The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09.30.26 Board Correspondence - FW_ Dam Safety Compliance Report submitted in FERC P-2107-000 by Pacific Gas and Electric CompanyFrom:Clerk of the Board To:Clerk of the Board; Connelly, Bill; Cook, Holly; Cook, Robin; Dubose, Teri; Durfee, Peter; Jessee, Meegan; Kimmelshue, Tod; Kitts, Melissa; Krater, Sharleen; Lee, Lewis; Ritter, Tami; Simmons, Katie; Stephens, Brad J.; Sweeney, Kathleen; Teeter, Doug; Zepeda, Elizabeth Cc:Loeser, Kamie; Cannon, Jamie Subject:Board Correspondence - FW: Dam Safety Compliance Report submitted in FERC P-2107-000 by Pacific Gas and Electric Company Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2026 9:55:51 AM Please see Board Correspondence - Lewis Lee Administrative Technician - Confidential Butte County Administration 25 County Center Drive, Suite 200 • Oroville, CA 95965 T: 530.552.3326 www.buttecounty.ca.gov | lelee@buttecounty.ca.gov -----Original Message----- From: 'FERC eSubscription' <eSubscription@ferc.gov> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2026 9:46 AM Subject: Dam Safety Compliance Report submitted in FERC P-2107-000 by Pacific Gas and Electric Company .ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening attachments, clicking on links, or replying.. On 9/30/2026, the following Filing was submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Washington D.C.: Filer: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Docket(s): P-2107-000 Lead Applicant: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Filing Type: Dam Safety Compliance Report Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits the 90% Design Progress Report for the Poe Hiking Trail at 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=20260930-5101__;!!KNMwiTCp4spf!BhNBf8Z5DimqcMZkwBE6gor2QOBT- uppwQRFYZEbK8RzkWpxMVQCNbKNqkDP8vE6X8t4ZANQfPBn18FO80qIRWkxJLv9MJd9yowc$ To modify your subscriptions, click here: uppwQRFYZEbK8RzkWpxMVQCNbKNqkDP8vE6X8t4ZANQfPBn18FO80qIRWkxJLv9MI8Yr74H$ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please do not respond to this email. Online help is available here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.ferc.gov/efiling-help.asp__;!!KNMwiTCp4spf!BhNBf8Z5DimqcMZkwBE6gor2QOBT- uppwQRFYZEbK8RzkWpxMVQCNbKNqkDP8vE6X8t4ZANQfPBn18FO80qIRWkxJLv9MCpi9GhU$ or for phone support, call 866-208-3676. Power Generation 300 Lakeside Drive Oakland, CA 94612 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 28209 Oakland, CA 94604 September 30, 2026 Via Electronic Submittal (E-File) Debbie-Anne Reese, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 RE: Poe Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2107-CA Poe Hiking Trail – 90% Design Progress Report Dear Secretary Reese: This letter provides Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) 90% Design milestone progress report for construction of the Poe Hiking Trail, part of the Poe Hydroelectric Project, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) No. 2107. On March 2, 2023, FERC issued an order modifying and approving PG&E’s plan and schedule for designing and constructing the Poe Hiking Trail. Ordering Paragraph B requires PG&E to file progress reports at the stakeholder engagement milestones identified in the schedule. PG&E previously filed progress reports on October 1, 2023, and February 1, 2024, respectively. This letter satisfies the 90% Design milestone progress report requirement by summarizing Poe Hiking Trail design and coordination efforts from PG&E’s February 1, 2024, filing through September 29, 2026. Project Progress Following its February 1, 2024, filing, PG&E has continued design development with the Butte County Resource Conservation District (BCRCD). PG&E incorporated stakeholder feedback into its April 10, 2024, filing, presented the 30% design on July 22, 2024, and distributed updated and final packages on July 31 and August 29, 2024, respectively. On August 29, 2024, PG&E requested an extension of time (EOT) for the 60% design due to vegetation, survey, and access constraints. A September 30, 2024, geologic hazard assessment further informed trail alignment, crossing, safety, and construction considerations. Following vegetation clearing and resource surveys in spring 2025, PG&E identified a sensitive cultural site requiring additional surveys and alignment modifications. PG&E distributed the 60% design on August 31, 2025, and discussed it with stakeholders on September 4, 2025. On September 30, 2025, PG&E filed the 60% Design and requested an EOT for the 90% and 100% Design milestones. Stakeholders submitted comments on September 30 and October 28, 2025. PG&E responded to the September 30 stakeholder comments in the November 3, 2025, FERC filing. American Whitewater filed comments to FERC on October 28, 2025; PG&E has addressed these comments in Enclosure 2. When Gallo Glass declined an easement, PG&E discussed an alternative alignment with stakeholders on January 6, 2026. The revised alignment was completed on January 28, 2026, and representatives of PG&E, United States Forest Service (USFS), and BCRCD walked the proposed route on March 9, 2026. Debbie-Anne Reese, Secretary September 30, 2026 Page 2 PG&E issued the 90% design package on August 13, 2026. USFS and Mike Taylor subsequently provided comments addressing trail design, construction, river access, and consistency with field conditions. PG&E’s responses are included in this progress report, and applicable revisions will be incorporated into the 100% design. Current status PG&E is following the schedule in EOT filed with FERC on September 30, 2025, and anticipates meeting the remaining milestones. PG&E was engaged in the early phases on the permitting process late in 2025, but the unexpected reroute around the Gallo Glass property stopped progress until the reroute could be completed and the alignment verified in February 2026. The change in trail alignment produced a major delay in the permit application process and timing. The Poe Hiking Trail 90% Design is provided in Enclosure 1. PG&E’s response to Stakeholder comments for the 60% and 90% Design are provided in Enclosure 2. Stakeholder comments are included in Enclosure 3. For general questions, please contact Anna Urias, license coordinator for PG&E, at 530-201-1961. Sincerely, Matthew Joseph Supervisor, Hydro License Management Enclosures: 1. Poe Hiking Trail 90% Design 2. PG&E Responses to Comments 3. Stakeholder Comments cc: See Attached List Debbie-Anne Reese, Secretary September 30, 2026 Page 3 cc: via email w/enclosures Aondrea Bartoo, USFWS – aondrea_bartoo@fws.gov Jessica Dyke, SWRCB – Jessica.Dyke@Waterboards.ca.gov Nathan Fisch, SWRCB – Nathan.Fisch@waterboards.ca.gov Michael Maher, CDFW – Michael.Maher@wildlife.ca.gov Beth Lawson, CDFW – Beth.Lawson@wildlife.ca.gov Kamie Loeser, Butte County – kloeser@buttecounty.net Loren Everest, Forest Service – loren.everest@usda.gov Clay R. Davis, Forest Service – clay.davis@usda.gov Dawn Alvarez, Forest Service – dawn.alvarez@usda.gov Kurt Sable, Forest Service – kurt.sable@usda.gov Cecily Merwin, Forest Service – cecily.merwin@usda.gov Jacqueline Phipps, Forest Service – Jacqueline.Phipps@usda.gov Chuck James, Forest Service – Charles.James@usda.gov Jonathan Berry, Forest Service – jonathan.berry@usda.gov Leslie Edlund, Forest Service – leslie.edlund@usda.gov Colleen Heard, Forest Service – colleen.heard@usda.gov Emily Doe, Forest Service – Emily.Doe@usda.gov Erika Brenzovich, Forest Service – erika.brenzovich@usda.gov Caitlin Ostomel, Forest Service – caitlin.ostomel@usda.gov Scott Harding, American Whitewater – scott@americanwhitewater.org Dave Steindorf, American Whitewater – dave@americanwhitewater.org Theresa Lorejo-Simsiman, American Whitewater – theresa@americanwhitewater.org Thad Walker, BCRCD – thad@bcrcd.org Greg Mazu, Howler Group – greg@howler.group Tracey Ferguson, Plumas County – traceyferguson@countyofplumas.com Andy Pickett, Butte County – APickett@buttecounty.net Paula Daneluk, Butte County – PDaneluk@buttecounty.net Doug Teeter, Butte County – DTeeter@buttecounty.net Chris Shutes – blancapaloma@msn.com Mike Taylor – ljmftaylor68@gmail.com Peggy Moak – pmoak19@gmail.com Konkow Valley Band Tribal Chair – konkowvalleybandpoctribalchair@gmail.com ENCLOSURE 1 DRAWN BY GM ISSUE 8/10/2026 CLIENT Pacific Gas and Electric PROJECT POE REACH 90% TRAIL DESIGN PROJECT NO. POE REACH 90% TRAIL DESIGN CLIENT CONSULTANT Paciﬁc Gas and Electric Butte County Resource Conservation District 150 Chuck Yeager Way - Suite A Oroville, CA 95965 Phone: 530.693.3173 PROJECT LOCATION MAP Latitude: 39.746402 Longitude: -121.471864Table of Contents Section Page Scope of Work 1 Project Overview 2 Trail Management Objectives 3 Trail Typical Drawings 5 Apendix 1: Maps 9 IS S U E 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 2 6 DR A W N B Y GM CL I E N T Pa c i f i c G a s a n d E l e c t r i c PR O J E C T PO E R E A C H 9 0 % T R A I L D E S I G N PR O J E C T N O . Bu t t e C o u n t y R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n D i s t r i c t 15 0 C h u c k Y e a g e r W a y - S u i t e A Or o v i l l e , C A 9 5 9 6 5 Te l : ( 5 3 0 ) 6 9 3 - 3 1 7 3 01 Project Overview Map IS S U E 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 2 6 DR A W N B Y GM CL I E N T Pa c i f i c G a s a n d E l e c t r i c PR O J E C T PO E R E A C H 9 0 % T R A I L D E S I G N PR O J E C T N O . Bu t t e C o u n t y R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n D i s t r i c t 15 0 C h u c k Y e a g e r W a y - S u i t e A Or o v i l l e , C A 9 5 9 6 5 Te l : ( 5 3 0 ) 6 9 3 - 3 1 7 3 02 TMOs Class 2 Trail Trail Class 2 Description Trail Class 2 is deﬁned as a moderately developed trail type that provides a continuous and discernible, yet narrow and rough tread. Surfaces are typically composed of native materials with minimal grading, and while the route is clear to the user, it retains a primitive feel. Single-lane passage is standard, with only minor allowances for passing in select locations. This class balances accessibility with a rustic character, offering a backcountry experience while still maintaining a visible, passable route. Vegetation may encroach into the trailway, and naturally occurring obstacles—such as rocks, roots, or logs—may be present, requiring users to navigate around them. Constructed Features and Trail Elements Constructed features along a Class 2 trail are limited in size, scale, and frequency, and are often built from native materials. Drainage structures, if present, are minimal, with resource protection and route deﬁnition prioritized over user comfort. Crossings are generally by natural fords, and bridges, if installed, are only provided where necessary to protect resources or maintain essential connectivity. These trails are not designed for high levels of trafﬁc or speed but rather for low-impact, self-reliant travel consistent with the surrounding environment. Recreation Setting and Intended Use Signage is sparse, typically limited to route identiﬁcation at junctions or markers where the location is not self-evident. Regulatory and resource protection signs are infrequent, and destination or interpretive signs are uncommon. The surrounding recreation environment remains natural and essentially unmodiﬁed, often aligning with Primitive to Roaded Natural settings within the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). This class of trail is intended to provide a more challenging and immersive outdoor experience, supporting uses where a modest level of development is sufﬁcient to meet management objectives without compromising the trail’s natural character. Field-ﬁtting Trail Class Speciﬁcations Trail Class standards presented in this planset, including tread width, grade, corridor dimensions, and structure requirements, represent design targets developed from Forest Service Standard Trail Plans and Speciﬁcations and available ﬁeld survey data. Actual ﬁeld conditions, including but not limited to exposed bedrock, unstable slopes, dense vegetation, or other site constraints not fully captured during design, may render strict compliance with one or more standards impracticable at a given location. Where this occurs, the Contractor may deviate from the applicable standard to the minimum extent necessary to construct a safe and durable trail segment, provided the deviation is documented and approved by PG&E prior to or concurrent with construction. Such deviations shall not constitute a change in scope unless they result in a material change to trail length, alignment, or structure count. PRELIMINARY TRAIL MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES Trail Type Segment: Class 2 USFS Trail Difﬁculty Rating: Difﬁcult Tread Width: 36” Corridor Width: 24-48” wide Tread Rugosity: Rugged, rocky and rooty, protrusions <6” above trail tread Average Gradient: <7% Maximum Sustained Grade: 25% Maximum Grade: 35% Typical Tread Material: Native and limited grading. May be continuously rough. Sideslope Steepness: Flat to 25% Turn Radius: Minimal, <3ft, with grade reversals above and below Trail/Structure Formality: Structures of limited size, scale, and quantity; typically constructed of native materials. Structures adequate to protect trail infrastructure and resources. Wet Area Crossing Formality: Natural fords. Duty of Care: Low Intended Experience: This backcountry-style trail should provide a slow user experience. The ﬁnal trail alignment should constantly reverse with minimal sinuosity. Excavated soil will be utilized to elevate the trail where needed to avoid water. Section Detail: Class 2 Trail Not to Scale 1 1 LEAF LITTER TO COVER ALL BACKSLOPE AND SPOILS FOLLOWING TREAD COMPACTION TREAD WIDTH VARIES. MAXIMUM 36” OUTSLOPED 3-7% TRAIL TREAD SURFACE, MECHANICAL COMPACTION EXISTING GRADE STONE/UNDERSTORY TRAIL ANCHORS, NOT LESS THAN 24” Plan Detail: Class 2 Trail Not to Scale 1 2 LEAF LITTER TO COVER ALL BACKSLOPE AND SPOILS FOLLOWING TREAD COMPACTION TRESS AS ANCHORS NOT LESS THAN 24” TREAD WIDTH VARIES. MAXIMUM 36” TRAIL TREAD SURFACE, MECHANICAL COMPACTION VIA POWERED OR HAND TAMPING (TWO PASSES) IS S U E 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 2 6 DR A W N B Y GM CL I E N T Pa c i f i c G a s a n d E l e c t r i c PR O J E C T PO E R E A C H 9 0 % T R A I L D E S I G N PR O J E C T N O . Bu t t e C o u n t y R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n D i s t r i c t 15 0 C h u c k Y e a g e r W a y - S u i t e A Or o v i l l e , C A 9 5 9 6 5 Te l : ( 5 3 0 ) 6 9 3 - 3 1 7 3 03 Trail Typicals Grade ReversalGR Low Point Water Drain Backslop eTrail Tread 9. In many locations, small amounts (generally one to ﬁve cubic yards) of ﬁll material will be necessary to super elevate turns, protect root systems of mature trees, and/or create tread transitions to bridges, boardwalks, and/or constructed technical trail features. It is assumed that the majority of this material will be created through the tread cutting process. If this native material does not readily compact, suitable ﬁll should be located near the trail, transported with minimal impact to the surrounding forest, and off-trail tracking shall be naturalized with forest materials following the ﬁll development process. 10. All excavated materials not used in the trail tread or other trail structures shall be stabilized within seven (7) days of the construction. Spoils shall be distributed in a thin layer adjacent to the trail tread. Care should be taken to avoid placing spoils in drainages or swales. When possible, spoils should be mulched with native materials to discourage erosion while native seed stocks reestablish. 11. A turn is deﬁned as a change of direction across the landscape that requires the trail to cross the fall line. Turns will be constructed as traditional rolling crown switchbacks or as insloped, bermed turns as appropriate considering the trail type. All turns must include an entrance and exit rolling grade dip to minimize down-trail ﬂow during precipitation events. 12. A designed grade reversal or constructed rolling grade dip should occur at least every one hundred (100) feet and be strongly anchored to discourage short-cutting. 13. Any portion of trail above the ﬁnished trail tread shall be composed of mineral soil. Fill structures shall have a ﬁll slope no steeper than two-to-one (2:1) or the angle of repose of the local soil, whichever is shallower. Fill structures shall be completely stabilized and compacted. Raw faces that are not part of the trail tread shall be stabilized as described above. 14. Mechanized equipment use shall be limited to the trail corridor and approved access routes, as determined by the Owner’s Representative. Following construction, all track marks will be raked smooth and affected areas will be ﬁnished to have a natural shape (i.e. spoils piles rounded, smoothed and cleared of signiﬁcant brush, blade edges blended. A spill kit suitable for ﬁve gallons of ﬂuid will be maintained onsite and within ﬁve hundred feet (500’) of mechanized equipment whenever equipment is being operated. Scarring of trees is to be avoided. Machine service and fueling shall not take place within ﬁve hundred feet (500’) of a wetland or perennial drainage. Machine access is restricted to the trail corridor, except for minimal and restored incursions to access ﬁll materials. 15.Trail Class standards presented in this planset, including tread width, grade, corridor dimensions, and structure requirements, represent design targets developed from Forest Service Standard Trail Plans and Speciﬁcations and available ﬁeld survey data. Actual ﬁeld conditions, including but not limited to exposed bedrock, unstable slopes, dense vegetation, or other site constraints not fully captured during design, may render strict compliance with one or more standards impracticable at a given location. Where this occurs, the Contractor may deviate from the applicable standard to the minimum extent necessary to construct a safe and durable trail segment, provided the deviation is documented and approved by PG&E prior to or concurrent with construction. Such deviations shall not constitute a change in scope unless they result in a material change to trail length, alignment, or structure count. General Construction Notes 1.Trail details and specifications are located on Sheet 3 - Sheet 5. Sheets 2 and 3 present general trail corridor, tread, and constructed feature attributes. Immediately prior to the construction process ﬂagging will be placed to delineate a speciﬁed trail location. Minor ﬁeld adjustments are likely to occur during the construction process, including alterations to better position trails in relation to large trees and/or other vegetation, to avoid wet soils and/or other negative subsurface conditions, and/or to optimize the desired design characteristics of the particular trail. 2.Construction will be limited to the daily output that can be considered ﬁnished work and ready for inspection. 3.Construction access, materials stockpile, and/or borrow pit locations will be coordinated with the designated site representative of Pacific Gas & Electric. 4.All work shall be accordance with OSHA codes and standards. Nothing indicated in this document shall relieve those providing construction services from complying with any and all appropriate safety regulations. 5.Trail corridors developed in the design process have been cleared for environmental and/or historic/cultural signiﬁcance. In the event that a previously unidentiﬁed resource is found during the construction process, construction shall be immediately suspended and the constructor shall contact Pacific Gas & Electric's Project Manager who will coordinate an evaluation with subject matter experts and then determine the appropriate action. 6.Trail corridor clearing shall be conﬁned to vegetation within four feet (4’) of the centerline of the trail. Mature trees that delineate the trail corridor shall be retained where a minimum of thirty-six inches (36”) can be maintained at chest height (forty eight inches for ﬂow trails). Mature trees greater than six inches (6”) dbh and vines greater than two inches (2”) dbh will be retained unless permission for removal is secured with Owner’s Representative. Trees within the trail corridor shall be stumped and removed or cut to an elevation below the ﬁnished trail tread. All cleared vegetation shall be cut to a maximum length of twenty four-inch (24”) lengths, scattered so as not to impede water ﬂow, and butt ends of any cut materials greater than one inch (1”) shall be angled away from the trail tread. 7.Trail tread shall be full bench cut construction whenever possible, with mineral soil forming the entire width of the tread. Finished trail tread will be mechanically compacted and retain a three-to-eight percent (3-7%) outslope. Tread roughness, protrusions, and obstacles may be left as per each trails speciﬁcations. 8.Backslopes shall be graded back to an angle less than the angle of repose for the soil with a three-to-one (3:1) slope being the general condition. Large roots and stumps will be ﬂush cut with the ﬁnal slope and forest debris (i.e. leaves, needles, duff) will be lightly spread over the slope to aid in stabilization and naturalization. Rock Section Handhold Chain Reference: USFS STD_937-10-01 Railing System | Standard rock anchor and via ferrata installation practice Where the trail crosses a steep, exposed rock section, a fixed chain shall be installed to provide a handhold for balance. This is an aid only — not a fall-arrest or clip-in system. Use stainless steel glue-in or expansion anchor bolts, 1/2-inch minimum diameter, sized and embedded per manufacturer specification for the rock encountered. Avoid fractured or hollow-sounding rock. Use galvanized or stainless chain, 3/8-inch minimum link diameter, rated for outdoor use. Connect to anchors with rated quick links or master links — no improvised hardware. Space anchors 8 to 10 feet apart, closer at turns or difficult moves. Set the chain at a natural hand-reach height above the tread. Clear drilling dust from each hole before setting anchors. Allow glue-in anchors to fully cure before loading. Terminate chain ends with the same anchor standard used at intermediate points. Cap or tape sharp ends. Field-Cast Concrete Step Units Reference: USFS STD_936-20-01 Overlapping Rock Steps | USFS STD_933-20-02 Concrete Masonry Unit Barrier Where native rock of suitable size is unavailable, steps shall be constructed as field-cast concrete units formed to approximate natural stone. Units are cast individually at a staging area within approximately 200 feet of the installation point and short-hauled into place after cure. Each unit is 36 inches wide by 24 inches deep by 7.5 inches high, formed with standard 2x8 lumber. Use Quikrete 5000 mixed with on-site water per manufacturer instructions. Reinforce each unit with one sheet of 6x6, 10-gauge welded wire remesh cut to 33" x 21" and placed flat, mid-depth in the form. Cast on a flat, stable surface outside any environmental buffer. Build a reusable 2x8 form and reuse it for each unit. Place concrete in two lifts to work material under and through the remesh. Finish with a broom drag for a non-slip tread and chamfer all top edges 3/4-inch. Cure a minimum of 7 days before moving. Units weigh approximately 280 to 300 lbs — plan transport accordingly. Set each unit on a prepared mineral-soil or bedrock bearing surface, tilted 2% front to back to shed water. Maintain 10-inch minimum run, 10-inch maximum rise, and 6- inch minimum overlap between units. Backfill in 6-inch compacted lifts and grade to direct water off the tread. Embed Rock >2/3 Buried Large Rock Anchor >100- pounds Trail Tread Rock Retaining MonowallMWTypical Rock Step Not to Scale A 1 Trail Tread Trail Tread Step Width Typical Rock Step Not to Scale A 1 Trail Tread Trail Tread 6” Minimum Step Overlap 10 ” M a x i m u m Ri s e Tread Width Backslope Hinge Point Critical Edge Blend Fill No More than 4” deep Typical Full Bench ConstructionNot to Scale FB 1 Cut, Disperse, and Blend Typical Rock Armoring Not to Scale RA 1 Trail Tread 50lb Minimum Native Rock Tread Width Bury 2/3 of rock Mash small rock And dirt between Rock courses Rock Retaining Wall Not to Scale RW 1 Mineral Soil and Rock less than 3" to Backfill Capstone Course Foundation Course Wall Stone C o u r s e s Capstone with sufficient mass and/or shape to provide stable top course Foundation course to be tilted at 3:1 to support wall batter Rock and stones shall be sourced on site 36" 24 " 7 1 / 2 " 36" 36"24" 7 1 / 2 " ~30% of Step Depth No less than 60% of Step Depth Turn Apex Point Turn Radius Point Rock Wall When Specified Grade Reversal Below Upper Upper Grade Reversal Turning Platform Typical Turn Construction Not to Scale TT 1 IS S U E 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 2 6 DR A W N B Y GM CL I E N T Pa c i f i c G a s a n d E l e c t r i c PR O J E C T PO E R E A C H 9 0 % T R A I L D E S I G N PR O J E C T N O . Bu t t e C o u n t y R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n D i s t r i c t 15 0 C h u c k Y e a g e r W a y - S u i t e A Or o v i l l e , C A 9 5 9 6 5 Te l : ( 5 3 0 ) 6 9 3 - 3 1 7 3 04 Stream Crossing Typicals Rock-Armored Stream Crossing Reference: USFS STD_917-10-01 Natural Ford | USFS STD_917-20-01 and STD_917-20-02 Constructed Ford Rock Structure Stream crossings shall be constructed as rock-armored fords using native rock sourced on or near each site. The structure stabilizes the streambed and banks, provides a stable tread for trail users, and resists scour and headcut progression during high flows. Site- specific dimensions and armor lengths are shown in the stream crossing profiles. Site Prep Remove duff and topsoil from the ford footprint and approaches down to mineral soil. Clear oversized rock from the crossing area between side retainer locations. Stable embedded boulders may remain and be incorporated into the design. Excavate to foundation depth where specified. Install geotextile across the full foundation width where specified, lapping seams a minimum of 12 inches downstream. Rock Dam and Retainers Embed the rock dam into each bank a minimum of 12 inches. Construct the dam top level across the full ford width, 8 inches maximum above the typical streambed. Hand-place the largest available rock as the dam face, keying smaller rock into the gaps to minimize voids. Build the dam body to 2x bankfull height as shown on the drawings. Set side retainers perpendicular to the tread, buried into the bank and keyed into the streambed, at approximately 12-inch spacing. Surface Course Hand-place and interlock rock across the full ford width and length shown on the drawings. A properly placed rock should not move under a firm kick. Keep the surface flush with or slightly above the streambed, with no rock projecting more than 3 inches above its neighbors. Where specified, install stepping rocks on the upstream edge, embedded one-third of their depth. Approach Transitions Blend approach grade as the average of the upland trail grade and ford grade — avoid abrupt breaks at the bank. Taper tread width gradually from trail width to full ford width. Outslope or grade-reverse the approach so water sheds off the tread before reaching the crossing. Armor erodible banks with rock or compacted backfill. Rock Sizing by Flow Exposure Low-flow crossings: standard on-site rock is adequate. Focus on tight interlocking and bank embedment. Moderate-flow crossings: face rock should require two people to place. Watch grade relative to any downstream features such as waterfalls. Debris-fan crossings with shifting channels: prioritize deep bank embedment and field-fit the alignment if the channel has moved since staking. Highest-flow crossings: use the largest available rock on the project for the dam face. Small swale crossings: light armoring is sufficient — do not over-build. Begin/End Ford Width to Daylight Begin/End Ford Width to Daylight Begin/End Ford Width to Daylight Retainer Type As Specified Bury Side Retainer Perpendicular to Tread Surface High Water MarkDownstream Ford Width Install Stepping Rocks on Upstream Edge of Tread Remove Large Rocks to Provide Level Tread Surface in Channel Retainer Type as Specified 12 inches Typical Spacing PLAN VIEW Begin/End Ford Width to Daylight Begin/End Ford Width to Daylight Tread Backfill with Stable MaterialRetainer Type as Specified C L Stream UPSTREAM VIEW Install Stepping Rocks Embed 1/3 of Rock Depth Downsteam STEPPING ROCK DETAIL Ford WidthRock Dam Length Hand-placed Rock Dam Face Rocks Install Stepping Rocks Embed 1/3 of Rock Depth Downstream Typical Streambed 2X BACKFULL HEIGHT Construct Top of Dam Level Embed Rock Dam Into Each Bacnk and Stream Bottom 12 inches minimum Ford Width Transition Area Approach Surface Course Length Approach 2x Backfull Height Transition Area C L Stream Surface Course when specified and staked on the ground Typical Foundation when specified Foundation Length IS S U E 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 2 6 DR A W N B Y GM CL I E N T Pa c i f i c G a s a n d E l e c t r i c PR O J E C T PO E R E A C H 9 0 % T R A I L D E S I G N PR O J E C T N O . Bu t t e C o u n t y R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n D i s t r i c t 15 0 C h u c k Y e a g e r W a y - S u i t e A Or o v i l l e , C A 9 5 9 6 5 Te l : ( 5 3 0 ) 6 9 3 - 3 1 7 3 05 Signage and Parking 100ft by 100ft existing parking Proposed Trail Connection On Road Parking Proposed Trail Connection Parking Area Sign Installation Reference: USFS EM-7100-15 Sign and Poster Guidelines for the FS Sign posts and panels at the parking area shall be installed in accordance with USFS EM-7100-15 Sign and Poster Guidelines for the Forest Service. That document governs sign specifications, materials, and placement. The following notes apply to all post and hardware installation. Posts shall be treated wood or steel as shown on the construction drawings. Wood posts shall be pressure-treated with CCA (Chromated Copper Arsenate) rated for UC4A ground contact. Post sizing and maximum sign area by post size are shown in the sign details table on the drawings. Steel post sizing shall conform to EM-7100-15. All hardware — including bolts, nuts, washers, and lag screws — shall be aluminum or hot-dip galvanized steel. Befor e installing lag screws, drill lead holes in the post to prevent splitting. Bolt holes through the post shall be drilled no more than 1/16 inch larger than the bolt diameter. Excavate post holes to the embedment depth shown on the drawings. Set posts plumb and at the correct spacing for the sign panel size. Backfill around each post with suitable material, compacted in 6-inch lifts until no visual displacement occurs. Overall Sign Chart Type Number of Locations Start of Trail Sign 2 Trailhead Parking Road Sign 4 North Parking Access South Parking Access 12” 18 ” 6’ - 8 ’ 3’ - 0 ” 6” 18” DIA MIN Instructional Sign 4x4 Wooden Pressure Treated Post Or 1.5” ID HDG Steel Pipe Slope Top of FTG Concrete Backfill Notes: 1. PG&E to supply the Instructional Signage and Warning Sign with the project Specific verbiage. 2. Contractor to procure and install the post and sign. IS S U E 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 2 6 DR A W N B Y GM CL I E N T Pa c i f i c G a s a n d E l e c t r i c PR O J E C T PO E R E A C H 9 0 % T R A I L D E S I G N PR O J E C T N O . Bu t t e C o u n t y R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n D i s t r i c t 15 0 C h u c k Y e a g e r W a y - S u i t e A Or o v i l l e , C A 9 5 9 6 5 Te l : ( 5 3 0 ) 6 9 3 - 3 1 7 3 06 Appendix 1 - Site Maps Appendix 1 - Site Maps IS S U E 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 2 6 DR A W N B Y GM CL I E N T Pa c i f i c G a s a n d E l e c t r i c PR O J E C T PO E R E A C H 9 0 % T R A I L D E S I G N PR O J E C T N O . Bu t t e C o u n t y R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n D i s t r i c t 15 0 C h u c k Y e a g e r W a y - S u i t e A Or o v i l l e , C A 9 5 9 6 5 Te l : ( 5 3 0 ) 6 9 3 - 3 1 7 3 07 Overview Map-North North Stream Crossing Chart Stream #1Stream #4 Stream #2&3 Stream #5 Stream #6 Stream #7 Stream #8 Stream #9 Stream #11 Stream #10 Stream #12a Stream #12b Stream Crossing Channel Width Channel Depth Prescription Estimated Length Notes 1 8 Rock Armoring 15 Rocky substrate 2&3 6 Rock Armoring 55 Rocky substrate 4 6 Rock Armoring 15 Dry. More of a Seep 5 Rock Armoring No deﬁned channel 6 8 Rock Armoring/Steps 30 Super rocky terrain. Bridge may need stairs 7 None Needed No deﬁned channel 8 5 Rock Armoring 10 9 7 Rock Armoring 10 Stairs may be needed 10 3 Rock Armoring 10 11 Rock Armoring 5 No deﬁned channel 12a 9 Rock Armoring 5 12b 9 None Needed IS S U E 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 2 6 DR A W N B Y GM CL I E N T Pa c i f i c G a s a n d E l e c t r i c PR O J E C T PO E R E A C H 9 0 % T R A I L D E S I G N PR O J E C T N O . Bu t t e C o u n t y R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n D i s t r i c t 15 0 C h u c k Y e a g e r W a y - S u i t e A Or o v i l l e , C A 9 5 9 6 5 Te l : ( 5 3 0 ) 6 9 3 - 3 1 7 3 08 Overview Map-South South Stream Crossing Chart Stream #12a Stream #13 Stream #14 Stream #16 Stream #15 Stream #11 Stream #12b Stream Crossing Channel Width Channel Depth Prescription Estimated Length Notes 11 Rock Armoring 5 No deﬁned channel 12a 9 Rock Armoring 5 12b 9 None Needed 13 4 Rock Armoring 18 Swale that can transport water 14 2 1.0 Rock Armoring Swale that can transport water 15 8 Rock Armoring 20 Long wet area. 16 6 Rock Armoring 10 IS S U E 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 2 6 DR A W N B Y GM CL I E N T Pa c i f i c G a s a n d E l e c t r i c PR O J E C T PO E R E A C H 9 0 % T R A I L D E S I G N PR O J E C T N O . Bu t t e C o u n t y R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n D i s t r i c t 15 0 C h u c k Y e a g e r W a y - S u i t e A Or o v i l l e , C A 9 5 9 6 5 Te l : ( 5 3 0 ) 6 9 3 - 3 1 7 3 09 Overview Inset Map Directory Trail Corridor Profile Overall Trail Type Chart Stream #16 Stream #14 Stream #15 Stream #13 Stream #12a Stream #11 Stream #10 Stream #9 Stream #8 Stream #7 Stream #6 Stream #5 Stream #4 Stream #1 Overall Stream Crossing Chart Stream #2&3 Stream #12b Type Number of Segments Length Historical Bench Modiﬁcation 2 6,975 New Construction 3 11,023 Stream Crossing Channel Width Channel Depth Prescription Estimated Length Notes 1 8 Rock Armoring 15 Rocky substrate 2&3 6 Rock Armoring 55 Rocky substrate 4 6 Rock Armoring 15 Dry. More of a Seep 5 Rock Armoring No deﬁned channel 6 8 Rock Armoring/Steps 30 Super rocky terrain. Bridge may need stairs 7 None Needed No deﬁned channel 8 5 Rock Armoring 10 9 7 Rock Armoring 10 Stairs may be needed 10 3 Rock Armoring 10 11 Rock Armoring 5 No deﬁned channel 12a 9 Rock Armoring 5 12b 9 None Needed 13 4 Rock Armoring 18 Swale that can transport water 14 2 1.0 Rock Armoring Swale that can transport water 15 8 Rock Armoring 20 Long wet area. 16 6 Rock Armoring 10 IS S U E 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 2 6 DR A W N B Y GM CL I E N T Pa c i f i c G a s a n d E l e c t r i c PR O J E C T PO E R E A C H 9 0 % T R A I L D E S I G N PR O J E C T N O . Bu t t e C o u n t y R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n D i s t r i c t 15 0 C h u c k Y e a g e r W a y - S u i t e A Or o v i l l e , C A 9 5 9 6 5 Te l : ( 5 3 0 ) 6 9 3 - 3 1 7 3 10 A-1 Inset Map This section reseved for 100% Design Section Notes 1 1 3 5 7 2 4 6 8 Photo 1: Trail entrance from road. Photo 3: Steep cross-slopes. Poor soil composition. Photo 5: Switchback turn in steep, rocky terrain.Photo 7: Transitioning from steep terrain. Photo 2: Mandatory steep drainage crossing. Photo 4: Steep cross-slope continue. Photo 8: Rock Crux 2 3 6 7 4 5 8 Stream #1 Photo 8: Approaching the rock crux for machine work. A-1 Inset Map IS S U E 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 2 6 DR A W N B Y GM CL I E N T Pa c i f i c G a s a n d E l e c t r i c PR O J E C T PO E R E A C H 9 0 % T R A I L D E S I G N PR O J E C T N O . Bu t t e C o u n t y R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n D i s t r i c t 15 0 C h u c k Y e a g e r W a y - S u i t e A Or o v i l l e , C A 9 5 9 6 5 Te l : ( 5 3 0 ) 6 9 3 - 3 1 7 3 11 A-2 Inset Map This section reseved for 100% Design Section Notes9 11 13 15 10 12 14 16 Photo 9: Example of rocky terrain on historical trail. Photo 11: Existing trail bench. Photo 13: Stream Crossing #4 existing conditions. Photo 15: Stream Crossing #6 Photo 10: Section of historic trail through steep cross-slopes. Photo 12: Entrance to Stream Crossing #2&3. Photo 14: Existing trail narrows, but exists. Photo 16: Steep existing trail climbing up from Stream Crossing #6. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Stream #7 Stream #6 Stream #5 Stream #4 Stream #2&3 A-2 Inset Map IS S U E 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 2 6 DR A W N B Y GM CL I E N T Pa c i f i c G a s a n d E l e c t r i c PR O J E C T PO E R E A C H 9 0 % T R A I L D E S I G N PR O J E C T N O . Bu t t e C o u n t y R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n D i s t r i c t 15 0 C h u c k Y e a g e r W a y - S u i t e A Or o v i l l e , C A 9 5 9 6 5 Te l : ( 5 3 0 ) 6 9 3 - 3 1 7 3 12 A-3 Inset Map This section reseved for 100% Design Section Notes17 19 21 23 18 20 22 24 Photo 17: Existing corridor. Photo 19: Stream Crossing #9 Photo 21: Stream Crossing#10 Photo 23: Trail corridor through brushy terrain. Photo 18: Existing Corridor. Photo 20: Example of deadfall acroos corridor. Photo 22: Cleared corridor in very steep and brushy terrain. Photo 24: Trail corridor through brushy terrain. 23 20 17 24 22 21 Stream #10 Stream #9 Stream #8 18 19 A-3 Inset Map IS S U E 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 2 6 DR A W N B Y GM CL I E N T Pa c i f i c G a s a n d E l e c t r i c PR O J E C T PO E R E A C H 9 0 % T R A I L D E S I G N PR O J E C T N O . Bu t t e C o u n t y R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n D i s t r i c t 15 0 C h u c k Y e a g e r W a y - S u i t e A Or o v i l l e , C A 9 5 9 6 5 Te l : ( 5 3 0 ) 6 9 3 - 3 1 7 3 13 A-4 Inset Map This section reseved for 100% Design Section Notes25 27 29 31 26 28 30 32 Photo 25: Trail corridor in mellow cross-slopes and brushy terrain. Photo 27: Approaching Stream Crossing #11 on historic trail. Photo 29: Transition into steep terrain. Photo 31: Exising trail disapates from existence slightly. Photo 26: Trail corridor through steeper cross-slopes. Photo 28: Looking back at approach to Stream Crossing #11. Photo 30: Random Trail Corridor Photo. Photo 32: Existing trail section. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Stream #11 A-4 Inset Map IS S U E 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 2 6 DR A W N B Y GM CL I E N T Pa c i f i c G a s a n d E l e c t r i c PR O J E C T PO E R E A C H 9 0 % T R A I L D E S I G N PR O J E C T N O . Bu t t e C o u n t y R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n D i s t r i c t 15 0 C h u c k Y e a g e r W a y - S u i t e A Or o v i l l e , C A 9 5 9 6 5 Te l : ( 5 3 0 ) 6 9 3 - 3 1 7 3 14 A-5 Inset Map This section reseved for 100% Design Section Notes33 35 37 39 34 36 38 40 Photo 33: Example of rocky terrain. Photo 35: Moderate cross-slopes. Photo 37: Rocky terrain approaching Stream Crossings #12a and #12b. Photo 39: Steep and rocky terrain for a turn. Photo 34: Existing trail. Photo 36: Existing trail in varied terrain. Photo 38: Stream Crossing #12a Photo 40: Steep and rocky terrain for a turn. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Stream #12a Stream #12b 33 34 A-5 Inset Map IS S U E 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 2 6 DR A W N B Y GM CL I E N T Pa c i f i c G a s a n d E l e c t r i c PR O J E C T PO E R E A C H 9 0 % T R A I L D E S I G N PR O J E C T N O . Bu t t e C o u n t y R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n D i s t r i c t 15 0 C h u c k Y e a g e r W a y - S u i t e A Or o v i l l e , C A 9 5 9 6 5 Te l : ( 5 3 0 ) 6 9 3 - 3 1 7 3 15 A-6 Inset Map This section reseved for 100% Design Section Notes41 43 45 47 42 44 46 48 Photo 41: Stream Crossing #13 Photo 43: Large bridge location. Photo 45: Random Trail Corridor Photo. Photo 47: Stream Crossing #14 Photo 42: Large rocky area with existing trail. Photo 44: Flat, rocky area continues. Photo 46: Extened mellow cross-slopes. Photo 48: Existing trail and rock wall in drainage. 45 41 48 47 46 44 43 42 Stream #13 Stream #14 Stream #15 A-6 Inset Map IS S U E 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 2 6 DR A W N B Y GM CL I E N T Pa c i f i c G a s a n d E l e c t r i c PR O J E C T PO E R E A C H 9 0 % T R A I L D E S I G N PR O J E C T N O . Bu t t e C o u n t y R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n D i s t r i c t 15 0 C h u c k Y e a g e r W a y - S u i t e A Or o v i l l e , C A 9 5 9 6 5 Te l : ( 5 3 0 ) 6 9 3 - 3 1 7 3 16 A-7 Inset Map This section reseved for 100% Design Section Notes49 51 53 55 50 52 54 56 Photo 49: Stream Crossing #15 Photo 51: Example of brush density. Photo 53: Steep trail grade, but workable. Photo 55: Cleared Corridor. Photo 50: Stream Crossing #15 Photo 54: Cleared Corridor. Photo 54: Cleared Corridor. Photo 56: Cleared Corridor. 50 49 51 52 53 54 55 56 Stream #15 Stream #14 A-7 Inset Map IS S U E 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 2 6 DR A W N B Y GM CL I E N T Pa c i f i c G a s a n d E l e c t r i c PR O J E C T PO E R E A C H 9 0 % T R A I L D E S I G N PR O J E C T N O . Bu t t e C o u n t y R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n D i s t r i c t 15 0 C h u c k Y e a g e r W a y - S u i t e A Or o v i l l e , C A 9 5 9 6 5 Te l : ( 5 3 0 ) 6 9 3 - 3 1 7 3 17 A-8 Inset Map This section reseved for 100% Design Section Notes57 59 61 63 58 60 62 64 Photo 57: Cleared Corridor Photo 59: Very steep cross-slopes. Photo 61: Rocky terrain with mellow cross-slopes. Photo 63: Brushy mellow terrain. Photo 58: Rocky Area Photo 60: Stream Crossing #16 Photo 62: Steep side-slope with lots of rock. 57 58 59 60 62 64 61 63 Stream #16 Photo 64: Steep cross-slope and dense soil. A-8 Inset Map IS S U E 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 2 6 DR A W N B Y GM CL I E N T Pa c i f i c G a s a n d E l e c t r i c PR O J E C T PO E R E A C H 9 0 % T R A I L D E S I G N PR O J E C T N O . Bu t t e C o u n t y R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n D i s t r i c t 15 0 C h u c k Y e a g e r W a y - S u i t e A Or o v i l l e , C A 9 5 9 6 5 Te l : ( 5 3 0 ) 6 9 3 - 3 1 7 3 18 Slope Map IS S U E 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 2 6 DR A W N B Y GM CL I E N T Pa c i f i c G a s a n d E l e c t r i c PR O J E C T PO E R E A C H 9 0 % T R A I L D E S I G N PR O J E C T N O . Bu t t e C o u n t y R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n D i s t r i c t 15 0 C h u c k Y e a g e r W a y - S u i t e A Or o v i l l e , C A 9 5 9 6 5 Te l : ( 5 3 0 ) 6 9 3 - 3 1 7 3 19 Soil Hydro Map IS S U E 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 2 6 DR A W N B Y GM CL I E N T Pa c i f i c G a s a n d E l e c t r i c PR O J E C T PO E R E A C H 9 0 % T R A I L D E S I G N PR O J E C T N O . Bu t t e C o u n t y R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n D i s t r i c t 15 0 C h u c k Y e a g e r W a y - S u i t e A Or o v i l l e , C A 9 5 9 6 5 Te l : ( 5 3 0 ) 6 9 3 - 3 1 7 3 20 Soils Map IS S U E 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 2 6 DR A W N B Y GM CL I E N T Pa c i f i c G a s a n d E l e c t r i c PR O J E C T PO E R E A C H 9 0 % T R A I L D E S I G N PR O J E C T N O . Bu t t e C o u n t y R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n D i s t r i c t 15 0 C h u c k Y e a g e r W a y - S u i t e A Or o v i l l e , C A 9 5 9 6 5 Te l : ( 5 3 0 ) 6 9 3 - 3 1 7 3 21 Appendix 2 - Site Notes Appendix 2 - Site Notes IS S U E 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 2 6 DR A W N B Y GM CL I E N T Pa c i f i c G a s a n d E l e c t r i c PR O J E C T PO E R E A C H 9 0 % T R A I L D E S I G N PR O J E C T N O . Bu t t e C o u n t y R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n D i s t r i c t 15 0 C h u c k Y e a g e r W a y - S u i t e A Or o v i l l e , C A 9 5 9 6 5 Te l : ( 5 3 0 ) 6 9 3 - 3 1 7 3 22 Stream Data Appendix 2 — Hydrologic Analysis Summary Source: PG&E Hydrography Staff, May 2026 A baseline hydrologic analysis was conducted for stream crossings along the proposed Poe Hiking Trail corridor to support crossing design and construction planning. The analysis was prepared by PG&E Hydrography Staff in coordination with project design efforts and is consistent with the trail alignment described in this document. The analysis evaluated hydrologic conditions at crossing locations using accepted methodologies and available data. Results were used to inform crossing type selection, structure sizing, and construction sequencing across the project corridor. Findings were reviewed in the context of site-specific field observations collected during the project design process. Stream crossing design elements reflected in this planset are consistent with the findings of the hydrologic analysis. Crossing prescriptions, estimated structure lengths, and site-specific treatment recommendations have been developed to address conditions identified through both field investigation and desktop hydrologic review. The full hydrologic analysis report, including methodology, data sources, and site-by-site results, is available as a supporting document to this planset. Contractors and reviewing agencies are encouraged to reference that document in conjunction with the construction plans contained herein. Stream Crossing Summary Table USGS StreamStats Rational Method Flow Regime Drainage Stream Crossing ID Q100 (ft³/s)Q2 (ft³/s)Q100 (ft³/s)Q2 (ft³/s)(March 2026)Area (acres) 1 43.8 6.6 57.9 25.8 Intermittent 38.4 2 136.0 20.5 224.0 99.7 Intermittent 147.2 3 136.0 20.5 224.0 99.7 Intermittent 147.2 4 136.0 20.5 224.0 99.7 ---147.2 5 136.0 20.5 224.0 99.7 Intermittent 147.2 6 161.0 23.9 272.8 121.4 Intermittent 179.2 7 161.0 23.8 272.8 121.4 ---179.2 8 99.1 14.5 155.4 69.2 Intermittent 102.4 9 150.0 22.2 253.0 112.5 Intermittent 166.4 10 61.5 9.4 88.4 39.3 Intermittent 57.6 11 31.7 5.0 39.6 17.6 Ephemeral 25.6 12 247.0 38.1 N/A N/A Intermittent 294.4 12B 247.0 38.1 N/A N/A Ephemeral 294.4 13 237.0 36.3 10.0 5.0 Ephemeral 281.6 14 321.0 52.0 3.0 1.0 Ephemeral 2.0 15 321.0 52.0 N/A N/A Intermittent 390.4 16 75.9 11.3 117.3 52.2 Intermittent 76.8 Notes: Q100 = 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (100-year) Flood; Q2 = 50% AEP (2-year/Bankfull) Flood Flow Regime: Perennial = year-round ﬂow; Intermittent = seasonal ﬂow; Ephemeral = storm event ﬂow only N/A = indicates drainage area too large for Rational Method IS S U E 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 2 6 DR A W N B Y GM CL I E N T Pa c i f i c G a s a n d E l e c t r i c PR O J E C T PO E R E A C H 9 0 % T R A I L D E S I G N PR O J E C T N O . Bu t t e C o u n t y R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n D i s t r i c t 15 0 C h u c k Y e a g e r W a y - S u i t e A Or o v i l l e , C A 9 5 9 6 5 Te l : ( 5 3 0 ) 6 9 3 - 3 1 7 3 23 Stream Crossing Diagrams Stream #1 Stream #2&3 Stream #4 Stream #5 Stream #6 Stream #7 Stream #8 Stream #9 Stream #10 Stream #11 Stream #12a Stream #12b Stream #13 Stream #16 Stream #15 Stream #14 All diagrams are Not to Scale 8’ Stream Flow Direction Stream Flow Direction Trail Site Conditions -Steep 50% -Subsurface Trickle -Rocky Substrate -Stable in Stream -Highly Vegetated -Small Head Cut Below Crossing Treatment -Armor 15’ -Rock on Site -Armor Headcut 5’ a t 1 0 % 10 ’ a t 3 5 % Stream Flow Direction Trail Site Conditions -Debris Slump-large sediment slug -Steam stream divides multi- channel -Cobble Substrate -Flow present -50’ wetted area -Significant Headcut Treatment -Stepping Stones 35’ on North side -18’ of Rock Armoring -Rock On Site 50’ 10’ a t 1 0 % 2’ at 1 5 % 29’ a t 2 0 % Pond Install stepping stone Headcut 5’ Headcut 15’ 6’ Stream Flow Direction Trail Site Conditions -Has Flow -Narrow and Steep Channel -Trees on both banks -Has Diversion Potential -Steep Banks Treatment -Armor 15’ 10’ a t 3 0 % 5’ a t 2 0 % 1’ a t 4 0 % 10’ a t 2 0 % Stream Flow DirectionSite Conditions -Dry -No Channel Definition Above -Substrate Flow at headcut -Large boulders at -Headwall above Stream -Seep not Stream -Rough at Crossing Treatment -Rearrange crossing to all easier crossing, ample rock on site 11’ a t 3 5 % 10’ a t 1 5 % No Channel Above 8’ Stream Flow Direction Trai l Site Conditions -The trail is crossing at the best spot -Large Drainage -Rock Substrate -Stable in Channel -Not highly vegetated at crossing -Large boulders at crossing Treatment -Armor crossing -Install steps on South side for 30’ length 31’ a t 5 0 % 10’ a t 2 0 % Tr a i l Steps for 30’ Stream Flow Direction Site Conditions -No Channel definition -Grass Vegetation -Steep Treatment -No Treatment 6’ a t 6 0 % 6’ a t 3 5 % 8’30’ 5’ Stream Flow Direction Trail Site Conditions -Stream Dimensions 4’x 1’ -Static Channel -Crossing Vegetated- Trees Treatment -Armor 10’ -Rock on Site 10 ’ a t 2 0 % 13 ’ a t 2 5 % 7’ Stream Flow Direction Trail Site Conditions -Crossing on Bedrock -Stable Channel -Vegetated -10% Channel Grade -Waterfall just below crossing -Trail approaches are low grade Treatment -Armor 10’ -Rock on Site 11 ’ a t 1 5 % 5’ a t 1 5 % 13’ Stream Flow Direction Site Conditions -Small Stream -Stable in Channel -Rock Substrate -Highly Vegetated Treatment -Armor 10’ -Rock on Site 6’ a t 3 0 % 3’ a t 4 5 % Stream Flow Direction Site Conditions -Swale not Stream -No Channel Definition at Crossing -No Flow -Vegetated -Stable Treatment -Armor fill face at low point -Armor 5’ -Rock on Site 8’ a t 5 % 6’ a t 1 0 % 9’ Stream Flow Direction Site Conditions -Super Cobble -Substrate -No Flow -10% Channel Grade at Crossing -Had intense flows during winter Treatment -Armor 10’ -Rock on Site 8’ a t 2 5 % 3’ a t 6 5 % Site #12b 27’ Stream Flow Direction Site Conditions -Historic or Overflow Channel -No Flow in Channel -Rock Substrate Treatment -None needed, monitor at construction. Armor banks if needed. 9’ a t 1 0 % 6’ a t 1 0 % Site 12a 27’ 9’ 4’ Stream Flow Direction Site Conditions -Highly Vegetated-trees -Minimal Channel -Definition -More swale than stream -No Flow Treatment -Armor 18’ -Some rock onsite -Will likely need rock imported 10 ’ a t 2 0 % 8’ a t 3 % 13’ at 30%10’ at 20% 2’ Stream Flow Direction Tra i l Site Conditions -Stream is 30% grade -Highly Vegetated -Rocky substrate -Stable crossing -No Flow -1’x1’ channel dimensions Treatment -Armor 10’ - Rock on Site 8’ a t 4 0 ’ 20 ’ a t 2 0 % 8’ Stream Flow Direction Tra i l Site Conditions -Rocky Substrate -Stable Channel -Crossing is at confluence of 2 streams -Step Pool System -Good Natural crossing spot Treatment -Armor 20’ -Rock on Site Ve r t i c a l 2 ’ 30’ at37%30’ at 30% Tra i l Stream Flow Direction Tra i l Site Conditions -Rocky Substrate -25% Channel Grade -Highly Vegetated- blackberry -Historic (overflow) path to the Right of primary channel -Static Channel with rock -Flow Present Treatment -Armor 10’ -Rock on Site 30’ a t 1 3 % 6’ 5’ a t 2 5 % 8’ 10’ a t 1 0 % 3’ 25’ a t 1 5 % ENCLOSURE 2 COMMENT RESPONSE MATRIX Poe Hiking Trail 90% Trail Design - Comment and Response Matrix Clean formatted edition for stakeholder review PROJECT Poe Hiking Trail DESIGN STAGE 90 Percent Design COMMENTING ORGANIZATION Stakeholders SOURCE DOCUMENT DATE August 10, 2026 PREPARED BY PG&E MATRIX OVERVIEW 25 3 5 COMMENTS SOURCE TYPES COMMENTERS / ORGANIZATIONS FORMAT NOTE This matrix presents stakeholder comments on the Poe Hiking Trail 90% design and PG&E; responses in clearly labeled sections. It also incorporates and addresses American Whitewater comments on the 60% design that were included in the October 28, 2025 FERC filing. Each comment is presented separately with its applicable source details, and long responses continue naturally onto the following page. Poe Hiking Trail | 90% Design Comment and Response Matrix Page 2Prepared by PG&E C-01 Rock-armored crossing standard SOURCE COMMENTER / ORGANIZATION Written comment letter Mike Taylor DRAWING / PAGE FEATURE / LOCATION Page 4 Rock-Armored Stream Crossing STAKEHOLDER COMMENT The standard rock-armored stream crossing detail appears excessive if applied literally. Most channels are stable, and constructing a dam-like feature could cause unnecessary disturbance. Allow field modifications to fit individual crossings. PG&E; RESPONSE Field modifications will be tailored to fit each individual crossing. C-02 Hydrology table SOURCE COMMENTER / ORGANIZATION Written comment letter Mike Taylor DRAWING / PAGE FEATURE / LOCATION Page 22 Appendix 2 - Stream Crossing Summary STAKEHOLDER COMMENT The Stream Crossing Summary has limited utility because several watershed areas, stream identities, and calculated discharges appear inconsistent. Recheck and correct the watershed assignments, stream numbering, and discharge calculations, particularly for Streams 2-7, 12/12b, and 14-15. PG&E; RESPONSE Poe Hiking Trail | 90% Design Comment and Response Matrix Page 3Prepared by PG&E Stream Identities and Locations: The Waters of the U.S.(WUS) study ultimately confirmed the presence of stream channels and the locations of stream crossings. Due to the timing of the WUS report, locations, site identities (Site ID), were not fully updated in the 90% Design figures. In the 90% Design Overview or Inset Maps, several locations or IDs were inaccurately identified: • The location of Stream #2 and Stream #3 only contains one stream course. The lone stream crossing in this location will be identified as Stream #2 on all maps. • Stream #3 will be moved to the location of Stream #4 on all maps, • Stream #4 was identified in the 60% design but was not verified in subsequent studies. It will be removed from all maps. • Stream #5 location was moved approximately 75 feet downstream to match location of WUS identification. Location will be adjusted on all maps. • Stream #7 was identified in the 60% design but was not verified in subsequent studies. It will be removed from all maps. • The locations of Stream #12a and Stream #12b are transposed and will be rectified in all maps. • The text callout for Stream #14 is not accurate on the A-7 Inset Map and it will be removed. Calculated Discharge The baseline hydrologic analysis relied on the USGS Regional Regression Equations and the Rational Method, both widely accepted approaches for estimating flood-frequency flows on ungaugged streams. The USGS StreamStats model , which uses the USGS Regional Regression Equations, was used to delineate the drainage basin for each stream crossing and estimate streamflow. Because StreamStats uses a 30-meter elevation model to calculate drainage area, it may not fully capture topographic detail in the highly dissected terrain of the Feather River Canyon. As a result, StreamStats grouped several crossings, including Streams #2 and #3 and Streams #12 and #12b, within the same drainage basins. The March 2026 site visit confirmed that these crossings are fed by highly disturbed and dissected upland terrain, where stream channels are often less defined and more prone to migration. Accordingly, the StreamStats results are interpreted to represent the estimated total flow that could occur within the basin or at any individual crossing in that basin. For example, if Stream #12 became blocked, Stream #12b could receive all or part of the predicted flow. The Rational Method was also used as a quality check for crossings with drainage basins smaller than 250 acres. For Stream #14, the available topographic detail was sufficient to delineate a smaller drainage area, which was then used in the Rational Method calculations. C-03 Crossing documentation SOURCE COMMENTER / ORGANIZATION Written comment letter Mike Taylor DRAWING / PAGE FEATURE / LOCATION Page 23 Stream Crossing Diagrams STAKEHOLDER COMMENT The measured stream crossing diagrams are more useful than the calculated stream-flow values because they reflect observed site conditions. PG&E; RESPONSE Streamflow is derived from a baseline hydrologic analysis of stream crossings that is intended to be a screening-level design tool. The level of analysis is appropriate for identifying relative crossing sizes, comparing alternatives, and supporting early discussions before advancing to final design. Streamflow estimates would be refined using site-specific topography if warranted by site-specific design needs. C-04 Crossing treatment conflict Poe Hiking Trail | 90% Design Comment and Response Matrix Page 4Prepared by PG&E SOURCE COMMENTER / ORGANIZATION Written comment letter Mike Taylor DRAWING / PAGE FEATURE / LOCATION Pages 7, 9, and 23 Stream Crossing 6 STAKEHOLDER COMMENT Pages 7 and 9 state that a bridge may need stairs, while page 23 indicates a ford. Confirm the intended crossing treatment and revise the design for consistency. PG&E; RESPONSE No bridges are used in the 90% design. The stream crossing design detailed on page 23 is the current design for the crossing. C-05 Stream classification SOURCE COMMENTER / ORGANIZATION Written comment letter Mike Taylor DRAWING / PAGE FEATURE / LOCATION Page 9 Stream Crossing 4 STAKEHOLDER COMMENT Classify Stream Crossing 4 as perennial and narrow. Streams 2, 3, and 4 have relatively uniform year-round discharge and limited potential for high winter flows that could cause diversion. PG&E; RESPONSE Streams are classified according to the flow regime identified in the WUS study. PG&E will update the flow regime of each crossing in the next iteration of the 90% design. Stream 4, which is the location of the current Stream #3, is identified as a perennial stream. C-06 Stream identification SOURCE COMMENTER / ORGANIZATION Written comment letter Mike Taylor DRAWING / PAGE FEATURE / LOCATION Page 9 Stream 5 STAKEHOLDER COMMENT Stream 5 does not appear to be a stream. No channel is evident above the abrupt step, and the feature may be a coyote-hole prospect. Reevaluate its identification. PG&E; RESPONSE Poe Hiking Trail | 90% Design Comment and Response Matrix Page 5Prepared by PG&E Stream #5 location was moved approximately 75 feet downstream to match location of WUS identification. Location will be adjusted on all maps. C-07 Unmapped drainage SOURCE COMMENTER / ORGANIZATION Written comment letter Mike Taylor DRAWING / PAGE FEATURE / LOCATION Page 9 Unidentified stream downstream of Stream 5 STAKEHOLDER COMMENT Recognize the wide, cobbly, intermittent stream approximately 60-75 feet downstream of Stream 5. The commenter does not consider armoring or stabilization necessary and suggests reviewing updated LiDAR imagery supplied by Scott Harding. PG&E; RESPONSE This is likely the current location of Stream #5. See comment C-06. C-08 Crossing design SOURCE COMMENTER / ORGANIZATION Written comment letter Mike Taylor DRAWING / PAGE FEATURE / LOCATION Pages 7 and 9 Stream 9 STAKEHOLDER COMMENT Stream 9 is a small perennial stream needing minimal approach erosion control. Verify whether the note stating that stairs may be needed was intended for another stream. PG&E; RESPONSE No bridges are used in the 90% design. Stairs are not included in the preliminary design narrative on page 23. C-09 Stream numbering and description SOURCE COMMENTER / ORGANIZATION Written comment letter Mike Taylor DRAWING / PAGE FEATURE / LOCATION Page 14 Streams 12a and 12b STAKEHOLDER COMMENT Poe Hiking Trail | 90% Design Comment and Response Matrix Page 6Prepared by PG&E The stream identities or descriptions appear reversed. The upstream 12a feature is an abandoned channel, while downstream 12b is intermittent and active. Correct the map labels or associated descriptions. PG&E; RESPONSE The locations of Stream #12a and Stream #12b are transposed in the 90% Design and will be rectified in all maps. See response to comment C-02. C-10 Photo location SOURCE COMMENTER / ORGANIZATION Written comment letter Mike Taylor DRAWING / PAGE FEATURE / LOCATION Page 11 Photo 14 STAKEHOLDER COMMENT Photo 14 appears to show the unidentified intermittent stream located downstream of Stream 5. Verify and revise the photo location or caption. PG&E; RESPONSE Photo 14 captures the trail alignment and width of existing trail. C-11 Photo identification SOURCE COMMENTER / ORGANIZATION Written comment letter Mike Taylor DRAWING / PAGE FEATURE / LOCATION Page 14 Photos 37 and 38 STAKEHOLDER COMMENT Photo 37 appears to depict Stream 12a rather than 12b, and Photo 38 appears to depict Stream 12b rather than 12a. Verify and correct the photo labels. PG&E; RESPONSE Photo caption states, " Rocky terrain approaching Stream Crossings #12a and #12b". It does not identify or define a specific stream crossing. The photo is intended to present the terrain and existing trail. C-12 Photo captions SOURCE COMMENTER / ORGANIZATION Written comment letter Mike Taylor DRAWING / PAGE FEATURE / LOCATION Poe Hiking Trail | 90% Design Comment and Response Matrix Page 7Prepared by PG&E Page 15 Photos 42, 43, and 48 STAKEHOLDER COMMENT Verify the captions for Photo 42 (existing trail), Photo 43 (large bridge location), and Photo 48 (existing trail with rock wall in drainage). The commenter indicates that the captions may be incorrect and that Photo 48 is located on a spur ridge. PG&E; RESPONSE Photo 42. Photo shows vegetation clearance and footpath through corridor. Photo 43: No bridges are currently proposed for this trail. We will remove bridge reference from the caption. Photo is showing characteristics of trail corridor and topography. Photo 48. We will remove reference to rock wall. C-13 Photo locations SOURCE COMMENTER / ORGANIZATION Written comment letter Mike Taylor DRAWING / PAGE FEATURE / LOCATION Pages 16 and 17 Photos 54-59 STAKEHOLDER COMMENT Check the mapped locations of Photos 54, 55, and 56 on A-7 and Photos 57, 58, and 59 on A-8 because the locations appear nearly identical. PG&E; RESPONSE These photos are intentionally identical to show the locations on the map. C-14 Signage SOURCE COMMENTER / ORGANIZATION Meeting comment Chuck James (USFS) DRAWING / PAGE FEATURE / LOCATION STAKEHOLDER COMMENT The 90% design lacks any description of signage. PG&E; RESPONSE Sheet 5 includes sign installation specifications and a table of sign location and quantity one sign will be placed at start of the trail on each end of the trail, and two Trailhead Parking Signs will be placed near the parking area at each end of the trail. Poe Hiking Trail | 90% Design Comment and Response Matrix Page 8Prepared by PG&E C-15 River Access along trail alignment SOURCE COMMENTER / ORGANIZATION Meeting comment Dave Steindorf (AW) and Chuck James (USFS) DRAWING / PAGE FEATURE / LOCATION STAKEHOLDER COMMENT The trail lacks any river access locations along the alignment. Both AW and USFS PG&E; RESPONSE As a reminder, this is a through trail alignment with hiking as the intended use. PG&E’s opposes developed river access to protect sensitive resources. Expanding the intended use beyond hiking could introduce unanticipated impacts related to historic properties, cultural resources, listed species, public safety, water quality, unauthorized use, et cetera. River access is already provided at multiple locations pursuant to the Poe Recreation Management Plan. In fact, three river access facilities have been developed in the immediate vicinity of the proposed hiking trail. Bardees Bar River Access is immediately north, and Poe Beach Trail and Poe Powerhouse River Access are immediately south of the hiking trail alignment. C-16 Trail Class SOURCE COMMENTER / ORGANIZATION Written comment letter Plumas National Forest (PNF) DRAWING / PAGE FEATURE / LOCATION Page 2 STAKEHOLDER COMMENT The trail is designed as a class 2 trail. The USFS is not opposed to a higher-class trail for construction, even if it is maintained as a class 2 trail since the higher-class construction will likely be more sustainable long term (plan set page 2) PG&E; RESPONSE The Class 1 and Class 2 trail classifications for the trail alignment reflects a balanced approach informed by agency coordination and both environmental and cultural surveys. By considering these trail classes, PG&E aims to reduce the extent of ground disturbance, limit the need for extensive structural features, and avoid unnecessary disruption to sensitive habitats and cultural resources. This approach supports durable access while aligning resource protection goals and regulatory obligations. C-17 General Comment SOURCE COMMENTER / ORGANIZATION Written comment letter Plumas National Forest (PNF) DRAWING / PAGE FEATURE / LOCATION Poe Hiking Trail | 90% Design Comment and Response Matrix Page 9Prepared by PG&E Page 4 STAKEHOLDER COMMENT The plans need to show a typical rolling dip with reverse grade to remove water (plan setpage 4). Link to rolling dip diagram STD 927-01 and 927-02 are available online atwww.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/trails/trail-management-tools/trailplans . PG&E; RESPONSE PG&E will include this diagram in the 100% design drawing. C-18 General Comment SOURCE COMMENTER / ORGANIZATION Written comment letter Plumas National Forest (PNF) DRAWING / PAGE FEATURE / LOCATION Page 3 STAKEHOLDER COMMENT The plans state that the trail will be full-bench construction. Plans do not identify where cut materials will be placed if not a balanced cut-and-fill section. Identified locations should be included in the 90% design (General construction notes item 7, plan set page 3). PG&E; RESPONSE If not a balanced cut-and-fill section, cut materials will be broadcasted downslope in a manner that minimizes visual and environmental impact. Specific locations for broadcast material cannot be determined until construction begins and will be selected based on field conditions encountered during trail construction. C-19 General Comment SOURCE COMMENTER / ORGANIZATION Written comment letter Plumas National Forest (PNF) DRAWING / PAGE FEATURE / LOCATION Page 4 STAKEHOLDER COMMENT In addition to using native rock sourced on or near each site, rock-armored stream crossings should include option for use of imported rock material as needed, if not available on site(plan set page 4). Any imported rock material should match what is found in the general area of the proposed trail. PG&E; RESPONSE PG&E will include this option in the 100% design, however PG&E intends to use native rock sourced at each water crossing site. Poe Hiking Trail | 90% Design Comment and Response Matrix Page 10Prepared by PG&E C-20 General Comment SOURCE COMMENTER / ORGANIZATION Written comment letter Plumas National Forest (PNF) DRAWING / PAGE FEATURE / LOCATION Page 3 STAKEHOLDER COMMENT A Forest Service site representative, in coordination with a PG&E site representative, should be included in the ground review and approval of the final project layout (flagging, staking) and periodic on the ground review during the trail construction phase (plan set page 3). During trail construction, PG&E should provide the Forest Service and other cooperators with weekly or bi-weekly construction progress reports (plan set page 3). PG&E; RESPONSE A Forest Service site representative, in coordination with a PG&E site representative, will be included in the ground review and approval of the final project layout (flagging, staking) and periodic on the ground review during the trail construction phase. PG&E will provide stakeholders with updates during the trail construction process. C-21 General Comment SOURCE COMMENTER / ORGANIZATION Written comment letter Plumas National Forest (PNF) DRAWING / PAGE FEATURE / LOCATION Page 3 STAKEHOLDER COMMENT The plans use passive language when providing construction directives. Please remove passive wording and state what is required. For example, change “spoils should be mulched” to “mulch spoils”. (General construction notes item 10, plan set page 3). PG&E; RESPONSE PG&E will remove passive language in the 100% design. C-22 General Comment SOURCE COMMENTER / ORGANIZATION Written comment letter Plumas National Forest (PNF) DRAWING / PAGE FEATURE / LOCATION STAKEHOLDER COMMENT Poe Hiking Trail | 90% Design Comment and Response Matrix Page 11Prepared by PG&E After our comments that the 30 and 60% plans access the river at an identified village site, it appears that river access is still not included in the 90% plan. This is not an acceptable option for the Forest Service. If access to the river is not part of the trail as constructed, people will inevitably create their own access from the trail to the water. This could result in multiple user-created social paths to the water and impacts to known or unknown cultural resources. We suggest a clear path accessing the river be included somewhere before the known resource and somewhere after, so that people are led away from the resource. • River travelers have used the beach in question without serious impacts for years. If the trail is designed appropriately, looting, vandalism, and other impacts to cultural resources can be avoided. Using vegetation design to conceal the beach from the casual observer may be considered. • During Forest Service discussions with Konkow Valley Band of Maidu Indians (KVBMI), river access trails are supported by KVBMI. • Any vegetation clearance needed during project planning and surveys should be the minimum needed to complete planning and surveys with no tree removal, avoiding known sensitive resources, and all cut vegetation being lopped and scattered. PG&E; RESPONSE PG&E’s primary reason to prevent unfettered river access in the area - protection of sensitive resources. Expanding the intended use beyond hiking could introduce unanticipated impacts related to historic properties, cultural resources, listed species, public safety, water quality, unauthorized use, et cetera. River access is already provided at multiple locations pursuant to the Poe Recreation Management Plan. Three river access facilities have been developed in the immediate vicinity of the proposed hiking trail. Bardees Bar River Access is immediately north, and Poe Beach Trail and Poe Powerhouse River Access are immediately south of the hiking trail alignment. Any vegetation clearance required during project planning and surveys will be the minimum needed to complete planning and surveys. Any necessary tree removals for trail safety will be reviewed, avoiding known sensitive resources, and all cut vegetation will be lopped and scattered. C-23 60% Design Drawing SOURCE COMMENTER / ORGANIZATION October 28, 2025, FERC filing American Whitewater DRAWING / PAGE FEATURE / LOCATION STAKEHOLDER COMMENT PG&E’s 60% Progress Report Does Not Meet the Commission’s Requirements and Should Be Revised and Re-Submitted PG&E; RESPONSE PG&E acknowledges that the 60% Progress Report did not include a narrative summary of progress relative to the 13 steps and 74 tasks outlined in the March 2, 2023, Plan and Schedule Approval Order. As noted in the Project Background, updates to the Plan and Schedule were necessary to reflect the project conditions. To strengthen future reporting, PG&E will provide Stakeholders with 45 days’ advance notice prior to submitting progress reports-allowing 30 days for stakeholder review and 15 days for PG&E to incorporate relevant feedback. Additionally, PG&E will hold a stakeholder meeting to discuss schedule-related comments, share updates on the potential trail realignment, and property acquisition efforts. Poe Hiking Trail | 90% Design Comment and Response Matrix Page 12Prepared by PG&E C-24 60% Design Drawing SOURCE COMMENTER / ORGANIZATION October 28, 2025, FERC filing American Whitewater DRAWING / PAGE FEATURE / LOCATION STAKEHOLDER COMMENT PG&E’s Extension of Time Request Lacks Procedural and Substantive Basis PG&E; RESPONSE PG&E rejects the assertion that the EOT requests lack procedural or substantive merit. The delays encountered throughout the design process have included: • Discovery of an additional cultural resource requiring further delineation • Seasonal constraints on botanical surveys, which must occur during spring bloom • Ongoing efforts to secure trail access across private properties These types of complexities are inherent in developing a trail in an environmentally and culturally sensitive area. The EOT mechanism exists to address such contingencies, and PG&E has continually kept stakeholders informed and involved throughout the process. C-25 60% Design Drawing SOURCE COMMENTER / ORGANIZATION October 28, 2025, FERC filing American Whitewater DRAWING / PAGE FEATURE / LOCATION STAKEHOLDER COMMENT Stakeholder 60 Percent Design Comments and Clarification Regarding Trail Class Determination PG&E; RESPONSE PG&E maintains that a Class I or Class II trail satisfies the “all-weather hiking trail” requirement that FERC outlined in the October 20, 2022, order. In the order, FERC states: “We also clarify that the 2019 Rehearing Order’s requirement for PG&E to construct an “all-weather trail,” if feasible, was not meant to impose any specific Forest Service trail class standard. Rather, “all-weather trail” refers to a trail suitable for year-round use. In this case, we see no reason why construction of a Forest Service Class 1 or 2 trail on Forest Service land would not fulfill the “all-weather trail” specification.” PG&E’s proposal to designate the trail as Class I or II is consistent with FERC’s order and is intended to reduce impacts on cultural and biological resources while satisfying the all-weather trail requirement. ENCLOSURE 3 Comments regarding Poe Reach 90 Percent Trail Design Butte County Resource Conservation District August 10, 2026 Prepared by: Mike Taylor September 13, 2026 The Poe Reach 90 percent design represents a significant milestone with the trail route and stream crossings firmly established. Review of the submittal does raise several questions and comments regarding stream identification, image captions and the utility of the Stream Crossing Summary Table on page 22. The “Rock-Armored Stream Crossing” on page 4 seems overkill if followed to the letter. Most of the stream channels involved are currently stable with little reason to disturb them for the sake of a standard template. Building a dam at crossings will only involve unnecessary channel disturbance for a debatable benefit. I presume that there will be “field modifications” to suit individual crossings. The Appendix 2 Stream Crossing Summary Table Page 22 has little utility. Streams 2, 3, 4, and 5 share a watershed of 147 acres but each is assigned the same discharge for a given return period with no attempt to apportion discharge among the streams. Streams 6 and 7 are assigned the same watershed area but they are entirely separate streams with a significant difference in size. Streams 12 and 12b are assigned the same watershed area although stream 12 is an abandoned channel. Streams 12 and 12b are reversed with stream 12 an abandoned channel. Perhaps the most interesting discharges appearing on the table are streams 14 and 15 with one watershed area of 2 acres and the other 390 acres but each is assigned identical discharges. These errors make the usefulness of the entire table rather doubtful. Stream Crossing Diagrams appearing on page 23 have far more utility than the calculated stream flow for various crossings since the diagrams are based on actual measurement and notation of conditions. The note for Stream Crossing 6 listed on North Stream Crossing Chart page 7 states “Bridge may need stairs.” The same statement regarding stream 6 appears on the Overall Stream Crossing Chart page 9. Stream Crossing Diagrams page 23 indicate that a ford will be utilized to cross stream 6. I presume that the page 23 notation is correct. Site specific comments follow. Stream Crossings Overall Stream Crossing Chart Page 9 Stream Crossing 4: Perennial. Narrow. Agreed diversion potential. Streams 2, 3 and 4 have rather uniform year-round discharge with limited potential for high winter flow that might result in diversion. Stream 5: Not a stream. There is no evidence of a channel above the top of the abrupt step. Likely a “coyote hole” prospect. Unidentified stream: Continuing 60 to 75 feet or so from “Stream 5” is a fairly wide, cobbly, intermittent stream. It had a bit of flow last winter. Ignore in terms of needed armoring or stabilization but needs to be recognized. The series of streams from streams 2 and 3 to this intermittent are better understood by checking the updated Lidar imagery provided by Scott Harding. The streams have been incised into an ancient debris torrent with some rather massive boulders at the lower end. Stream 9: One boot wet perennial stream. Needs minimal approach erosion control. . North Stream Crossing Chart page 7 indicates “stairs may be needed.” An errant comment perhaps intended for another stream? Stream 12a and 12b: A-5 Inset Map page 14 identifies stream 12a as upstream of 12b. Stream 12a, the upstream one of the two, is an abandoned channel. It is essentially a hydrologic artifact. The downstream stream channel (12b) is intermittent and active. It appears that the stream descriptions have been reversed based on the A-5 Insert Map. Alternatively, the identity of streams 12a and 12b are reversed on the A-5 Insert Map. Inset Map photos A-2 Inset Map Page 11 Photo 14: Appears to be taken from the unidentified intermittent stream located a bit west (downstream) of “Stream 5.” A-5 Inset Map Page 14 Photo 37: Stream 12a not 12b Photo 38: Stream 12b.not 12a A-6 Inset Map Page 15 Photo 42: Caption “existing trail.” Is this correct? Photo 43: Caption “Large bridge location.” Seems incorrect. Photo 48: Caption “Existing trail with rock wall in drainage.” seems incorrect since the photo location is on a spur ridge Check locations of Photos 54, 55, and 56 on A-7 Insert Map page 16 and Photos 57, 58 and 59 on A-8 Insert Map page 17. The locations are nearly identical.