HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.28.25 Board Correspondence - FW_ Comment on Filing submitted in FERC P-2107-000 by American Whitewater,et al.From:Clerk of the Board
To:Clerk of the Board; Connelly, Bill; Cook, Holly; Cook, Robin; Durfee, Peter; Jessee, Meegan; Kimmelshue, Tod; Kitts, Melissa; Krater, Sharleen; Lee, Lewis; Little, Melissa; Pickett, Andy; Ritter, Tami; Stephens, Brad J.; Sweeney, Kathleen; Teeter,
Doug; Zepeda, Elizabeth
Cc:Loeser, Kamie; Nuzum, Danielle
Subject:Board Correspondence - FW: Comment on Filing submitted in FERC P-2107-000 by American Whitewater,et al.
Date:Tuesday, October 28, 2025 4:28:48 PM
Please see Board Correspondence -
-----Original Message-----
From: 'FERC eSubscription' <eSubscription@ferc.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2025 1:05 PM
Subject: Comment on Filing submitted in FERC P-2107-000 by American Whitewater,et al.
.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
On 10/28/2025, the following Filing was submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Washington D.C.:
Filer: American Whitewater
American Whitewater (as Agent)
Docket(s): P-2107-000
Lead Applicant: Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Filing Type: Comment on Filing
Description: Comments of American Whitewater et al. and requests that FERC deny Pacific Gas and Electric Company's 60 Percent Progress Report and Extension of Time Request re the Poe Hiking Trail re the Poe Dam of
the Poe Hydroelectric Project under P-2107.
To view the document for this Filing, click here https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_num=20251028-
5157__;!!KNMwiTCp4spf!E5YiPS4BSXCeeL63pri1f7k5XtEl8n6EdxbLHQJnrxJO_Fthkimmlt0AGp2b1vN_3Z9t7z5ZfKc4j5hOj2iM2GDSQ5KheNRPc8h8$
To modify your subscriptions, click here:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not respond to this email.
Online help is available here:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.ferc.gov/efiling-help.asp__;!!KNMwiTCp4spf!E5YiPS4BSXCeeL63pri1f7k5XtEl8n6EdxbLHQJnrxJO_Fthkimmlt0AGp2b1vN_3Z9t7z5ZfKc4j5hOj2iM2GDSQ5KheNEPZpsh$
or for phone support, call 866-208-3676.
Scott Harding
Stewardship Associate
scott@americanwhitewater.org
PO Box 34
Forks of Salmon, CA 96031
541-840-1662
October 28, 2025
Debbie-Anne Reese, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20426
Submitted electronically
Re: Stakeholder Comments on Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s September 30, 2025 Poe
Hiking Trail 60% Progress Report and Extension of Time Request (P-2107)
Dear Secretary Reese:
American Whitewater, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Konkow Valley Band of
Maidu Indians, Mike Taylor, and Peggy Moak (collectively, “Stakeholders”) submit these
comments in response to Pacific Gas and Electric Company ’s (“PG&E”) Poe Hiking Trail 60
Percent Progress Report and Extension of Time Request, filed with the Commission on
September 30, 2025.1 Stakeholders have participated throughout the Poe Hiking Trail
planning process and have a direct interest in ensuring the trail’s timely completion
consistent with the project license, Commission orders, and in a manner that fully protects
cultural and natural resources. We remain concerned that PG&E is significantly behind
schedule, is operating on unapproved plan and schedule revisions, a self-granted extension
of time, and that its approach to project implementation is resulting in compounding delays.
As detailed in the following comments, PG&E’s filing: 1) fails to satisfy the Commission’s
explicit reporting requirements by omitting both a summary of stakeholder comments and
substantive information on project progress; 2) seeks an extension of time that lacks
procedural and substantive foundation, relying on unapproved schedule revisions and
insufficient justification for further delay; and 3) misinterprets the Commission’s clarification
of its “all-weather” trail standard under Article 407.
1 PG&E, Poe Hiking Trail 60% Progress Report and Extension of Time Request, Accession No. 20250930-5211 (Sept.
30, 2025) (“60% Progress Report and EOT Request”).
Document Accession #: 20251028-5157 Filed Date: 10/28/2025
Additionally, we submit a detailed procedural timeline of the Poe Hiking Trail project
(Enclosure A) and our comments to PG&E on the 60 Percent Design Drawing (Enclosure B).
This letter is intended to assist the Commission in evaluating PG&E’s September 30, 2025
filing, reestablishing clarity and accountability in the project schedule, and ensuring
compliance with the Commission’s Order Modifying and Approving Plan and Schedule for
the Design and Construction of the Poe Hiking Trail (“Plan and Schedule Approval Order”).2
Specific requested Commission actions follow each comment section.
We hope that the Commission will take notice and engage fully in its oversight role to
ensure that the license requirements and Commission-ordered schedule are implemented
as intended and without further delay.
1.PG&E’s 60 Percent Progress Report Does Not Meet the Commission’s Requirements
and Should Be Revised and Re-Submitted
PG&E's 60 Percent Progress Report fails to meet the Commission's requirements in two
material respects: 1) it omits required information on project progress, and 2) it fails to
include the required summary of stakeholder comments. These deficiencies prevent the
Commission from assessing either project status or PG&E's stakeholder engagement.
The Plan and Schedule Approval Order explains that the purpose of these reports is “to keep
the Commission informed during the planning and design portions of work” and to
summarize PG&E’s progress in completing the Poe Hiking Trail.3 PG&E's filing fails to provide
this required information, submitting only a design drawing without any narrative
description of work completed, ongoing activities, or progress toward trail completion. To
comply with the Order, PG&E must substantively report on progress relative to the 13 steps
and 74 tasks in its approved plan, identifying current status and alignment with the
approved schedule.4
2 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Order Modifying and Approving Plan and Schedule for the Design and
Construction of the Poe Hiking Trail, 182 FERC ¶ 62,123, at Ordering Paragraph (B) (Mar. 2, 2023) (“Plan and
Schedule Approval Order”).
3 Ibid. at P 10.
4 See PG&E, Poe Hiking Trail Stakeholder Consultation and Plan and Schedule, Accession No. 20230117-5244 (Jan.
17, 2023), at PDF page 4 (showing the plan and schedule Gantt chart identifying 13 steps comprising a total of 74
tasks with a corresponding date range for each). The Commission approved this plan and schedule in its March 2,
2023 Plan and Schedule Approval Order.
2
Document Accession #: 20251028-5157 Filed Date: 10/28/2025
The Order also requires that each progress report “include a summary of stakeholder
comments and indicate how the licensee will address the comments during design
development.” PG&E omits this requirement entirely, instead stating it would file copies of
stakeholder comments later,5 even though stakeholders submitted them to PG&E by its
requested deadline. But, PG&E set the stakeholder comment deadline for the same day it
filed the report, eliminating the 30-day period the Commission intended for review,
summarization, and response.6 This approach fails to comply with the Order and
undermines the process the Commission established for stakeholder engagement.
Until PG&E properly complies with progress-reporting requirements, the Commission will
continue to lack the information needed to determine whether the project is being
implemented as directed. We inform the Commission that it is not.
Requested Commission Action
Stakeholders respectfully request that the Commission direct PG&E to revise and re-submit
its 60 Percent Progress Report in full compliance with the Plan and Schedule Approval Order,
including: 1) substantive reporting on progress relative to the approved plan's steps and
tasks and 2) proper consideration of stakeholder input.
2. PG&E’s Extension of Time Request Lacks Procedural and Substantive Basis
PG&E's 60 Percent Progress Report leads with an extension of time request seeking to
postpone the 90 and 100 percent design milestones to late 2026 and early 2027. PG&E cites
the need for additional time to delineate a newly identified cultural site and complete
seasonally dependent botanical surveys in spring 2026 to inform whether trail alignment
adjustments are needed.7 The request, however, relies on modifications to the plan and
schedule that the Commission has not approved and lacks sufficient information for the
Commission or stakeholders to evaluate it against current project progress and the
Commission-approved schedule.
7 60% Progress Report and EOT Request, at PDF pages 1-2.
6 See Plan and Schedule Approval Order, at P 10 (“The [progress] report must be filed 30 days after stakeholder
comments are due.”).
5 60% Progress Report and EOT Request, at PDF page 2; as of the filing of this letter on Oct. 29, 2025, PG&E has not
submitted any stakeholder comments to the Commission, nor would filing the comments alone satisfy the
requirements.
3
Document Accession #: 20251028-5157 Filed Date: 10/28/2025
Stakeholders strongly support completion of the Poe Hiking Trail in a manner that fully
protects natural resources and the cultural resources identified by the Konkow Valley Band
of Maidu Indians. Protective measures must be incorporated into final design and
construction, such as trail realignment where warranted, the use of qualified Tribal monitors
during all ground-disturbing activities, and collaboration with the Tribe on interpretive
signage that conveys cultural significance. However, PG&E has not demonstrated that
additional delay is necessary to ensure these protections are fully addressed and integrated
into the final trail alignment and construction plan.
As shown in Enclosure A, the procedural history of the Poe Hiking Trail project reflects
PG&E’s repeated failure to adhere to Commission-approved schedules and its pattern of
submitting unapproved revisions that have cumulatively delayed project completion.
PG&E’s Request Relies on its Unapproved Schedule Revision and a Self-Granted Extension
In its March 2, 2023 Plan and Schedule Approval Order, the Commission approved PG&E’s
plan and schedule as modified, thereby establishing the controlling baseline for the Poe
Hiking Trail project. While the Commission expressly reserved its own right to require
changes to the plan or schedule based on information submitted in PG&E’s progress reports,
it did not authorize PG&E to make such changes unilaterally.8 Nevertheless, PG&E has twice
revised its plan and schedule without Commission approval, thereby usurping the
Commission's authority over the timelines governing its own orders and requirements.
PG&E first submitted a plan and schedule revision for Commission approval on April 10,
2024,9 and then requested an extension of time on August 30, 2024,10 based on that
revision. The Commission never approved or acted upon either filing. Despite this, PG&E
proceeded as though both had been approved, ultimately presenting its 60 percent design
drawing to stakeholders on August 31, 2025, and filing the corresponding progress report on
September 30, 2025 (see Comment 1). Under the Commission-approved plan and schedule,
these actions were due by January 1 and February 1, 2024, respectively—making PG&E’s 60
Percent Progress Report more than 20 months late.
10 PG&E, Poe Hiking Trail Progress Report and Extension of Time Request, Accession No. 20240830-5018 (submitted
Aug. 29, 2024, filed Aug. 30, 2024) (“30% Progress Report and EOT Request ”).
9 PG&E, Poe Hiking Trail Plan and Schedule Update, Accession No. 20240410-5168 (Apr. 10, 2024) (“PG&E Plan and
Schedule Update”).
8 Plan and Schedule Approval Order, at Ordering Paragraph (B).
4
Document Accession #: 20251028-5157 Filed Date: 10/28/2025
Having disregarded the Commission’s approved schedule, PG&E now seeks to have that
overreach effectively excused—asking the Commission to ratify its unilateral revisions and
self-granted extension by granting nearly another year to complete the 90 and 100 percent
trail designs.
Yet the Commission can extend only those deadlines that it has itself established or
previously approved. Rule 2008 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18
C.F.R. § 385.2008, provides that the Commission may grant an extension of time for good
cause upon a timely motion filed before the applicable deadline. Because it has not
approved PG&E’s April 2024 plan and schedule revision or its August 2024 extension-of-time
request, the deadlines proposed in those filings have no regulatory effect and provide no
valid procedural basis for further extension.
Additionally, the deadlines for the 90 percent and 100 percent milestones in the
Commission’s March 2, 2023 Plan and Schedule Approval Order have expired by one year
and by four months, respectively. Under Rule 2008(b),11 the Commission may grant
retroactive deadline relief only upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances sufficient to
justify the failure to act in a timely manner—something PG&E has not attempted to
demonstrate. Therefore, there is no valid procedural basis for the Commission to now grant
a retroactive extension of time tied to the deadlines in its Plan and Schedule Approval Order.
PG&E Fails to Provide Information Necessary for Evaluation
Beyond these procedural deficiencies, PG&E's filing is substantively inadequate, lacking
information needed to evaluate the basis for additional delay and its implications for project
completion.
PG&E provides no clear statement of need, referring only to two ongoing surveys. It
discloses that a cultural site identified in spring 2025 requires further delineation to define
its boundaries and assess potential conflicts with the trail design, but does not explain why
progress could not continue through alternative methods of work such as a phased
approach—an option PG&E itself identified in its trail feasibility report12—as a means to
allow continued progress while providing time to fully evaluate and protect the site. It also
12 See PG&E, Poe Hiking Trail Feasibility Study, Accession No. 20200730-5226 (July 30, 2020), at PDF page 16
(discussing phased construction approach to accommodate land acquisition, weather, and environmental
assessment challenges).
11 18 C.F.R. § 385.2008 (Rule 2008, Extensions of Time).
5
Document Accession #: 20251028-5157 Filed Date: 10/28/2025
states that comprehensive botanical surveys for rare and sensitive plants must be conducted
but offers no explanation for why these surveys were not completed during the spring 2025
blooming period—work for which PG&E previously sought additional time in its August 30,
2024 extension of time request.
Most critically, PG&E fails to demonstrate how additional work on these surveys
necessitates postponing the 90 and 100 percent design milestones by nearly a year or how
such a delay would not, in turn, affect the project ’s stated 2027 construction start. Without
this information, the Commission cannot assess whether the requested extension would
help move the project toward completion or simply perpetuate PG&E’s pattern of
incremental delays that have resulted in continual slippage of the overall schedule.
Finally, PG&E did not provide the Commission with the stakeholder input it solicited on its
extension of time request. PG&E first circulated substantive details of the request to
stakeholders after close of business on September 24, 2025,13 and then filed it with the
Commission only six days later, on September 30—providing insufficient time for
stakeholders to review or comment. PG&E followed the same pattern in August 2024,
requesting stakeholder input on that extension on August 28 and submitting it to the
Commission the next day.14
Requested Commission Actions
Stakeholders respectfully request that the Commission:
1. Deny without prejudice PG&E’s September 30, 2025 extension of time request until the
Commission reasserts control over the schedule. The Commission should reaffirm the
March 2, 2023 Plan and Schedule Approval Order remains the controlling baseline and
direct PG&E to cease operating under unapproved revisions.
2. Require PG&E to advance design development in parallel with survey completion to
prevent further schedule slippage. PG&E should proceed with all design elements not
dependent on survey results while coordinating with the Konkow Valley Band of Maidu
Indians and resource agencies on any necessary realignments.
14 See PG&E 30% Progress Report and EOT Request. PG&E’s documentation of stakeholder input is at PDF page 30.
13 See 60% Progress Report and EOT Request, at PDF page 31.
6
Document Accession #: 20251028-5157 Filed Date: 10/28/2025
3. Strengthen oversight through structured progress reporting and consultation
requirements. The Commission should require quarterly progress reports comparing
actual versus planned progress for all tasks in the March 2, 2023 Plan and Schedule,
including identification of delays, critical-path dependencies, and corrective actions,
and mandate at least 30 days of stakeholder review and comment on any future
proposed extensions or schedule revisions before they are filed with the Commission.
3. Stakeholder 60 Percent Design Comments and Clarification Regarding Trail Class
Determination
Because PG&E did not include stakeholder comments with its 60 Percent Progress Report
submittal, we now provide our comments as Enclosure B. Other stakeholders, including the
U.S. Forest Service, also submitted comments directly to PG&E.
PG&E provided stakeholders only the 60 Percent Design Drawing and no information on
progress toward the tasks in its Commission-approved plan and schedule. As a result, our
comments are limited to the design drawing, and we remain unaware of overall project
status, though it is evident from PG&E’s schedule revisions and its extension of time request
that the project is not on schedule.
Our comments focus on selecting the appropriate U.S. Forest Service Trail Class needed to
provide an all-weather trail. Trail Class is a Forest Service design framework with five
categories, from Class 1 (minimally developed) to Class 5 (fully developed), based on
intended use and management direction.15 Because about 60 percent of the Poe Hiking Trail
lies on National Forest System lands, its design must conform to Forest Service standards.
We believe Class 3 is appropriate given the number and size of stream crossings requiring
fords or bridges and to ensure a durable, year-round trail with lower maintenance needs.
Article 407 of the license requires PG&E to construct an “all-weather hiking trail.” In its 2022
Order on Rehearing, the Commission clarified that “all-weather trail” means a trail suitable
for year-round use and was not intended to impose any specific Forest Service Trail Class
standard, though it opined that a Class 1 or 2 trail could satisfy that description. PG&E,
however, has treated that opinion as a binding determination, telling stakeholders that
“FERC determined that Forest Service trail standards Class 2 would satisfy the all-weather
15 See U.S. Forest Service Trail Class Matrix and Trail Class Photo Examples.
7
Document Accession #: 20251028-5157 Filed Date: 10/28/2025
requirement in their October 20, 2022, order.”16 Only the U.S. Forest Service has authority to
prescribe the Trail Class for routes on National Forest System lands.
Requested Commission Action
Clarify that Article 407 does not impose any specific Forest Service Trail Class standard and
that the Commission’s statement that a Class 1 or 2 trail could satisfy the “all-weather ”
requirement was not a finding of fact. Acknowledge that the U.S. Forest Service has sole
authority to determine the appropriate Trail Class for the portions of the Poe Hiking Trail on
National Forest System lands.
Conclusion
PG&E's unapproved schedule revisions, a self-granted extension, and repeated disregard for
the requirements of Commission orders have effectively usurped the Commission's
authority over the Poe Hiking Trail project schedule and compliance. The absence of
Commission oversight has allowed these delays to compound, placing the trail's timely
completion increasingly at risk. PG&E's pattern of delay has eroded stakeholder confidence
that the company will give proper attention to the elements necessary for timely
completion. The Commission should reassert its authority, restore accountability to the
project schedule, and ensure that this long-awaited trail is completed in accordance with its
orders and license requirements.
Respectfully submitted,
Scott Harding
Stewardship Associate
American Whitewater
scott@americanwhitewater.org
Dave Steindorf
Hydropower Specialist
American Whitewater
dave@americanwhitewater.org
16See PG&E Plan and Schedule Update at PDF page 24. PG&E re-iterated this in its August 31, 2025 meeting with
stakeholders.
8
Document Accession #: 20251028-5157 Filed Date: 10/28/2025
Chris Shutes
Executive Director
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
blancapaloma@msn.com
/s/ Matthew Williford Sr.
Acting Tribal Chairman/
Cultural Resource Director
Konkow Valley Band of Maidu Indians
konkowvalleybandpoctribalchair@gmail.com
/s/ Mike Taylor
Intervenor
ljmftaylor68@gmail.com
/s/ Peggy Moak
Concow/Yankee Hill Representative
pmoak19@gmail.com
9
Document Accession #: 20251028-5157 Filed Date: 10/28/2025
Enclosure A: Poe Hiking Trail Project Procedural Timeline
March 29, 2007 –
Commission staff issues an Environmental Assessment for the Poe Project recommending
that PG&E:
“Conduct a feasibility study on improving an existing abandoned trail between
Bardee’s Bar and the Poe powerhouse road and compare the results of this study
with the information provided in PG&E’s September 2006 feasibility report on
modifying the abandoned construction road for use as a trail; and develop an
all-weather hiking trail in one of the two locations, based on the results of the study.”
FERC, Environmental Assessment for the Poe Hydroelectric Project, Accession No.
20070329-3015, at 248.
December 17, 2018 –
FERC issues the new license for the Poe Project. Article 404 requires PG&E to file a
Recreation Plan, including provisions for hiking-trail development where feasible.
FERC, Order Issuing New License, 165 FERC 62,172, Accession No. 20181217-3017.
January 16, 2019 –
American Whitewater files a request for rehearing of the Poe Project ’s new license,
asserting that the license order failed to specify requirements for the Bardee’s Bar Trail as
contemplated in the Environmental Assessment and seeking clarification that PG&E must
develop the trail following a feasibility study.
American Whitewater, Request for Rehearing and/or Clarification of the New License,
Accession No. 20190116-5092.
A-1
Document Accession #: 20251028-5157 Filed Date: 10/28/2025
April 18, 2019 –
FERC issues an order on rehearing requiring PG&E to conduct a feasibility study for a hiking
trail between Bardees Bar and Poe Powerhouse Road and, if feasible, to include a schedule
for construction of an all-weather trail.
FERC, Order Granting Rehearing, 167 FERC 61,047, Accession No. 20190418-3011.
July 30, 2020 –
PG&E files its feasibility study, which concludes the Poe Hiking Trail is feasible to construct at
an estimated cost of $645,861. In its cover letter, however, PG&E asserts the trail is
infeasible, citing a separate $2.47 million cost estimate prepared outside the study to
contradict its own findings.
PG&E, Poe Hiking Trail Feasibility Study, Accession No. 20200730-5226.
February 28, 2022 –
Commission staff modifies and approves PG&E’s Recreation Plan, rejecting PG&E’s
infeasibility claims and requiring the company to consult with stakeholders and file a plan
and schedule for constructing the Poe Hiking Trail within six months (by August 29, 2022).
FERC, Order Modifying and Approving Recreation Plan Under Article 404, 178 FERC
62,116, Accession No. 20220228-3008.
March 30, 2022 –
PG&E files a request for rehearing, effectively seeking to re-litigate the Commission’s finding
that the Poe Hiking Trail is feasible—a determination already confirmed by PG&E’s own
feasibility study. The filing challenges the requirement to construct the trail, citing (1)
adverse impacts on private property owners, (2) adverse impacts on environmental
A-2
Document Accession #: 20251028-5157 Filed Date: 10/28/2025
resources, (3) high construction and maintenance costs in rugged terrain, and (4) lack of
demand for new recreation facilities.
PG&E, Request for Rehearing of Recreation Plan Order, Accession No. 20220330-5259.
August 4, 2022 –
PG&E requests an extension of time to file its Poe Hiking Trail plan and schedule, citing its
pending rehearing request. Having taken no action toward developing the plan or advancing
trail work since March 2022, PG&E effectively treated its rehearing request as a stay of
license obligations, halting all progress despite Commission rules requiring continued
compliance while awaiting a rehearing response.
PG&E, Extension of Time Request – Poe Hiking Trail Plan and Schedule, Accession No.
20220804-5010.
October 20, 2022 –
The Commission rejects PG&E’s arguments on rehearing, reaffirms the trail’s feasibility,
dismisses its extension of time request, and requires it to consult with the U.S. Forest
Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Butte County, American Whitewater,
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, and Mike Taylor on a final route. FERC further
requires PG&E to file a plan and schedule for construction within 90 days.
FERC, Order on Rehearing and Dismissing Extension of Time Request, 181 FERC 61,040,
Accession No. 20221020-3038.
January 17, 2023 –
A-3
Document Accession #: 20251028-5157 Filed Date: 10/28/2025
PG&E submits its Poe Hiking Trail plan and schedule, identifying 13 steps comprising a total
of 74 tasks to be completed between October 2022 and April 2027. Trail construction is to
be completed by December 2026.
PG&E, Poe Hiking Trail Stakeholder Consultation and Plan and Schedule, Accession No.
20230117-5244.
February 2, 2023 –
PG&E submits supplemental stakeholder notes regarding the consultation process.
PG&E, Poe Hiking Trail Supplemental Letter re Stakeholder Notes, Accession No.
20230202-5110.
April 10, 2024 –
PG&E files an updated plan and schedule, delaying milestones and reducing the specificity
of plan tasks. The 30 percent design drawing was delivered to stakeholders on August 29,
2024, with 60 percent design drawings promised later that year. FERC has not approved this
update, yet PG&E has proceeded as if approved.
PG&E, Poe Hiking Trail Plan and Schedule Update, Accession No. 20240410-5168.
August 29, 2024 –
PG&E requests an extension of time, citing vegetation-management and fire-season
constraints, pushing the 60 percent design milestone back to August 31, 2025, with a
progress report due September 30, 2025. PG&E asserts this will not change the “overall
timeline,” though the delay effectively pushes 90 and 100 percent designs into 2026–2027.
FERC has not approved this extension, yet PG&E has proceeded as if granted.
A-4
Document Accession #: 20251028-5157 Filed Date: 10/28/2025
PG&E, Poe Hiking Trail Progress Report and Extension of Time Request, Accession No.
20240830-5018.
October 22, 2024 –
PG&E holds a stakeholder meeting to discuss its new Geologic Hazard Assessment Report, a
desktop review of geomorphic features. During this meeting, PG&E again asserted that the
trail was infeasible, despite the report containing no information to support this claim.
PG&E proposed a shorter trail design that was rejected by stakeholders.
September 30, 2025 –
PG&E submits another extension of time request, seeking to delay the 90 and 100 percent
design milestones by nearly one year.
PG&E, Poe Hiking Trail 60% Progress Report and Extension of Time Request, Accession No.
20250930-5211.
PG&E’s Pattern of Delay
Since issuance of the Poe Project license in 2018, PG&E has repeatedly delayed
implementation of the Poe Hiking Trail despite the Commission’s consistent findings
affirming the trail’s feasibility and public value. Across multiple rehearing attempts,
unapproved schedule changes, and a self-granted extension, PG&E has continued to
postpone compliance milestones while proceeding as though Commission approval had
been granted. The Commission-approved plan and schedule requires trail construction to be
completed by December 2026, yet PG&E’s current filings push key design milestones into
2027— ensuring that the project will miss the approved completion date. Construction
timing is now uncertain and subject to further delay, underscoring the need for the
Commission to reassert control and enforce timely compliance.
A-5
Document Accession #: 20251028-5157 Filed Date: 10/28/2025
Enclosure B: Stakeholder Comments on Poe Reach 60% Trail
Design
(Comments begin on the following page)
Document Accession #: 20251028-5157 Filed Date: 10/28/2025
Scott Harding
Stewardship Associate
scott@americanwhitewater.org
PO Box 34
Forks of Salmon, CA 96031
541-840-1662
September 30, 2025
Anna Urias
Hydro License Coordinator
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
axus@pge.com
Submitted electronically
Re: Stakeholder Comments on Poe Reach 60% Trail Design
Dear Ms. Urias,
We provide these comments in response to PG&E’s Poe Reach 60% Trail Design, as submitted
to stakeholders after the close of business on August 31, 2025. We generally support the 60%
design as presented and appreciate the progress made; however, we have several important
concerns that must be addressed to ensure the Poe Hiking Trail meets FERC’s requirements
and adequately protects cultural and natural resources.
As long-standing stakeholders in the Poe Hiking Trail proceeding, we are seriously concerned
by PG&E’s attempt to classify the trail as a U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Trail Class 1 or 2 in the
60% design document. This approach is inconsistent with the all-weather requirement of the
FERC order, fails to provide adequate protection for natural resources, and contradicts both
PG&E’s own 60% design and the advice of trail experts and agency staff.
FERC has ordered PG&E to construct an all-weather trail, and this is the clear standard that
must guide trail design and construction. Constructing the trail to Class 1 or 2 standards would
not provide the required all-weather route while adequately protecting sensitive natural
resources.
As PG&E’s biological surveys confirm, the trail alignment intersects aquatic habitat supporting
foothill yellow-legged frog and other species. Adequate crossings and stable tread are essential
not only for recreation access but also for minimizing sedimentation and other impacts to
aquatic systems. Class 3 standards are the appropriate level of development to provide a
durable, all-weather trail that adequately protects natural resources.
As PG&E’s 60% design demonstrates, the Poe Hiking Trail traverses steep, rocky terrain with
no fewer than 16 stream crossings. The design notes the need for substantial rock structures,
boardwalks, and multiple bridges (some across wide and erosive channels). These are defining
Document Accession #: 20251028-5157 Filed Date: 10/28/2025
elements of a USFS Class 3 trail, which includes a continuous tread and constructed features
necessary to provide all-weather access and protection of natural resources.
PG&E’s attempt to classify the trail as Class 1 or 2 is not supportable. Forest Service staff and
PG&E’s contracted trail design experts have indicated that Class 3 is the appropriate
classification. PG&E is not an expert in trail design and must rely on its contracted professionals
and agency staff to recognize that the Poe Hiking Trail must be, at minimum, a Class 3
trail—both to meet regulatory requirements and to ensure a durable trail with lower long-term
maintenance needs. Constructing the trail to the necessary standard is not an excessive burden
as a substantial portion of the trail only needs encroaching brush and slough removed to make it
a Class 3 trail.
We ask PG&E to proceed promptly with design and construction of the trail as a Class 3 trail
and abandon attempts to downgrade its features to a lower trail class that would not meet the
all-weather FERC license requirement or comply with natural resource protection requirements.
The Poe Hiking Trail is a required license condition and a long-overdue public recreation
resource. Continued delay is unacceptable.
The proposed alignment contains multiple switchbacks, particularly at the north end.
Switchbacks are often vulnerable to shortcutting by users. The existing switchback near Live
Oak Bar on the historic trail alignment has been dropped, and two switchbacks near the Poe
Road trailhead have also been eliminated from the proposed alignment. Reducing the overall
number of remaining switchbacks and armoring the resulting steeper trail segments, where
necessary, would minimize long-term ground disturbance and better protect the trail corridor.
Additionally, we reiterate our support for fully protecting cultural resources as identified by the
Konkow Valley Band of Maidu Indians. PG&E must commit to incorporating necessary
measures into final design and construction, including realignment or restricted access where
appropriate, the use of qualified tribal monitors during all ground-disturbing activities, and
collaboration on interpretive signage. Stakeholders support the Konkow Valley Band’s request
for these protections to be implemented with the seriousness and respect it deserves.
Finally, we note that PG&E intends to submit its 60% Design report to FERC today, September
30, 2025—the same date it set as the deadline for stakeholder comments. This approach does
not provide PG&E time to review stakeholder input and incorporate it into the 60% Design
before submission, effectively circumventing FERC’s intended process in which licensees solicit,
respond to, and integrate comments from agencies and stakeholders. We further note that
although PG&E requested an Extension of Time on August 30, 2024 to establish September 30,
2025 as the FERC filing date for the 60% Design (with an August 31, 2025 stakeholder review
milestone), FERC has never approved that request. We will provide separate comments on
PG&E’s most recent Extension of Time request, transmitted to stakeholders by email on
September 24, 2025.
2
Document Accession #: 20251028-5157 Filed Date: 10/28/2025
Sincerely,
Scott Harding
Stewardship Associate
American Whitewater
Dave Steindorf
Hydropower Specialist
American Whitewater
Matthew Williford Sr.
Tribal Chairperson/Cultural Resource Director
Konkow Valley Band of Maidu Indians
Chris Shutes
Executive Director
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
Peggy Moak
Concow/Yankee Hill Representative
Mike Taylor
Intervenor
3
Document Accession #: 20251028-5157 Filed Date: 10/28/2025
Document Content(s)
Stakeholder Comments on PGE 60% Report & Extension of Time P-2107.pdf.....1
Document Accession #: 20251028-5157 Filed Date: 10/28/2025