Strategy to Advance Flood Protection, Ecosystems and Recreation (SAFER) along San Francisco Bay

Status Planning County San Mateo
Project Type Non-mitigation Location 37.48529° N, -122.14390° W Map
Project Area (Acres) No Data Last Updated 17 September 2024
Project Abstract The Strategy to Advance Flood protection, Ecosystems and Recreation along the San Francisco Bay (SAFER Bay) Project will protect people, property and infrastructure from flooding from Bay tides and projected sea level rise through engineered and natural features that benefit our shoreline ecosystem and provide enhanced recreational opportunities.
Project Groups San Francisco Bay Joint Venture | San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority (Eligible) | San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority (Funded) | South Bay Salt Ponds: Future Restoration/Enhancement
Administrative Region San Francisco Bay Joint Venture - Jemma Williams, SFBJV

Project Identification

IDType
RA-035 SFBRA - Project ID

Habitat Plan

Site NamePhaseActivitySubActivitiesHabitatSubHabitatAcresActivity StatusWater Regime
Strategy to Advance Flood Protection, Ecosystems and Recreation along San Francisco Bay Conceptual design Restoration (unspecified) Bay Habitat (SFBJV Only) Tidal marsh No Data Planning in-progress

Related Habitat Impacts

Impact Project NameHabitatAcres LostType of Loss
No Data

Sites

NameStatusAcres
Former Salt Ponds, Menlo Park Planning/Scoping No Data
Pond R1 Planning/Scoping No Data
Pond R2 Planning/Scoping No Data
Strategy to Advance Flood Protection, Ecosystems and Recreation along San Francisco Bay Planning/Scoping No Data

Events

DateTypeDescriptionSite Name
2023-03-03 Update $3,980,000 authorized by SFBRA to complete planning phase.
2022-06-24 Update $1M funding approved for planning and design by SFBRA. Project Manager is Laura Cholodenko.
2020-03-05 Other BRRIT consultation Pond R1
2016-11-15 Report
2016-10-15 Report Public Draft Feasibility Report, SAFER Bay Project http://www.sfcjpa.org/documents/SAFER_Bay_Public_Draft_Feasibility_Report_Summary_Oct._2016_.pdf

People

TypeNameOrganizationDepartment
Agency Staff Kevin Murray San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Not applicable/Unknown
Agency Staff Tess Byler San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Not applicable/Unknown
Agency Staff Miyko Harris-Parker San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Not applicable/Unknown
Agency Staff Margaret Bruce San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Not applicable/Unknown

Funding

Funding Need: $30,000,000

PhaseActivityFunderAmount
Conceptual design Restoration (unspecified) SFBRA San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority - Measure AA $4,980,000
Conceptual design Restoration (unspecified) Unknown/Unspecified Non-Federal Funder $1,045,625

Related CRAM Assessments

Visit DateVersionSite NameWetland TypeIndex Score
2012-11-08 6.0 Faber Marsh #3 estuarine perennial saline 72

Performance Measures

Plan NamePlan GoalPerformance MeasureMeasure ValueStatusEvaluation Date
San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Community Engagement Benefits economically disadvantaged communities 0 yes in-progress/partially achieved
San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Community Engagement Has significant youth involvement component 0 not applicable in-progress/partially achieved
San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Community Engagement Number of unique volunteers expected to participate 0 not applicable in-progress/partially achieved
San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Community Engagement Number of volunteer hours expected to be contributed 0 not applicable in-progress/partially achieved
San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Community Engagement Number of youth participants expected to be engaged 0 not applicable in-progress/partially achieved
San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Flood Protection Miles of levee to be constructed 0 not applicable in-progress/partially achieved
San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Public Access Miles of Bay Trail to be constructed 0 not applicable in-progress/partially achieved
San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Public Access Number of public access facilities to be constructed 0 not applicable in-progress/partially achieved
Name File Type Submitted On Submitted By
SFBRA Staff Recommendation Other 2022-08-04 Jasmine Cassidy, San Francisco Bay Joint Venture

How to Use the Habitat Development Curve

Habitat Development Curves (HDCs) are used to determine the developmental status and trajectory of on-the-ground projects to create, restore, or enhance California wetland and stream habitats. Each HDC is based on assessments of habitat condition for different age areas of one habitat type that in aggregate represent the full spectrum of habitat development. The assessments of condition are provided by expert applications of the California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM). Visit the CRAM website for more information about CRAM.

For each HDC, reference condition is represented by areas of a habitat that consistently get very high CRAM scores, have not been subject to disruptive management practices, and exist within landscapes that are protected and managed for their natural conditions. The horizontal lines intersecting the top of an HDC represent the mean CRAM score and standard deviation of scores for 25 qualifying reference areas.

The age of a project is estimated as the elapsed time in years between the groundwork end date for the project and the date of the CRAM assessment. To add or update a groundwork end date, use the Project Events form in Project Tracker (ptrack.ecoatlas.org). The minimum age in years of a non-project area, including any natural reference area, is estimated from all available local information, including historical maps and imagery, historical written accounts, and place-specific scientific studies of habitat development.

An HDC can be used to address the following questions:

  1. At what time in the future will the area of assessed habitat achieve the reference condition or other milestones in habitat development? The HDC can answer this question if the CRAM score for the assessed area is within the confidence interval of the HDC. The answer is the time in years along the HDC between the current age of the assessed area and the future date corresponding to the intersection of the HDC and the reference condition or other milestone.
  2. Is the area of assessed habitat likely to develop faster, slower, or at the same pace as most other areas of the same habitat type? The habitat area is likely to develop faster, slower, or at the same pace if the CRAM score for the area is above, below, or within the confidence interval of the HDC, respectively.
  3. What can be done to improve the condition of the habitat area or to increase its rate of development? HDCs by themselves cannot answer this question. Possible answers can be inferred by the following analysis that involves HDCs:
    1. Examine the HDC for each of the four CRAM Attributes;
    2. Identify the Attribute(s) scoring below the HDC;
    3. For any low-scoring Attribute, examine the component Metric Scores (note: the Metric Scores for any public CRAM assessment in the CRAM database can be obtained through EcoAtlas);
    4. Assume the low score of an Attribute is due to its low-scoring Metric(s);
    5. Consider modifying the design or management of the habitat area in ways that will sustainably increase its score(s) for the low-scoring Metric(s).

For more information about CRAM Attributes and Metrics, including their scientific rationale, see the CRAM Manual.

Display Habitat Development Curves For Wetland Type:

CRAM Site Scores