdictional
Feature
USACE
Jurisdiction
(acres)
RWQCB
Jurisdiction
(acres)
CDFW
Jurisdiction
(acres)
Length
(linear
feet)
Latitude/
Longitude
Class of
Aquatic
Resource
LA River 2.80 2.80 3.84 ~650 34.156321°/ -
118.282288°
Non-
Section 10 -
non
wetland
Total 2.80 2.80 3.84 ~650 n/a n/a
EXHIBIT 5

GLENDALE GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE PROJECT
Figure 6
USACE and RWQCB Jurisdiction
Fairmo
nt Ave
Zoo Dr
Zoo Dr
Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Los Angeles, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomT
om, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS, Microsoft, Vantor EXHIBIT 5

GLENDALE GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE PROJECT
Figure 7
CDFW Jurisdiction
Flower St
Fairmon t Ave
Zoo Dr
Zoo Dr
Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Los Angeles, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, T
omTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS, Microsoft, Vantor Legend
Project Work Area Limits
CDFW Jurisdiction within Project
Site
CDFW Jurisdiction outside
Project Site
0 130 260
Feet
¯
EXHIBIT 5
17 6.0 C ONCLUSION
As the Project would include both temporary and permanent impacts within jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and waters of the State , the Project would need to obtain a regulatory Section 404 Nationwide Permit, RWQCB Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and CDFW Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement approvals prior to development of the site.

EXHIBIT 5
18 7.0 R EFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1994. Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements Section 1600-1607 California Fish and Wildlife Code.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, April 2022. Hydric Soils List of California . (http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2007. Practices for Documenting Jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA, Regional Guidance Letter 07 -01.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2008. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark in the Arid West Region of the Western United States.

U.S. Arm Corps of Engineers, 2010. Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2001. Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Preliminary Wetland Delineations.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey. (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Habitat and Resource Conservation, Wetland Geodatabase. (http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/NWI/index.html) U.S. Geological Survey, 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Quadrangles, Burbank, California EXHIBIT 5
19 Attachment 1 – Site Photographs
EXHIBIT 5
20 EXHIBIT 5
21 Attachment 2 – Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet

EXHIBIT 5
22 EXHIBIT 5
23 EXHIBIT 5

Glendale City CouncilJune 9, 2026

Glendale City Council
June 9, 2026