4-1 February 2022

Chapter 4: Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations 

4.1 Introduction

This chapter examines the potential social, economic, and environmental consequences of the No 

Action and Build Alternatives. The chapter includes sections summarizing the Project Alternatives’ 

impacts on the following resources: 

• Land Use and Community Character • Air Quality

• Social Conditions • Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

• Economic Conditions • Noise and Vibration

• Cultural Resources • Utilities and Infrastructure

• Visual Resources • Contaminated Materials

• Water Resources • Safety and Security

• General Ecology and Wildlife Resources • Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

• Geology • Commitment of Resources

The Livingston Avenue Bridge is an east-west railroad crossing of the Hudson River. The Project 

site, which is defined to be the limits of disturbance of the Build Alternatives, is located within two 

cities and two counties separated by the Hudson River—the City of Albany in Albany County and 

the City of Rensselaer in Rensselaer County (see Figure 4.1-1). This section of the Hudson River 

is not a designated wild, scenic, or recreational river under either the Federal or New York State 

program.

20 (The nearest designated portion of the river is approximately 40 miles upstream of the 

Project site.) As a result, Project implementation would not affect wild, scenic, or recreational 

rivers. Similarly, there are no farmlands within the area that the Project would affect. Therefore, 

these topics are not addressed in this chapter.

Resources listed above are unique; therefore, the evaluation method and study area varies by 

resource. For each resource, this chapter describes: (1) the methodology and study area used in 

the analysis; (2) the affected environment, which is the environmental setting and conditions in 

the study area; (3) impacts of the No Action Alternative; (4) impacts of the Build Alternatives; and 

(5) measures to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate potential adverse impacts, if warranted. Each 

section addresses the operational impacts of the Build Alternatives. A description of construction 

activities and the potential for construction-related adverse impacts for each environmental topic 

is presented in Section 4.16, “Construction Impacts.”

4.2 Land Use and Community Character

4.2.1 Introduction

This section describes the analysis FRA and NYSDOT conducted of the potential long-term 

impacts of the No Action and Build Alternatives on land use, zoning, and public policies. “Land 

20 The National Wild and Scenic River System (Public Law 90-542; 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) and the New 

York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) New York State Wild, Scenic and 

Recreational Rivers Permit Program (Article 15 Title 27 ECL; 6 NYCRR Part 666).

Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-2 

use” refers to the activity that occurs on land and within the structures that occupy it—for example, 

residential, commercial, industrial, institutional and community facilities, transportation-related, 

parks and recreational uses, and vacant land. Public policies are plans established by local 

municipalities related to land use and development that guide decision-making. Zoning is the 

method by which municipalities define what land uses are allowed on a given parcel of land and 

the physical restrictions, such as bulk, height, or setbacks, that have been placed on development. 

This section describes the Project’s compatibility with existing and planned future land uses and 

zoning. It also describes the permanent property acquisition required for the Build Alternatives. 

4.2.2 Methodology and Study Area

FRA and NYSDOT considered the uses and development trends in the area that may be affected 

by the Project and determined whether the Project would be compatible with those conditions. The 

analysis also considered the Project’s consistency with, and effect on, the area’s zoning and other 

applicable public policies. Direct effects on study area land use and community character would

constitute an adverse impact if the change would create land use that would be incompatible with 

existing or surrounding uses or development patterns or public policies, including zoning, or if the 

Project would negatively affect community facilities, parkland, or recreational resources. For this 

assessment, the study area for land use and community character encompasses an area large 

enough to provide an understanding of land use patterns and trends and encompass the direct 

and indirect effects of the Build Alternatives. The study area is the area within 1⁄4 mile of the existing 

Livingston Avenue Bridge (see Figure 4.2-1). The Project’s potential effect on Section 4(f) 

resources, including parkland, is presented in Chapter 6, “Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation.” The 

Build Alternatives would not affect parklands or facilities that have been funded through the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund Act (Section 6(f)) or the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery 

Program (Section 1010), and therefore no further consideration under Section 6(f) or Section 1010 

is required.

4.2.3 Affected Environment

Land used within the study area include those typical for urban settings. In both Albany and 

Rensselaer, the study area includes a range of industrial, office, commercial, residential, 

recreational, and institutional uses, as well as vacant parcels (see Figure 4.2-1).21 On wooded 

and vacant waterfront parcels in Rensselaer there are opportunities for new waterfront 

development, and two mixed-use development projects—Kiliaen’s Landing and De Laet’s 

Landing—are planned in the study area (see Figure 4.2-2).

The Cities of Albany and Rensselaer are both part of the Hudson River Valley National Heritage 

Area22 and the Hudson River Valley Greenway, and both cities participate in the Greenway 

community planning program,23 which seeks, in part, to enhance outdoor recreational activities

and enjoyment in the Hudson River Valley through creation of a network of trails and byways. In 

addition, the Albany portion of the study area is within two State Heritage Areas: the Albany

21 Land use data were provided by the Cities of Albany (2017) and Rensselaer (2017) in GIS format and 

tax assessment records. Land uses within approximately 400 feet of the existing bridge were fieldverified, where feasible, in February 2019.

22 Designated by Congress in 1996 to recognize the Hudson Valley’s important role in the history and 

development of the United States.

23 The Hudson River Valley Greenway Act was passed by the New York State legislature in 1991 to 

provide technical assistance and funding for Greenway Communities to preserve scenic, natural, 

historic, cultural and recreational resources while encouraging compatible economic development and 

maintaining the tradition of home rule for land use decision making.


Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-3 February 2022

Heritage Area and the Mohawk Valley Heritage Corridor.

24 Plans to improve recreational 

resources on both sides of the river reflect the objectives of these designations and the local plans

that seek to improve public access to the waterfront. Existing and proposed parks and recreational 

resources that are located in the study area are shown on Figure 4.2-3. 

The existing and proposed land use, parks and recreational resources, and public policies that 

guide land use decisions are described below. 

4.2.3.1 City of Albany

4.2.3.1.1 General Land Use Description

The Albany portion of the study area is divided by the existing rail tracks and I-787, a major 

interstate highway that runs north-south along the Hudson River. The existing railroad tracks west 

of the Livingston Avenue Bridge pass beneath the I-787 roadway viaduct and above the other 

roadways in the study area. In addition to the Empire Corridor tracks, the study area also includes 

CP freight tracks passing north-south beneath the Empire Corridor viaduct. 

The portion of the study area located to the north and east of the existing rail tracks (primarily in 

the area of Centre Street, Montgomery Street, Erie Boulevard, and Colonie Street) consists largely 

of warehouses, parking areas, and some office space. A large former cold storage building, the 

Central Warehouse, occupies a full block immediately north of the railroad right-of-way. The 

Central Warehouse building is vacant and has been the subject of speculation and redevelopment 

plans for a number of years. At the present time, no specific development project is moving 

forward.

25,26 This area also contains some commercial uses, automotive services, several 

restaurants and bars, banks, small offices, and showroom facilities. 

The area of the study area south and west of the rail tracks consists predominantly of the highwayrelated roadways of I-787 and its ramps. West of the highway and just south of the railroad tracks, 

a U.S. post office is at the corner of Broadway and Livingston Avenue. Office buildings line both 

sides of Broadway (and the east side of North Pearl Street) south of Livingston Avenue. North of 

the Livingston Avenue, the study area is occupied predominantly by a large apartment complex 

located on the west side of North Pearl Street from Livingston Avenue to Lark Drive. Lower rise 

residential uses are located on the blocks between North Pearl Street and Ten Broeck Street. 

4.2.3.1.2 Parks and Recreational Resources

Parks line Albany’s Hudson River waterfront on both sides of the Livingston Avenue Bridge (see 

Figure 4.2-3). To the south is the 18-acre, City of Albany-owned Corning Riverfront Park (formerly 

called Corning Preserve), which provides a number of park amenities including playgrounds, 

walking and biking trails, and picnic areas. To the north of the bridge is the Riverfront Preserve, a 

nature preserve that extends along the shoreline for approximately 1.5 miles. Close to the 

Livingston Avenue Bridge, the Riverfront Preserve contains a boat launch and boathouse for the 

Albany Rowing Center as well as parking for the preserve. 

Another recreational resource in the study area is the Mohawk–Hudson Bike–Hike Trail, which 

runs along the Hudson River passing through Corning Riverfront Park and the Riverfront Preserve. 

This trailway is part of the larger Canalway Trail that, when complete, will follow the Erie Canal 

from Buffalo to Albany. Most of the trail is complete to date, with only a few gaps remaining where 

24 The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) administers the 

State Heritage Program for areas that exhibit natural and cultural resources of statewide significance.

25 https://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Two-bidders-vye-for-Albany-s-Central-Warehouse16241936.php. 

26 https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-Central-Warehouse-saga-rolls-on-and16672635.php. 

Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-4 

cyclists must share roadways with vehicular traffic.27 The Mohawk–Hudson portion of the trail 

extends along the Mohawk and Hudson Rivers from Rotterdam and passes beneath the Dunn 

Memorial Bridge (U.S. Routes 9 and 20) and Livingston Avenue Bridge. This trail provides 

connections and access to other biking and hiking trails in the Albany area and throughout New 

York State. According to the Mohawk–Hudson Bike–Hike Map,28 this recreational resource is the 

region’s most continuous bicycle and pedestrian facility and has more than 35 miles of trail 

(including both on- and off-road sections). In the study area, the bike–hike trail is a paved off-road 

trail. The segment of the trail in the City of Albany is owned by NYSDOT and maintained by the 

city.

Van Rensselaer Park is also located within the study area. This park includes playground 

equipment, park benches, and open lawn areas and occupies a city block bounded by Ten Broeck 

Street, 2nd Street, Hall Place, and Ten Broeck Place. 

In the area beneath the I-787 overpass just north of the Livingston Avenue Bridge, several 

waterfront parcels are owned by NYSDOT, NYSOGS, and the City of Albany. These parcels are 

partly occupied by the I-787 right-of-way, and also include parking for the Riverfront Preserve, 

Corning Riverfront Park, and nearby state office buildings, as described in Section 3.3.3, 

“Vehicular Traffic and Parking.” During inclement weather, outdoor concerts are moved to the 

City of Albany parking lot from an amphitheater and performance space at Jennings Landing, 

located just outside the southern boundary of the study area in Corning Riverfront Park. The 

Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail and a boat launch are located along the waterfront to the east of 

the parking lots. 

At the time of publication of this EA, NYSDOT is nearing completion of construction on the Albany 

Skyway project, a plan developed by Capitalize Albany, the city’s economic development group, 

to convert the U.S. Route 9 ramp that extends from Quay Street to Broadway into a pedestrian 

promenade, with fencing and pathway lighting, closing it to traffic.

In November 2020, the City of Albany released a request for proposals for the Hudson River 

Waterfront Gateway Improvements project, which will add lighting, landscaping, pedestrian and 

bicycle improvements, and wayfinding signage at key gateways to the Albany riverfront including 

the intersection of Colonie Street and Quay Street, just north of the Livingston Avenue Bridge. 

While the schedule for this project is not known, it could likely be complete by the Livingston 

Avenue Bridge Project’s opening year and is included in the No Action Alternative. 

4.2.3.1.3 Zoning and Public Policies

A number of local plans have been drafted to guide development in the study area. These include:

• The Capital District Transportation Committee (CDTC) Metropolitan Planning Organization’s 

New Visions for a Quality Region,

29 which commits to collaborating with stakeholders to 

ensure that any rehabilitation of the Livingston Avenue Bridge includes accommodations for 

bicycles and pedestrians;

• The City of Albany’s Comprehensive Plan, Albany 2030,

30 which provided the impetus for a 

new master plan for Corning Riverfront Park and advocates for a pedestrian/bicycle 

connection on any Livingston Avenue Bridge replacement;

• The City of Albany Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP), which recommends 

increased public access to the waterfront through improved bike trails and shuttle buses and 

27 https://www.ptny.org/bike-canal/map/. 

28 Ibid. 

29 https://www.cdtcmpo.org/mohhudns.pdf. 

30 https://www.albanyny.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3759/Albany-2030-Comprehensive-PlanwAppendices. 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-5 February 2022

a new nature preserve (including a small-scale environmental education facility, a network of 

footpaths, and nature-oriented functions of public interest) at Lower Patroon Island, located 

just north of the Livingston Avenue Bridge;

• The Albany Sustainable Design Assessment Team Report (2007),31 which recommends a 

long-term goal of reconfiguring I-787 to regain the connection between downtown Albany and 

the Hudson River.

In 2017, the City of Albany revised its zoning code so that the zoning designations are consistent 

with the recommendations of the city’s latest adopted comprehensive plan, Albany 2030. As 

shown in Figure 4.2-4, the study area along the waterfront is zoned with a Land Conservation 

District (LC). Most of the study area has a mixed-use zoning designation, primarily Mixed-Use 

Downtown, Mixed-Use Community Urban, and Mixed-Use Form-Based Warehouse. The western 

portion of the study area includes a mix of residential districts. 

4.2.3.2 City of Rensselaer

4.2.3.2.1 General Land Use Description

In Rensselaer, the railroad tracks of the Empire Corridor that cross the Livingston Avenue Bridge 

connect to north-south tracks that run parallel to the Hudson River. South of the bridge, the area 

west of the railroad tracks (along the waterfront) is occupied by the Amtrak Maintenance Facility. 

North of the bridge, the area west of the tracks is predominantly vacant, wooded land. The City of 

Rensselaer has preliminary plans for a new development, Kiliaen’s Landing, on 18 acres in this 

area. The concept includes approximately 350 residential units, restaurants, retail and exhibition 

space, and a waterfront promenade. In 2018, a Final Generic EIS was completed for the project,32

and the City of Rensselaer is currently seeking developer interest in the site. To the north of the 

proposed Kiliaen’s Landing site are a municipal boat launch and picnic areas in the city’s Riverfront 

Park, as well as an adaptive reuse of an old mill converted into office and artists’ spaces. 

The study area east of the rail tracks consists of properties that face Broadway. Land use here is 

primarily residential, with some commercial and institutional uses and vacant land. This section of 

Broadway has a mix of single-family homes, small apartment buildings, and limited small-scale 

retail and neighborhood service establishments. In recent years, a number of small apartment 

buildings have been completed along Broadway in this part of the study area. Several institutional 

uses and community centers, including a fire station on the west side of Broadway, are between 

Partition Street and John Street. There are several places of worship along Broadway, including 

a Buddhist monastery and several churches.

Along the waterfront to the south of the Amtrak Maintenance Facility, a large mixed-use project is 

currently under development on the former site of the Rensselaer High School. Called De Laet’s 

Landing, the project will occupy 27 acres and include a mix of residential units, retail space, and 

office space, as well as waterfront recreational space and improved pedestrian access to the 

waterfront from the Albany-Rensselaer Amtrak Station (located outside the study area to the 

south). De Laet’s Landing will be developed in phases over a 10- to 15-year period. The first two 

components of the project broke ground in fall 2016. A waterfront esplanade was completed in 

31 http://councilalbanyna.tripod.com/downloads/Albany%20SDAT%20Report_final.pdf. 

32 Kiliaen’s Landing Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement, City of Rensselaer, May 2018. 

Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-6 

2018 and a mixed-use building containing office and retail space and 96 apartments33 was 

completed in 2019.34,35

4.2.3.2.2 Parks and Recreational Resources

There are several parks within the Rensselaer portion of the study area (see Figure 4.2-3). At the 

southwest corner of the Tracy Street/Broadway intersection is a small park with a basketball court 

and a playground. Another playground is on 1st Street near McNaughton Avenue and a baseball 

field is in the southeastern portion of the study area, separated from the Project site by residential 

and commercial land uses.

The City of Rensselaer intends to extend the Rensselaer Riverfront Multi-Use Trail from its existing 

0.3-mile segment near the Dunn Memorial Bridge farther north along the eastern shore of the 

Hudson River, passing beneath the Livingston Avenue Bridge. Greenway maps show trail 

extensions along the eastern shore of the Hudson River, which includes the study area, to improve 

connectivity between existing trails. An approximately 1,000-foot-long segment of the riverfront 

trail system has already been constructed as part of De Laet’s Landing. The trail extension, 

referred to as the Rensselaer Riverfront Multi-Use Trail, would connect the existing esplanade at 

DeLaet’s Landing on the south, which is south of the Livingston Avenue Bridge, to the City’s boat 

launch north of Tracy Street on the north, which is north of the Livingston Avenue Bridge in 

Rensselaer’s Riverfront Park. The City of Rensselaer has secured funding to complete the trail 

extension, which is currently in design.

36

4.2.3.2.3 Zoning and Public Policies

The planned waterfront development in the study area is consistent with, and/or was envisioned 

by, the City of Rensselaer’s Comprehensive Plan37 and the City of Rensselaer LWRP.38 These 

plans make additional recommendations for increased public access to the waterfront, including 

development of Amtrak’s property and siting water-dependent recreational and boating uses along 

the waterfront. The zoning districts (see Figure 4.2-4) reflect the objectives of the local plans—

the area along the river is predominantly a Waterfront Mixed-Use District, and the De Laet’s 

Landing site is designated as a Planned Development District. East of the waterfront area, the 

area along Broadway is mapped as a Downtown Mixed-Use zone, and land to the east of the 

Broadway corridor is mapped for medium-density residential uses (Residential District #2).

4.2.4 Impacts of the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Livingston Avenue Bridge would not be rehabilitated or 

replaced. The existing bridge would continue to operate as it does under existing conditions and 

NYSDOT would not acquire any new private or public land for conversion to rail right-of-way. The 

No Action Alternative would have no adverse impacts on neighborhood cohesion, community 

character, or land development patterns in the study area. The No Action Alternative would not 

enhance the existing or planned parks and recreational resources in the study area. Under the No 

33 http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Waterfront-coming-alive-in-Rensselaer-Wednesday10464059.php. 

34 https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Rensselaer-unveils-new-esplanade-13073028.php. 

35 https://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2019/05/20/delaets-landing-rensselaer-waterfrontapartments.html. 

36 Coordination with William H. Smart, City Engineer, and Ketura Vicks, Director of Planning and 

Development, City of Rensselaer, January through September 2021.

37 https://rensselaerny.gov/application/files/9115/6356/7853/Comprehensive_Plan_2006.pdf. 

38 https://docs.dos.ny.gov/opd-lwrp/LWRP/Rensselaer_C/Index.html. The LWRP was adopted by the City 

of Rensselaer in May of 1986 (approved by the New York State Department of State [NYSDOS] the 

following year); the city is currently in the process of updating its LWRP.
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-7 February 2022

Action Alternative, there would be no safe, authorized public access and pedestrian and bicycle 

access across the bridge. The bridge would continue to be prohibited and pedestrians would 

continue to illegally trespass on the bridge. 

4.2.5 Impacts of the Build Alternatives

The Build Alternatives would replace the Livingston Avenue Bridge in an adjacent alignment either 

to the north (Build Alternative 1) or south (Build Alternative 2) of the existing bridge. The Build 

Alternatives would not adversely affect existing neighborhoods or community character in Albany 

or Rensselaer, as the shift in the alignment would be relatively small and principally at the eastern 

approach to the bridge. Residential and commercial land use nearest the eastern approach in 

Rensselaer is buffered by distance and vegetation to the east, the Amtrak Maintenance Facility to 

the south, and the vacant, wooded parcels to the north. The Build Alternatives would not affect 

land development patterns, generate new development, divide neighborhoods, isolate part of a 

neighborhood, or otherwise adversely affect community cohesion. Neither alternative would 

require the acquisition of any dwellings or businesses or parkland.

The Build Alternatives include a shared use bicycle and pedestrian path across the new bridge

that would provide connectivity between two isolated neighborhoods and link parks and trails on 

both sides of the Hudson River (the path itself would not be considered a park, but rather a 

transportation right-of-way). Thus, the Project would provide a long-term benefit to the 

communities, parks, and recreational resources in the study area.

The Build Alternatives would not result in adverse impacts to parks or recreational resources. In 

Albany, similar to existing conditions, the new bridge would be elevated over the Mohawk-Hudson 

Bike-Hike Trail, but would be slightly north or south of its existing location before tying into the 

existing alignment. This would not affect the use or the character of the trail. In Rensselaer, the 

railroad alignment and wye would also be slightly north or south of the existing location, but this 

would not preclude the future trail improvements, as described above. NYSDOT will continue to 

work with the City of Rensselaer to ensure that the Project’s design is coordinated with the design 

of the Rensselaer Riverfront Multi-Use Trail.

The Build Alternatives would be consistent with the objectives of the Greenway Program and 

would not adversely affect scenic, cultural, or recreational resources located in the study area.

The Build Alternatives would not adversely affect any defining resources in the Albany State 

Heritage Area or the Mohawk Valley Heritage Corridor or adversely affect the scenic or historic 

quality that contributes to the area’s recognition as the Hudson River Valley National Heritage 

Area (see Section 4.6, “Visual Resources and Aesthetic Considerations”). The Project would 

support local plans by enhancing waterfront access and providing a safe and secure pedestrian 

and cyclist connection to the existing and planned paths on either side of the river. The Build 

Alternatives would be consistent with the goals and objectives identified in the land use plans, 

including the New York State Coastal Management Program and the City of Albany and City of 

Rensselaer LWRPs (see Appendix B-2, “Water Resources and Ecology”). 

The shared-use path planned for both build alternatives along with planned trails and other 

recreational projects in Albany and Rensselaer would substantially improve non-motorized travel 

network in the study area and enhance waterfront access by providing a series of connected 

riverfront trails, scenic viewpoints, and waterfront uses. This would be a regional transportation 

and recreational benefit and fulfill long-time plans to better connect the east and west shoreline 

communities along the Hudson River.

Permanent property acquisitions that would be required for each alternative are shown on Figures 

4.2-5 and 4.2-6. For Build Alternative 1, NYSDOT would acquire approximately 2.2 acres of land in 

Rensselaer either by fee acquisition or permanent easement, including approximately 1.8 acres 

programmed for residential use within the proposed 18-acre Kiliaen’s Landing development. In Albany, 

Build Alternative 1 would be built entirely on railroad property and land owned by New York State. 


Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-8 

For Build Alternative 2, NYSDOT would acquire approximately 2.1 acres of land in Rensselaer

either by fee acquisition or permanent easement, including approximately 1.4 acres programmed 

for residential use within the proposed 18-acre Kiliaen’s Landing development. In Albany, Build 

Alternative 2 would be built entirely on railroad property and land owned by New York State. 

4.2.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation

Build Alternative 1, and to a lesser extent Build Alternative 2, would encroach upon land that the 

City of Rensselaer outlined for use as residential development, the Kiliaen’s Landing project. The 

City of Rensselaer is in the process of soliciting developer interest in the site. NYSDOT will

coordinate with the City of Rensselaer and the team chosen to develop the site to minimize the 

encroachment on the Kiliaen’s Landing site and ensure seamless connectivity with the proposed 

riverfront trail system.

Federally funded transportation projects must adhere to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and 

Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as codified in 42 USC 4601 et seq., and the 

applicable implementing regulations set forth in 49 CFR Part 24 (collectively, the Uniform Act). 

The rights of property owners and tenants of real property to be acquired to implement the Project 

are protected under the Uniform Act, which is intended to ensure that individuals receive just 

compensation as well as relocation services, including moving payments, replacement housing 

payments, and other allowable payments related to commercial and residential moving costs, in 

order to ensure that these individuals do not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of programs 

and projects designed for the benefit of the public as a whole, and to minimize the hardship of 

displacement on occupants of acquired properties. 

In the State of New York, acquisition of real property by New York State entities must also adhere 

to the New York State Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL), which establishes the exclusive 

procedure by which property is acquired in New York State, ensures just compensation is paid, 

and establishes opportunities for public participation in the planning of projects necessitating the 

exercise of eminent domain.

All property acquisitions for the Project would comply with the provisions of the Uniform Act and

the EDPL.

4.3 Social Conditions

4.3.1 Introduction

This section presents the analysis FRA and NYSDOT conducted of the Project’s potential impacts 

on the population residing near the Livingston Avenue Bridge. Operation of the Build Alternatives

would not increase rail service on the Empire Corridor or change travel patterns in the region. 

Therefore, the Project has no potential to cause demographic shifts. This section identifies the 

social characteristics of the population residing in the study area. A separate analysis of the 

potential for disproportionate and adverse impacts from the No Action and Build Alternatives on 

low-income and minority populations is provided in Chapter 5, “Environmental Justice.”

4.3.2 Methodology and Study Area

FRA and NYSDOT consulted the following data sources to gather useful information in understanding 

the characteristics of the existing population: 2000 U.S. Census Bureau data, 2010 Census data, and

2015-2019 American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates (ACS). The study area for social 

conditions includes the census block groups that fall within the 1⁄4 mile study area used for the land 

use and community character assessment. As shown on Figure 4.3-1, the study area includes Albany 

County Census Tract 2 Block Group 1 and Census Tract 11 Block Group 1, and Rensselaer County 

Census Tract 515 Block Group 2 and Census Tract 516 Block Groups 1 and 2. 



Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-11 February 2022

4.3.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation

The Build Alternatives would not result in adverse impacts on the study area’s population. 

Therefore, mitigation is not required. 

4.4 Economic Conditions

4.4.1 Introduction

This section presents the analysis FRA and NYSDOT conducted of the Project’s potential impacts

on regional and local economies, and the businesses and employment characteristics in the study 

area. 

4.4.2 Methodology and Study Area

FRA and NYSDOT evaluated the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) data for 

the study area to provide an overview of general economic conditions.40 QCEW data for New York 

State, which are developed through a cooperative program between the State of New York and 

the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, provide information on employment by 

place of work based on reports from employers covered under New York State's Unemployment 

Insurance Law. Data are available for New York State, metropolitan areas, and counties. This 

analysis focuses on the data for Albany and Rensselaer Counties at the regional level. The 

analysis also considers the potential for local impacts to businesses in the study area. The study 

area used for this analysis is the same as the land use and community character study area (see 

Figure 4.2-1 in Section 4.2, “Land Use and Community Character”). 

4.4.3 Affected Environment

In 2019, an annual average of 288,061 employees worked in the bi-county region of Albany and 

Rensselaer Counties (see Exhibit 4.4-1). This represented a 6.9 percent increase since 2010, a 

lower growth rate than that of New York State overall, where employment grew by 14.4 percent 

during that time period. The major employment sectors in the bi-county region are health care and 

social assistance, comprising 14.4 percent of employment; retail trade, comprising 9.5 percent of 

employment; accommodation and food services, comprising 6.6 percent of employment; and 

professional and technical services, comprising 6.3 percent of employment. Health care and social 

assistance is the top employment sector in both counties individually but commands a slightly 

higher share of employment in Rensselaer County (15.2 percent) as compared to Albany County 

(14.2 percent). Retail trade is the second highest employment sector in Rensselaer County 

(10.3%) followed by manufacturing (9.5 percent). In Albany County, retail trade is also the second 

highest employment sector (9.3 percent) but is followed by professional and technical services 

(6.8 percent).

40 https://statistics.labor.ny.gov/lsqcew.shtm. 

Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-13 February 2022

information, see Section 2.3.1 in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives”). These disruptions to New 

York State’s passenger rail network would weaken the state’s transportation infrastructure and 

decrease its economic competitiveness. In addition, without rail service at the Schenectady and 

Albany-Rensselaer Stations, some rail- and passenger service-related jobs could be lost. 

The rerouting of rail traffic would result in greater expenses to shippers and the loss of a portion 

of freight traffic to trucking. On a regional level, the higher transportation costs associated with 

either moving freight via a bypass route or by truck would result in less capital available to 

purchase additional goods and hire additional employees. Without a direct Albany-Rensselaer 

connection, CSX would have to eliminate freight rail service to several locations and for several 

customers. In addition, as truck vehicle miles increase, there would be associated highway 

congestion, air emissions, and pavement damage and associated costs.

4.4.5 Impacts of the Build Alternatives

There are no differences in local economic impact among the build alternatives. By maintaining 

passenger and freight rail service on existing routes, the Build Alternatives would have a positive 

effect on the regional and local economies and employment of Albany and Rensselaer Counties. 

The Build Alternatives would result in a new rail bridge that would improve operations on the 

Empire Corridor and eliminate a bottleneck in reliable rail service, thereby protecting the long-term 

viability of New York State’s passenger and freight rail network and resulting in a benefit to regional 

and national rail operations and related economic activity.

Regional and national economic benefits from the Build Alternatives would include the avoidance 

of the negative impacts associated with the No Action Alternative (discussed above) as well as 

positive economic impacts that result from faster and more convenient passenger transportation, 

freight shipper cost savings, and highway network user savings in comparison to the No Action 

Alternative.

In terms of local impacts, as described in Section 4.2, “Land Use and Community Character,”

the Build Alternatives would require the acquisition of some public and privately owned property; 

however, no businesses would be displaced. In addition, no access routes or parking would be 

affected by operation of the Build Alternatives. The temporary, and possibly permanent,

disruptions to rail service due to the frequent inspection, maintenance, and repair activities 

associated with the No Action Alternative would not occur with the Build Alternatives (other than 

standard maintenance), and the reduction in rail disruptions relative to the No Action Alternative 

would result in an economic benefit by eliminating inefficiencies in travel to, from, and through the 

region. The Build Alternatives would provide increased resilience for Empire Corridor passenger 

rail service and an ADA-compliant shared use path connecting the communities in Rensselaer 

and Albany via improved waterfront access, which is a permanent, long-term benefit to the local 

community. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not adversely affect local business activities, 

and would result in benefits to those activities. 

4.4.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation

The Build Alternatives would not result in adverse impacts on regional and local economies. 

Therefore, mitigation is not required.

4.5 Cultural Resources

4.5.1 Introduction

This section presents the evaluation FRA and NYSDOT conducted of the potential permanent 

effects of the No Action and Build Alternatives on historic properties. This section identifies historic 

architectural and archaeological resources in the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the Project, 

adverse effects of the Project Alternatives on such properties, and proposed measures to resolve 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-14

adverse effects through avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation. Section 4.16.6 in Section 

4.16, “Construction Impacts,” presents the evaluation FRA and NYSDOT conducted of the 

potential temporary impacts of construction activities on historic properties. 

4.5.2 Methodology and Study Area

FRA and NYSDOT prepared this analysis in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 196643 (Section 106), and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation’s (ACHP) regulations for implementing Section 106 (36 CFR Part 800). Section 106 

mandates that Federal agencies consider the effect of their actions on any properties listed on or 

determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NR). Consultation with 

parties with an interest in the historic resources, including the New York State Historic Preservation 

Office (SHPO) and other interested organizations, is also required.

44 In accordance with 36 CFR 

800.4(a)(1), FRA and NYSDOT, in consultation with SHPO, defined an APE for the Project that 

was appropriate to its scope, scale, and nature. As described below, based on a Cultural 

Resources Survey for the Project that evaluated a larger preliminary APE as a study area, FRA, 

NYSDOT, and SHPO agreed that potential effects of the Project on historic properties were limited 

to direct physical effects related to construction activities. Therefore, the APE was delineated to 

include areas that could be subject to direct construction impacts as shown in Figure 4.5-1. 

Steps in the Section 106 process that FRA and NYSDOT have completed, or will complete, include 

the following: 

• On behalf of FRA, NYSDOT initiated Section 106 consultation for the Project with SHPO, in a 

letter dated March 7, 2012 (see Appendix B-5, “Cultural Resources”).

• The New York State Museum completed a Cultural Resources Survey for the Project in 2011 

that included an evaluation of historic architectural resources and an evaluation of 

archaeological resources.45 The evaluation of historic architectural resources identified 

National Historic Landmarks (NHLs), properties listed on or determined eligible for listing on 

the NR, and properties that meet one or more of the NR criteria (36 Part 60) within a broad 

study area to address potential direct and indirect effects of the Project. The consideration of 

archaeological resources included a Phase I Archaeological Survey followed by Phase I-level 

field testing in areas with archaeological potential.46

43 NHPA (54 USC § 306108).

44 The New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 (NYSHPA) closely resembles NHPA. When a 

project is being reviewed pursuant to Section 106, the procedures of Section 14.09 of the NYSHPA do 

not apply, and any review and comment by SHPO must be within the framework of Section 106 

procedures (NYSHPA § 14.09(2)).

45 New York State Museum, Cultural Resources Survey Program. A Cultural Resources Survey Report for 

Volume II: Architectural Survey of PIN 1935.49.171, Livingston Avenue Bridge/Hudson River, City of 

Albany/City of Rensselaer, Albany County/Rensselaer County, New York. June 2011.

New York State Museum, Division of Research and Collections. Cultural Resources Reconnaissance 

Survey Report of 935.49.171, Livingston Avenue Bridge/Hudson River, City of Albany/City of 

Rensselaer, Albany County/Rensselaer County, New York. Volume I: Archaeological Results. April 

2011. 

46 Archaeological investigations typically include three potential phases, with the need for Phases II and III 

identified in the previous phase: Phase I (documentary research and site reconnaissance to determine 

the likelihood of encountering archaeological resources); Phase II (field testing and the determination of 

the integrity, significance, and NR eligibility if any archaeological resources are found); and Phase III 

(mitigating unavoidable impacts through performance of a data recovery or other form of mitigation). 

Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-15 February 2022

• On behalf of FRA, NYSDOT submitted the Cultural Resources Survey to SHPO on March 7, 

2012 and SHPO concurred with the findings in a May 2012 response (see Appendix B-5, 

“Cultural Resources”).

• On behalf of FRA, NYSDOT sent information about the Project, including a copy of the Cultural 

Resources Survey, to Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) for the Saint Regis 

Mohawk Tribe, the Stockbridge Munsee Community Band of Mohicans, and the Delaware 

Tribe. The THPOs responded and identified that they had no concerns but requested that they 

be notified if human remains or objects of cultural patrimony are encountered during 

construction of the Project.

• FRA and NYSDOT defined a preliminary APE for the Project (see Figure 4.5-1). The May 8, 

2012 letter from SHPO indicated that replacement of the bridge would be unlikely to result in 

indirect adverse effects to historic properties near the bridge, so the APE was subsequently 

revised to represent the area where direct effects of the Build Alternatives would occur. 

• NYSDOT sent Finding Documentation for the Project to SHPO on March 10, 2015. This 

documentation presented the revised Project APE and included a determination that the 

Project would have an adverse effect due to the proposed removal of the NR-eligible 

Livingston Avenue Bridge.

• SHPO responded to the recommended effect determination and requested additional 

information regarding the consideration of alternatives to the demolition of the Livingston 

Avenue Bridge on April 29, 2015.

• The Finding Documentation was modified to include more information on alternatives 

considered and was submitted to SHPO on June 17, 2015. 

• FRA and NYSDOT met with Bonney Hartley of the Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of 

Mohicans to discuss the Project and resolve concerns on June 26, 2015.

• FRA, NYSDOT, and NYSDOT’s design consultant met with SHPO on August 5, 2015 to 

review the alternatives and discuss additional alternatives. SHPO requested that additional 

consideration be given to measures to minimize harm to the Livingston Avenue Bridge, such 

as retaining or rebuilding components of the bridge.

• On November 10, 2015, NYSDOT submitted to SHPO an evaluation of additional alternatives 

and measures to minimize harm requested by SHPO. 

• In December 2015, SHPO responded via telephone that they would issue comments on the 

effect determination after a public information session and additional outreach to Consulting 

Parties. Also in December 2015, NYSDOT coordinated with officials from the City of Albany

to inquire whether they would like to acquire the structure as a recreational structure. 

• FRA invited organizations to participate in consultation pursuant to Section 106 (see 

Appendix B-5, “Cultural Resources”). In May 2017, FRA sent nine organizations invitations 

to serve as consulting parties for the Project’s review and six accepted the invitation and 

expressed interest in attending a public informational meeting. One additional entity 

subsequently requested consulting party status and was approved by FRA. Thus, the full list 

of organizations considered for consulting party status includes the following, with 

accepted/approved consulting parties in italics: 

­ Arbor Hill Neighborhood Association (invited, did not respond)

­ Bridge Line Historical Society (invited, did not respond)

­ Capital District Transportation Committee (requested consulting party status, approved by 

FRA)

­ City of Albany Historian (invited, did not respond)

­ City of Rensselaer Historian (invited, accepted invitation)

­ Historic Albany Foundation (invited, accepted invitation)
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-16

­ Livingston Avenue Bridge Coalition (invited, accepted invitation)

­ National Railway Historical Society Mohawk and Hudson Chapter (invited, accepted 

invitation)

­ New York Central Historical Society (invited, accepted invitation)

­ Partners for Albany Stories (invited, did not respond).

• FRA and NYSDOT prepared an assessment of effects based on ACHP’s Criteria of Adverse 

Effect (36 CFR § 800.5(a)) and determined that the Project would result in an adverse effect 

on the historic Livingston Avenue Bridge, but no other historic resources (see below).

• FRA and NYSDOT re-initiated Section 106 consultation with SHPO by letter dated August 24, 

2020, including updated Finding Documentation regarding the Project’s effects on historic 

properties. This updated Finding Documentation made a determination that the Project would 

have an adverse effect due to the proposed removal of the NR-eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge.

In a letter dated September 23, 2020, SHPO concurred with FRA and NYSDOT’s determination 

of adverse effect on the Livingston Avenue Bridge and requested that NYSDOT contact the City 

of Albany to determine their interest in retaining the western portion of the bridge; NYSDOT

contacted the City of Albany on this topic in a letter dated October 27, 2020.

• FRA and NYSDOT contacted the THPOs with whom they had consulted earlier to notify them 

of the adverse effect and provide another opportunity to continue consultation under Section 

106 in August 2020. Two of the THPOs responded and identified that they had no concerns 

but requested that they be notified if human remains or objects of cultural patrimony are 

encountered during construction of the Project. The other THPO did not respond.

• FRA notified the ACHP of the determination of adverse effect for the historic Livingston 

Avenue Bridge on December 3, 2020 and invited ACHP to participate in the Section 106 

consultation process. In a letter dated January 6, 2021, ACHP declined the invitation to 

participate.

• In a letter dated September 23, 2020, SHPO concurred that the removal of the Livingston 

Avenue Bridge would constitute an adverse effect on historic resources. SHPO also concurred 

that the proposed Project work on the Centre and Water Street Bridges of the Albany Railroad 

Viaduct would not result in adverse effects to those resources. In the same letter, SHPO 

requested that outreach to the City of Albany be conducted to inquire as to their interest in 

retaining a section of the bridge as a pedestrian pier.

• FRA and NYSDOT have considered alternatives that would avoid and/or minimize adverse 

effects and have identified mitigation measures to resolve adverse effects. These proposed 

measures were presented to and discussed in a meeting with SHPO on March 10, 2021. 

These measures are set forth in a Draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which is included 

in Appendix B-5 of this EA.

• In letters dated April 27, 2021, FRA informed the USACE and USCG of its determinations 

related to historic properties under Section 106 and invited those two agencies to participate 

in the Section 106 process as consulting parties and potentially as signatories.

• On April 28, 2021, the USCG replied in an email, accepting the invitation to be a Section 106 

consulting party but not a signatory to the Draft MOA.

• On May 19, 2021, the USACE replied in an email, accepting the invitation to be a Section 106 

consulting party and potentially as a signatory to the Draft MOA.

• NYSDOT provided the Draft MOA to SHPO for review and comment on June 2, 2021, and to 

the USACE and the USCG on June 4, 2021. 

• SHPO reviewed the Draft MOA in June and July 2021 and coordinated with NYSDOT 

regarding revisions. 


7.29.20

NYSDOT LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE Figure 4.5-3

Historic Architectural Resources: 

Livingston Avenue Bridge

View northeast 2

View north 1
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-18

The Albany Railroad Viaduct (NR-eligible; see also Figures 4.5-4 and 4.5-5) was determined 

eligible for the NR as part of the Albany-Schenectady 2nd Main Track project (NYSDOT PIN 

1935.52). Components of the NR-eligible Albany Railroad Viaduct are the Water Street Railroad 

Bridge, which is a 1948 deck-girder bridge; the Centre Street-Erie Boulevard Railroad Bridge, a 

1928 deck-girder bridge; and the Montgomery Street Railroad Bridge, which is a 1901-1902 

through-truss and through-girder bridge.48 The Centre Street-Erie Boulevard Railroad Bridge and 

the Water Street Railroad Bridge are located within the APE; the Montgomery Street Railroad 

Bridge is located immediately adjacent to the western terminus of the APE. The original Albany 

Railroad Viaduct was built as the western approach to an earlier Hudson River crossing built by 

the Hudson River Bridge Company according to designs by prominent engineer Julius W. Adams. 

The original viaduct approach structure in this location consisted of a wood trestle and 

incorporated three trestle bridges designed by Charles Hilton of the Hilton Bridge Company of 

Albany. The original wood trestle was replaced with an earthen causeway in the 1870s. The spans 

were replaced in 1882, at which point the structure was raised in height and transformed into a 

viaduct. The superstructures of the viaduct were replaced once more in 1901-1902. The earlier 

masonry walls of the viaduct were retained but encased in concrete at that time. The span over 

Water Street was replaced in 1947. Documentation notes that elements that embody the historic 

character of the viaduct include: the three spans over Water, Centre, and Montgomery Streets; 

the concrete-encased structure that connects them; and distinctive details such as early 20th

century date plates in the concrete. The Albany Railroad Viaduct was determined eligible under 

NR Criterion A,49 due to the fact that “its various construction episodes [ranging from ca. 1866 to 

ca. 1947] are associated with the development of early national freight travel and the consolidation 

and modernization of passenger and freight rail service in the early years of the twentieth 

century.”50

The Central Warehouse and Centre Street Railroad Spur Bridge (NR-eligible; see also Figure 

4.5-6) is located at 143 Montgomery Street on the block bounded by Livingston Avenue-Centre 

Street, Montgomery Street, Colonie Street, and the railroad tracks. It is outside of but immediately 

adjacent to the APE. Central Warehouse is a large cold storage facility built by the New York 

Central Railroad in 1927. A bridge that carries a railroad spur from the Albany Railroad Viaduct 

over Centre Street, adjacent to the Centre Street span of the Albany Railroad Viaduct, and 

connects to the Central Warehouse is a contributing feature to the NR-eligible resource. It is 

eligible under NR Criterion A.

48 Two other bridges located outside of the APE (the North Pearl Street Bridge and the Broadway-Colonie 

Street Bridge) are commonly considered part of the Albany Railroad Viaduct structure; however, the 

Cultural Resources Survey for the Project did not identify these as part of the NR-eligible resource. The 

Broadway-Colonie Street Bridge is individually NR-listed and is a contributing element within the NRlisted Broadway- Livingston Avenue Historic District.

49 NR Criterion A indicates that the property is associated with events that have made a significant 

contribution to the broad patterns of history.

50 Hartgen Archaeological Associates Structure Survey: NYSDOT PIN 1935.52: Albany-Schenectady 2nd 

Main Track Project, City of Albany and Town of Guilderland, Albany County and City of Schenectady, 

Schenectady County, New York. Submitted to CHA. Prepared by Hartgen Archaeological Associates, 

July 2010. 
7.29.20

NYSDOT LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE Figure 4.5-4

Historic Architectural Resources: 

Albany Railroad Viaduct, Water Street Bridge

View south (north elevation) 4

View north (south elevation) 3
7.29.20

NYSDOT LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE Figure 4.5-5

Historic Architectural Resources: 

Albany Railroad Viaduct, Centre Street Bridge

View south (north elevation), from beneath Centre Street Railroad Spur Bridge 6

View north (south elevation), Central Warehouse in background 5
7.29.20

NYSDOT LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE Figure 4.5-6

Historic Architectural Resources: 

Central Warehouse and Centre Street Railroad Spur Bridge

Centre Street Railroad Spur Bridge, view south on Centre Street 8

Central Warehouse, view southwest from Centre Street at Colonie Street 7
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-19 February 2022

4.5.3.2 Archaeological Resources

As part of the Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Project,51 an archaeological documentary 

study was undertaken to document prehistoric and historic-period land use and modern ground 

disturbance in the APE. Based on this evaluation, areas of archaeological sensitivity within the 

APE were identified and assigned a level of low, moderate, or high sensitivity. The following 

section summarizes the results of the documentary study. 

4.5.3.2.1 Precontact-Period Archaeological Sensitivity

The Native American occupation along the Hudson River has been well documented for the entire 

precontact period, through the Paleo-Indian, Archaic, and Woodland periods (ca. 9,000 years BC 

through AD 1600). The Cultural Resources Survey identified three precontact period sites located 

within a two-mile radius of the APE. These sites are located on the tributary and drainage system 

extending along the Hudson River. Between 1900 and 1903, much of the riverfront property in 

Rensselaer was created with fill material. The area between the railroad tracks and Broadway has 

not been modified with fill and may yield potential precontact cultural resources. The shoreline of 

the Hudson River in the City of Albany began to be modified in the 1800s with the canal system. 

The current boundary of the Hudson River in the City of Albany was reached sometime between 

1950 and 1970. Although the current shoreline may be recent, the APE west of I-787 is not 

composed of manmade land and therefore may yield potential precontact cultural resources. The 

entire APE has a moderate sensitivity rating for precontact cultural resources due to historic 

development on the original banks of the Hudson River.

4.5.3.2.2 Historic-Period Archaeological Sensitivity

The available historic maps depicting the area around the Livingston Avenue Bridge show 

numerous historic features, such as dwellings, commercial buildings, associated outbuildings, and 

the railroad throughout the APE. However, previous testing in the APE did not identify any historic 

features or cultural remains.52 The entire APE has a sensitivity rating of moderate for historicperiod archaeological resources, although much of the APE underwent ground disturbance by 

previous road, railroad, and commercial development. 

4.5.3.2.3 Results of Archaeological Field Testing

Because the documentary research concluded that portions of the APE are moderately sensitive 

for precontact and historic-period archaeological resources, archaeologists conducted field-testing 

during the fall of 2010 to confirm the presence or absence of such resources. The archaeologists 

excavated shovel test pits within the APE at 25- and 50-foot intervals. They also excavated four 

deeper trenches in the northeastern section of the APE. Based on the results of the field-testing, 

the APE is not considered sensitive for archaeological resources (i.e., it does not have the potential 

to contain buried archaeological resources). 

51 The archaeological survey identified four potentially significant archaeological sites within the original 

Cultural Resources Survey Area, all of which were recommended for further investigation if they would 

be subject to potential adverse effects because of the Project. These included a historic-period site in 

the City of Albany identified as Livingston Avenue #1 Site (NYSM #12309), and three historic-period 

sites in the City of Rensselaer identified as the Livingston Avenue #2 Site (NYSM #12310), Livingston 

Avenue #3 Site (NYSM #12311), and Livingston Avenue #4 Site (NYSM #12312). All of these sites are 

located outside of the bounds of the Project APE, and therefore, are not discussed further in this 

section. Based on the Archaeological Survey, the APE for the Project is not sensitive for archaeological 

resources.

52 Barry Dale Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Henry Knox Cannon Trail Restoration Project, 

Town of Hague, Warren County, New York, and City of Albany, New York. New York State Museum 

Cultural Resources Survey Program, Albany, New York. 2010. 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-20

4.5.4 Effects of the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, FRA and NYSDOT would not rehabilitate or replace the 

Livingston Avenue Bridge. The No Action Alternative would not result in adverse effects to historic 

resources, as there would be no ground disturbance or excavation, and the Livingston Avenue 

Bridge would be retained with its context unaltered. Maintenance and repair of the Livingston 

Avenue Bridge would not adversely affect the historic resource; however, the existing structure 

would continue to deteriorate, resulting in increased maintenance and eventually requiring the 

structure to be closed to rail traffic.

4.5.5 Effects of the Build Alternatives

In terms of archaeological resources, there are no archaeological sites or areas of archaeological 

sensitivity in the APE. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not affect archaeological resources. 

In terms of architectural resources, the Build Alternatives would replace the NR-eligible Livingston 

Avenue Bridge. FRA and NYSDOT have concluded, and SHPO has concurred, that removal of 

this resource would constitute an adverse effect under Section 106. FRA and NYSDOT are

conducting ongoing consultation with SHPO and other consulting parties regarding this adverse 

effect.

Additionally, both Build Alternatives would alter the Water Street and Centre Street bridges, which 

are contributing components of the NR-eligible Albany Railroad Viaduct. At each of these bridges, 

the beam seats of the bridge abutments that support the bridge girders (i.e., the beam seats and 

girder bearings) would be modified or replaced and several pairs of deck girders (i.e., bridge 

beams) would be repositioned to support the new track alignment. At the Water Street bridge, a 

set of existing deck girders would be removed to accommodate this shift (for more information, 

see Section 2.4.2.6.1 in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives”). FRA and NYSDOT have concluded, 

and SHPO has concurred, that these changes would not constitute an adverse effect because the 

alterations would not change the characteristics that make the Albany Railroad Viaduct eligible as 

a NR property. 

The proposed modifications are designed to minimize the change in appearance of the Water 

Street and Centre Street bridges. At the Water Street bridge, an interior pair of girders would be 

removed and an exterior pair would be shifted inward so that the appearance from the street would 

be maintained. This would leave an exposed portion of the bridge seats on the outside of the 

bridge abutments but would not otherwise change the appearance of the structure. At the Centre 

Street bridge, an interior pair of girders would be shifted and the exterior girders would remain 

unchanged. Given that the Albany Railroad Viaduct was determined eligible for the NR under NR 

Criterion A, because of its association with the development of the nation’s railroad system, these 

changes with minimal visibility that would re-use the same materials currently present at the two 

bridges would not adversely affect the bridges’ character.

Both Build Alternatives would have a retaining wall along the south side of the railroad 

embankment in Albany between the river and Water Street to support the sloping shared use path. 

The retaining wall would be designed to harmonize with the existing landscape. 

No change would occur to the Centre Street spur to the Albany Warehouse and no alterations to 

the other bridges that comprise the Albany Railroad Viaduct would be required. 

Although the proposed changes would directly affect the Water Street and Centre Street bridges 

and therefore the Albany Railroad Viaduct as a whole, FRA and NYSDOT concluded, and SHPO 

concurred, that the change would not constitute an adverse effect under either Build Alternative. 

In a letter dated September 23, 2020, SHPO stated “the proposed Water Street and Center Street 

bridge work would not significantly impact features that make these bridges eligible for listing in 

the National Register.” In both alternatives, the existing fascia girders would be retained (though 

sometimes shifted along the bridge seat). No new girders would be used. The existing reinforced 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-21 February 2022

concrete bridge seats and girder bearing pedestals would be repaired and/or reconstructed to 

conform to the new alignment of the girders above. The existing reinforced concrete abutments 

would be retained in their entirety. Some partial depth or surface repairs to the abutments may be 

necessary based on a full condition inspection of the abutments during final design. Changes in 

the appearance of the component bridges and the larger viaduct that would result from the 

proposed alterations would be relatively minor and would not change the characteristics of the 

viaduct that qualify it for inclusion on the NR. The integrity of the property’s location, design, 

setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association would not be diminished to an extent that 

would disqualify the property for inclusion on the NR. 

The replacement of the NR-eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge under the Build Alternatives would 

not affect the character-defining features of other architectural resources in Albany or Rensselaer 

and, therefore, the Build Alternatives would have no adverse effects on other architectural 

resources. The maximum height of the proposed bridge (145 feet above Mean High Water) would 

be lower than the maximum height of the existing structure (151.5 feet above Mean High Water). 

Although the design of the new bridge would differ to some extent from that of the existing bridge, 

the replacement bridge would not introduce a new visual, audible, or atmospheric element in the 

setting of the historic properties in the APE that would be out of keeping with existing conditions. 

Based on SHPO’s May 8, 2012 recommendation, no further analysis of the potential for visual 

impacts on historic properties was conducted. (The analysis of visual resources is presented in 

Section 4.6 below.)

4.5.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation

In accordance with Section 106 regulations, an adverse effect finding requires consideration of 

alternatives that would avoid and/or minimize adverse effects and the identification of mitigation 

measures to resolve adverse effects. The Build Alternatives would not adversely affect

archaeological resources and thus no consideration of alternatives or mitigation is required related 

to archaeological resources. 

4.5.6.1 Alternatives to Avoid or Minimize Adverse Effects

The removal of the NR-eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge would constitute an adverse effect on 

this historic architectural resource. This section describes the alternatives FRA and NYSDOT 

considered to avoid or minimize the adverse effect and the mitigation measures that they will 

incorporate as part of the Project design. 

FRA and NYSDOT considered the following alternatives to avoid removal of the historic bridge or 

to minimize adverse effects related to its removal and assessed whether they would meet the 

Project purpose and need and be feasible and reasonable: 

• No Action Alternative: “Do nothing” alternative.

• Permanent Detour Alternative: Route train service to alternate routes and leave the existing 

bridge in place for another use or as an unused monument.

• Rehabilitation Alternatives: Rehabilitate the existing Livingston Avenue Bridge to remove 

structural and seismic deficiencies and continue its use for rail traffic. These include several 

levels of rehabilitation.

• Replacement Bridge on New Alignment Alternative: Build a new bridge at a location farther 

from the existing bridge and leave the existing bridge in place for another use or as an unused 

monument.

• Reuse of Existing Bridge at a New Location: Relocate the bridge in segments to a new 

location for reuse.
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-22

• Retention of a Portion of Existing Bridge Adjacent to Replacement Bridge: Build a new 

bridge adjacent to the existing bridge and retain a portion of the existing bridge extending from 

the Albany shoreline for pedestrian use.

• New Bridge on Existing Alignment with Reconstructed Piers Finished in Reused Cut 

Stone: Build a new bridge along the same alignment and remove the old bridge as the 

replacement bridge is constructed.

FRA and NYSDOT considered adverse environmental impacts, safety, engineering/operational 

deficiencies, poor transportation service, increased costs, and other factors in determining 

whether the avoidance alternatives would be feasible and reasonable. None of these alternatives 

would meet the Project’s purpose and need. The alternatives that would remove rail operations 

from the bridge would redirect trains over much longer routes and substantially deteriorate 

passenger and freight rail services along this corridor; the alternatives that would retain the 

existing structure for railroad use would not fully address existing operational constraints. Refer to 

Appendix B-5, “Cultural Resources,” for more information about avoidance alternatives.

4.5.6.2 Mitigation

FRA, in consultation with NYSDOT and SHPO, has developed a Draft MOA that stipulates 

mitigation measures for the adverse effects to historic properties. FRA and NYSDOT will consult 

with the THPOs and other consulting parties to complete the MOA prior to construction activities 

associated with the Project. Measures included in the Draft MOA to mitigate the adverse effect on 

the Livingston Avenue Bridge include the following:

• Documentation of the Livingston Avenue Bridge following Historic American Engineering 

Record (HAER) standards; 

• Interpretive signage in waterfront parks on both sides of the river that conveys the history of 

the bridge, the railroad, and the area; 

• A requirement that the new bridge be a truss bridge that incorporates key visual elements 

relating to the existing Livingston Avenue Bridge, the pulley housing and operator’s building, 

as requested by SHPO on April 14, 2021; 

• A requirement that NYSDOT actively seek new ownership of the Livingston Avenue Bridge for 

adaptive reuse or partial reuse at a new location. NYSDOT has begun marketing efforts for 

the bridge in coordination with publication of this EA. These marketing efforts consist of a 

combination of print and web-based ads that include an advertisement in the local newspaper 

for a minimum of 14 days and an announcement posted on the internet for a minimum of 2 

months. NYSDOT will only consider viable offers that are consistent with the MOA stipulations. 

If ownership of the bridge is transferred for reuse, the transfer deed will include a preservation 

covenant that requires the new owner to retain the feature intact for a specified period of time. 

The Draft MOA is included in Appendix B-5, “Cultural Resources,” of this EA.

To avoid accidental damage to adjacent resources as a result of construction activities for either 

Build Alternative 1 or Build Alternative 2, all resources that may be subject to inadvertent damage 

would be included in a Construction Protection Plan (CPP). FRA and NYSDOT will prepare the 

CPP in consultation with SHPO and the property owners. The CPP will identify the architectural 

resources to be included in the plan. It will also set forth the specific measures to be used and 

specifications that would be applied to protect these architectural resources during the 

construction period.
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-23 February 2022

4.6 Visual Resources and Aesthetic Considerations

4.6.1 Introduction

This section presents the evaluation FRA and NYSDOT conducted of the potential operational 

impacts of the No Action and Build Alternatives on visual resources and aesthetic conditions in 

the vicinity of the Project. 

4.6.2 Methodology and Study Area

FRA and NYSDOT assessed visual impacts by evaluating the compatibility of the Build

Alternatives with the surrounding context, sensitivity of the viewers, and degree of impact. The 

assessment of compatibility consisted of consideration of the visual impacts of the Build 

Alternatives in relation to such elements as scale, form, materials, visual character, and distance 

between the viewer and the visual resource.

In the absence of FRA-specific guidance for assessment of visual impacts, this analysis was 

prepared in accordance with the Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of Highway Projects

(January 2015) prepared by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), as appropriate and 

applicable to the Project. Although the Project is not a highway project, it is similar to one in that it 

involves new work on a linear transportation corridor and therefore many of the components in the 

guidance were relevant to the analysis.

In accordance with the FHWA guidelines, the assessment of visual impacts was prepared by:

• Identifying an Area of Visual Effect by considering the visibility of Project features through 

landform, land cover, atmospheric conditions, and limits of sight. For this analysis, the Area of 

Visual Effect for the Project is bounded by the Patroon Island Bridge (I-90) to the north; the 

Dunn Memorial Bridge to the south; and eastern and western boundaries that capture the view 

corridors to the existing and proposed bridges, accounting for topographic conditions (see 

Figure 4.6-1); 

• Describing the visual character of the affected environment and the affected population by 

considering the views that are available to the affected population and the quality of those 

views; 

• Assessing the compatibility of the new infrastructure with the surrounding area and the 

sensitivity of viewers to the proposed change to determine the degree of impact on visual 

quality; and 

• Characterizing the impact on visual quality as beneficial, adverse, or neutral. A proposed 

project may benefit visual quality by enhancing visual resources, creating better views of 

certain resources, and improving the experience of the viewers. Alternatively, it may adversely 

affect visual quality by degrading visual resources or obstructing or altering desired views. 

4.6.3 Affected Environment 

The view corridor in the study area is the viewshed upstream and downstream of the Hudson 

River from the Livingston Avenue Bridge, downstream to the Dunn Memorial Bridge (U.S. Routes

9 and 20), and upstream to the Patroon Island Bridge (I-90). The Hudson River is prominent in the 

viewshed, which is characterized by an expansive view of the river and the Livingston Avenue 

Bridge. The Hudson River is approximately a half-mile wide in the vicinity of the Livingston Avenue 

Bridge. The view corridor created by the river valley allows for distant views that are partially 

screened where bridges are located.

As a historic and visually interesting structure, the Livingston Avenue Bridge contributes to the 

visual character of the Hudson River view corridor. In terms of views from the Livingston Avenue 

Bridge, pedestrians and bicycles are not permitted on the bridge and views from passing trains 

Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-24

are somewhat limited due to fencing and the speed of the train, which prevents extended durations

of the view.

In accordance with FHWA guidance, FRA and NYSDOT identified viewsheds or key views within 

the Area of Visual Effect to represent what neighbors of the Project site would see from stationary 

locations such as residences and what visitors and travelers would see as they move through the 

landscape. The key views, shown on Figure 4.6-1, are depicted in photographs 1 through 12 on 

Figure 4.6-2 through Figure 4.6-7. 

4.6.3.1 City of Albany

Corning Riverfront Park in Albany extends between the Livingston Avenue Bridge and the 

Riverfront Pump Station. It is accessible at the southern end of the park via the Hudson River Way 

pedestrian bridge (also known as the Pine Street Connector), which spans I-787, Quay Street, 

and Front Street. The Livingston Avenue Bridge is visible from most locations within Corning 

Riverfront Park. Photographs 1, 2, and 3 provide representative views of the bridge from Corning 

Riverfront Park. The Albany Skyway provides an additional location from which viewer groups 

would experience views of the Livingston Avenue Bridge. Users of the Albany Skyway would only 

have views of the bridge from the portion of the Skyway located east of I-787. 

The Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike trail (described in more detail in Section 4.2) is adjacent to the 

waterfront through Corning Riverfront Park and extends north of the Livingston Avenue Bridge

through the Riverfront Preserve (see Section 4.2). The Riverfront Preserve is accessible to the 

public and provides access to the Hudson River. The Riverfront Preserve also provides several 

amenities, which include the trail, overflow parking for Corning Riverfront Park, and a boat launch. 

Photographs 4 and 5 represent views from the Riverfront Preserve, including the boat launch and 

a portion of the trail. Awareness of the bridge is high along the waterfront with medium to long 

duration of views by the park and trail users. 

The most notable views of the Livingston Avenue Bridge for Albany motorists are from I-787 and 

the immediately adjacent and parallel roadways and ramps such as Quay Street, Front Street, 

and the Clinton Street ramps. Pedestrians are not permitted on I-787, but many sidewalks exist 

along parallel roadways and within Corning Riverfront Park (discussed above). Many portions of 

these roadways lack any substantial screening and therefore provide direct views of the Hudson 

River and Livingston Avenue Bridge. Since the bridge is often directly in front of the observer from 

most locations along these roadways, awareness of the bridge and duration of views are moderate 

to high. 

Areas to the west of I-787 are characterized by industrial and commercial properties. Residential 

areas are located inland, several blocks or more from the Hudson River. Most industrial and 

warehouse buildings in the area range in height from one to three stories and many have outdoor 

storage or parking areas. Some views of the Hudson River and Livingston Avenue Bridge are 

possible from inland locations where gaps in buildings and vegetation exist; however, most 

locations at street level have numerous features in the built environment that screen views and 

prevent high awareness of the bridge (see Photographs 6 and 7). Views are possible from many 

north- and east-facing windows on upper stories of office buildings. Where views are possible from 

these upper stories of buildings, awareness of the bridge is generally higher due to the prominence 

of the Hudson River view corridor from those vantage points.

4.6.3.2 City of Rensselaer

The Rensselaer portion of the study area includes waterfront locations on the eastern bank of the 

Hudson. The Rensselaer Boat Launch (Photograph 8) provides public access to the waterfront 

and views of the Hudson River and its bridges, and downtown Albany. Picnic tables and areas for 

fishing are located at the boat launch. Views of the surrounding open space are abundant, but the 

most notable features of the boat launch are the access to and views of the Hudson River. While 
View looking east at the Livingston Avenue Bridge

from Corning Riverfront Park just south of the bridge

1

12.3.21

NYSDOT LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE

Visual Photographs

Figure 4.6-2

View looking toward Livingston Avenue Bridge 

from Corning Riverfront Park south of Riverfront Grill restaurant

2
View looking north toward Livingston Avenue Bridge

from Corning Riverfront Park near Pine Street Connector

3

12.3.21

NYSDOT LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE

Visual Photographs

Figure 4.6-3

View looking south toward Livingston Avenue Bridge

from Albany Boat Launch (NYSDOT owned property)

4
View looking south toward Livingston Avenue Bridge 

from Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail

5

NYSDOT LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE

Visual Photographs

Figure 4.6-4

View looking south toward Livingston Avenue Bridge 

from Erie Boulevard near Thatcher Street

6

12.3.21
View looking east toward Livingston Avenue Bridge 

from Broadway at North Lawrence Street

7

NYSDOT LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE

Visual Photographs

Figure 4.6-5

View looking south toward Livingston Avenue Bridge

 from Rensselaer Boat Launch

8

12.3.21
View looking west toward Livingston Avenue Bridge 

from Broadway residence

9

12.3.21

NYSDOT LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE

Visual Photographs

Figure 4.6-6

View looking west toward Livingston Avenue Bridge 

from Macnaughton Avenue and Third Street

10
12.3.21

NYSDOT LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE

Visual Photographs

Figure 4.6-7

View looking north toward Livingston Avenue Bridge 

from DeLaet’s Landing

11

View looking north toward Livingston Avenue Bridge 

from Riverfront Park (Rensselaer)

12 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-25 February 2022

there are some locations where a park visitor can view the Livingston Avenue Bridge, these 

viewing locations are not characteristic of the views from the park as a whole and viewer 

awareness of the bridge is relatively low. Where views of the Livingston Avenue Bridge do exist, 

they are from a distance, since the northern edge of the park is approximately 1.7 miles from the 

bridge. Since most park visitors use the main portion of the park with more limited views of the 

Livingston Avenue Bridge, durations of views are short. This view approximates the views of 

boaters in the Hudson River in the northern portion of the Area of Visual Effect. Boaters within the 

Area of Visual Effect have high awareness of the bridge and views of long duration.

Along the Hudson River north of the Livingston Avenue Bridge, the proposed Kiliaen’s Landing 

project would introduce new views of the Hudson River and the Livingston Avenue Bridge from an 

expanded waterfront open space at the Rensselaer Boat Launch, a waterfront trail, and several 

residential buildings. Depending on the final configuration of the development project, views to the 

Livingston Avenue Bridge and the Hudson River viewshed are likely to be available. These views 

could be prominent from certain locations and for certain viewer groups, and awareness of these 

views could be high, particularly for recreational users of the expanded park and waterfront trail.

Views of the bridge and the Hudson River from the low-density residential neighborhoods along 

Broadway and areas to the east are largely obscured by the hilly terrain and dense vegetation.

Photographs 9 and 10 looking toward the bridge from Broadway and Macnaughton Avenue/Third 

Street, respectively, depict typical views from residential areas in Rensselaer. Some viewers 

located on higher ground, and those in the upper stories of some buildings, do have limited views 

of the upper portions of the bridge. Where views are possible, awareness of the bridge is generally 

low due to the presence of intervening buildings and vegetation.

To the south of the existing bridge, public views of the Livingston Avenue Bridge are available 

from De Laet’s Landing and the recently constructed section of the riverfront trail system 

(Photograph 11). Views from the Riverfront Park in Rensselaer, which is located at the southern 

end of the Area of Visual Effect, are limited. The support structure of the Dunn Memorial Bridge 

and adjacent lumber yard generally screen views of the Livingston Avenue Bridge to the north. 

(see Photograph 12). Land uses to the north of Riverfront Park include a hardware store, lumber 

yard, and the Amtrak Maintenance Facility. 

Motorists and pedestrians traveling along roadways in Rensselaer have limited brief views of the 

Livingston Avenue Bridge. In general, existing buildings and vegetation along the Hudson River 

screen views towards the river. Where screening does not occur and the Livingston Avenue Bridge 

is visible, it is generally not a prominent feature within the viewshed due to the presence of other 

buildings in the foreground. Therefore, while limited views are possible from some roadways within 

the study area, awareness is relatively low. Views of the Livingston Avenue Bridge from the Dunn 

Memorial and Patroon Island Bridges are distant and partially obscured by fences and barricades.

4.6.4 Impacts of the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Livingston Avenue Bridge would not be rehabilitated or 

replaced. The No Action Alternative would not result in any adverse impacts to visual resources 

or aesthetic conditions in the Area of Visual Effect. The planned Rensselaer waterfront 

development would result in additional viewers and public views of the historic existing bridge.

4.6.5 Impacts of the Build Alternatives 

4.6.5.1 Project Features

Both Build Alternatives would replace the existing Livingston Avenue Bridge, an NR-eligible 

Baltimore-truss swing bridge, with a new bridge on an adjacent alignment. The proposed new 

bridge would have a vertical lift span (instead of a swing span) with through-truss and girder 

approach spans. Towers flanking the movable span of the proposed new bridge would have 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-26

machinery houses atop them. The tops of the towers would be 6.5 feet lower than the top of the 

existing catenary cable towers, with a height of 145 feet above mean high water, as compared to 

the height of 151.5 feet above mean high water for the existing Livingston Avenue Bridge. Figure 

4.6-8 is a visual simulation of the proposed bridge with the movable span in raised and lowered 

positions. 

Both Build Alternatives would include a shared use path for bicycles and pedestrians connecting

the future proposed Rensselaer Riverfront Multi-Use Trail on the east side of the river with the 

Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail on the west side, with approach ramp structures that connect 

from the bridge to the trails. The path would be a 12-foot-wide walkway to provide two-way 

pedestrian and bicycle traffic across the river. The walkway would include scenic overlooks at 

each end of the movable span to provide an area for pedestrians to collect and bicyclists to 

dismount when the bridge is opening/closing and the walkway gates are closed. 

Navigational lighting as required by the USCG would illuminate the navigation channel. The 

maintenance walk would have walkway-level lighting to provide full-time access to the lift span 

machinery houses. The shared used walkway across the bridge would include additional lighting 

to provide a properly illuminated walkway across the bridge.

In addition to replacing the Livingston Avenue Bridge, both Build Alternatives would modify the 

bridge approach tracks on both sides of the river and the historic Albany Railroad Viaduct in 

Albany. To minimize the change in appearance of the Water Street and Centre Street bridges, 

which currently each have four girder pairs that support tracks spanning the roads, both Build 

Alternatives would reposition several pairs of the existing deck girders while maintaining the 

existing exterior girders. 

At the Water Street rail bridge, an interior pair of girders would be removed to accommodate the 

shift and an exterior pair would be shifted inward. This would leave an exposed portion of the 

bridge seats on the outside of the bridge abutment but would not otherwise change the 

appearance of the structure. At the Centre Street rail bridge, an interior pair of girders would be 

shifted and the exterior girders would remain unchanged.

In addition, both Build Alternatives would have a retaining wall along the south side of the railroad 

embankment in Albany between the river and Water Street to support the sloping shared use path. 

The design of the retaining wall would be visually compatible with the existing landscape. 

4.6.5.2 Hudson River View Corridor

Both Build Alternatives would provide an enhancement for visual resources in the Area of Visual 

Effect by providing new scenic overlooks of the Hudson River view corridor from the shared use 

pathway on the proposed bridge. While pedestrians were at one time permitted on the existing 

bridge, the sidewalk was closed to the public about 30 years ago due to the condition of the 

structure and substandard access points to the bridge. As a result, both Build Alternatives would 

enable views of the Hudson River view corridor that are not currently available to the public. This 

would be a benefit to visual resources.

Under either Build Alternative, the Project would result in the removal of the Livingston Avenue 

Bridge, which contributes to the character of the Hudson River view corridor. In replacing the 

historic bridge with a new bridge, this aspect of the corridor would be altered. The new bridge 

would have a lift span rather than a swing span and would differ in truss design and other respects. 

However, overall, the scale and overall visual character of the proposed bridge would be 

comparable to that of the existing bridge. 

Because the alignment, height, and dimensions of the new bridge would not differ substantially 

from the existing bridge under either Build Alternative, views of the bridge and the Hudson River 

view corridor as a whole would not be significantly changed from existing conditions. The change 

in design of the new bridge would be minimally perceptible to those farther away and more 
12.3.21

NYSDOT LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE

Proposed Replacement Bridge

Figure 4.6-8

Proposed Replacement Bridge with Moveable Span in Lowered Position

Proposed Replacement Bridge with Moveable Span in Raised Position
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-27 February 2022

noticeable to the transient viewer groups at the northern end of Corning Riverfront Park, the 

southern end of the Riverfront Preserve, and the Albany Skyway. In addition, the future residents 

of Kiliaen’s Landing and users of the proposed public waterfront uses may notice the change, 

depending on the timing of that proposed development in relation to the construction of the 

replacement bridge. Views to other aspects of the Hudson River view corridor would not be 

blocked or substantially changed, and the durations of these views would remain the same. 

The Build Alternatives would not substantially alter nighttime views of the bridge or create 

obtrusive light pollution. The existing bridge currently has walkway lighting to provide access to 

the operator’s house atop the movable bridge span as well as flood lighting to facilitate the 

operation of the movable span in low light conditions. The additional lighting for the shared use 

pathway would not be substantially different from the lighting on the existing bridge or materially

affect visual resources or aesthetic conditions in the Area of Visual Effect.

The bridge approach track work, alterations to the Albany Railroad Viaduct, and the retaining wall 

would not be perceptible except from areas immediately adjacent to the improvements. These 

improvements would not result in adverse impacts since the overall appearance of the bridge 

approach areas would not change. 

In conclusion, the Project would not obstruct views or adversely affect visual quality by degrading 

visual resources. The Project would benefit visual quality by enhancing visual resources, creating 

more views of the Hudson River view corridor than exist today, and improving the experience of 

the viewers.

4.6.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation

The Build Alternatives would not result in adverse impacts to visual resources and aesthetic 

conditions in the Area of Visual Effect. The Build Alternatives would enhance visual opportunities 

in the Project area by incorporating new scenic overlooks into the design of the Project. Measures 

to enhance visual resources in the study area—namely, the new scenic overlooks—have been 

incorporated into the design of the Project. 

4.7 Water Resources

4.7.1 Introduction

This section presents FRA’s and NYSDOT’s assessment of the potential operational impacts of 

the No Action and Build Alternatives on water resources. Water resources include surface waters, 

wetlands, groundwater, floodplains, and the coastal zone. 

4.7.2 Methodology and Study Area

The evaluation of water resources considered the requirements of Federal and state regulations 

and the status of the Project site and its vicinity with respect to water resource protection and 

management programs. The study area used to evaluate surface water, groundwater, floodplain, 

and coastal zone impacts is the Project site and adjacent areas with the potential to affect water 

resources as a result of the Project. For wetlands, the study area extends an additional 500 feet 

from the Project site. The affected environment was characterized using a range of data sources, 

including the following: 

• Maps of the area prepared by the NYSDEC, USCG, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), USACE, 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and USFWS; 

• A Navigation Study completed for the Project in June 2018 (see Appendix D, “Navigation 

Study”); 

• Field reconnaissance conducted in November 2010 and September 2020;
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-28

• Wetland Delineation Reports completed in March 2011 and September 2020 (see Appendix 

B-2, “Water Resources and Ecology”); and 

• Coastal Zone Consistency Analysis, prepared in accordance with the New York State Coastal 

Management Program (CMP) and the Cities of Albany and Rensselaer LWRPs (see 

Appendix B-2, “Water Resources and Ecology”). 

4.7.3 Affected Environment

4.7.3.1 Surface Waters

The portion of the Hudson River in the study area is tidal and designated as a Class C Fresh 

Surface Water per NYSDEC’s Protection of Water regulations under Article 15, Title 5 of the 

Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) (6 NYCRR Parts 701 and 703), which implements the 

Clean Water Act in New York State. The Water Pollution Control Act as amended in 1972, also 

known as the Clean Water Act, seeks to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and 

biological integrity of waters of the United States. As set forth in NYSDEC’s regulations, the best 

usage for Class C waters is fishing, and these waters shall be suitable for fish, shellfish, and 

wildlife propagation and survival. According to applicable standards, the water quality shall be 

suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation, although other factors may limit the use for 

these purposes. Based on a review of the NYSDEC Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data 

maps for regulated streams, the Hudson River is the only regulated stream in the study area. 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires authorization from the Secretary of the Army, acting 

through USACE, before dredged or fill material may be discharged into waters of the United 

States. Activities authorized under Section 404 must comply with Section 401 of the Clean Water 

Act, which requires a Water Quality Certificate (either from the state where the discharge would 

occur or from an interstate water pollution control agency) that the discharge would comply with 

Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307, and 316 (b) of the Clean Water Act. 

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify Impaired Waters, where specific 

designated uses are not fully supported. The Clean Water Act requires that the states establish 

priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) for these 

waters.53 The main stem of the upper Hudson River near the Livingston Avenue Bridge is listed 

on the Final New York State 2016 Section 303(d) List of Impaired/TMDL Waters (2017) as being 

impaired for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) originating from sediment contamination.54 The 

upper Hudson River main stem is included on the Draft 2018 Section 303(d) List for the same 

reasons (see Section 4.7.3.2 for further discussion of PCB contamination).55 

4.7.3.2 Water and Sediment Quality

Sediment quality of the Hudson River in and within the vicinity of the Project site is generally 

considered to be degraded.56 Sediment core and grab sampling, along with side-scan sonar and 

sediment profile imagery, show that the river bottom in the vicinity of the Project site consists of 

sediments that range from muddy sand to sandy gravel, as defined by NYSDEC.57 Muddy sand 

(sand with >10 percent mud) is found along the eastern shore and a small portion of the western 

53 A TMDL is a pollution budget and includes a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that can 

occur in a waterbody and allocates the necessary reductions to one or more pollutant sources.

54 Available from: http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/31290.html. 

55 Ibid.

56 Hudson River Estuary Biocriteria Final Report, submitted to NYSDEC by Versar, Inc. and Tetra Tech, 

Inc., May 2003.

57 NYSDEC 2006a Hudson River Estuary Sediment Type Map. Metadata available from: 

http://gis.ny.gov/gisdata/metadata/nysdec.hudson.sed.type.html#1. 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-29 February 2022

shore, just north of the existing bridge (see Figure 4.7-1). The remainder of the river bottom is 

sand (sand with <10 percent mud and <10 percent gravel) and gravelly sand (sand with >10 

percent gravel), along with a small portion of sandy gravel (gravel with <10 percent sand and <10 

percent mud) in the deepest waters.58 Depths in the vicinity of the Project site range from less 

than 6 meters (20 feet) downstream from the existing bridge to greater than 11 meters (36 feet) 

upstream from the bridge59 (see Figure 4.7-2). Surface currents in the vicinity of the existing 

bridge, as recorded at the Albany Hydrological Station, reach between about 2 and 3 feet per 

second (fps). Water level elevation in this tidal portion of the upper Hudson River, as measured at 

the Hudson River Environmental Conditions Observing System (HRECOS) Albany Hydrological 

Station, fluctuates by approximately 5 to 7 feet.

Immediately north of the existing Livingston Avenue Bridge, as well as the western shoreline and 

the eastern shoreline starting about 750 feet to the north, are characterized as areas of sediment 

deposition. The eastern shoreline north and south of the existing bridge has non-depositional 

areas that are subject to erosion (see Figure 4.7-3). Most of the bottom sediments in the remaining 

study area are dynamic environments subject to erosional (i.e., dynamic scour) and depositional 

processes (i.e., dynamic drift-regions characterized by deposition in lee of obstacles, such as the 

existing bridge piers, with scour sometimes present along the edges of obstacles).60 

Sediments in the Hudson River have a long history of contamination due to discharge of PCBs 

into the river to the north of the Troy Dam. From approximately 1947 to 1977, the General Electric 

Company (GE) discharged as many as 1.3 million pounds of PCBs from its capacitor 

manufacturing plants at the Hudson Falls and Fort Edward facilities into the Hudson River. PCBs 

are classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as a potential carcinogen, 

and most uses of PCBs were banned in 1979. PCBs have a very low solubility in water, and 

therefore, adhere to sediments and suspended organic matter, and bioaccumulate in fatty tissues 

of most organisms. In 1984, the 200 miles of the river between Hudson Falls and the Battery in 

New York City was placed on USEPA’s National Priorities List of the country’s most contaminated 

hazardous waste sites. Sediment PCB levels in the Hudson River generally decrease from north 

to south. Elevated levels of PCBs are present in Hudson River sediment upstream of the Troy 

Dam near Albany, approximately 7.5 miles from the Livingston Avenue Bridge.

The primary health risk associated with PCBs is their potential for accumulation in the human body 

through eating contaminated fish. Since 1976, high levels of PCBs in fish have led New York State 

to close various recreational and commercial fisheries and to issue advisories restricting the 

consumption of fish caught in the Hudson River. USEPA’s February 2002 Record of Decision 

(ROD) for the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site addresses the risks to people and ecological 

receptors associated with PCBs in the sediments of the Upper Hudson River. It called for the 

targeted, environmental dredging of approximately 2.75 million cubic yards of PCB-contaminated 

sediment from a 40-mile segment of the Upper Hudson River. Phase 1 dredging occurred between 

May and November of 2009, removing PCB-contaminated sediment from a 6-mile segment of the 

Hudson River near Fort Edward, NY. Phase 2 dredging occurred between June 2011 and fall 

2015, removing PCB contaminated sediment within the remaining portion of the Upper Hudson 

River designated for cleanup.

58 Ibid.

59 NYSDEC 2008 Hudson River Estuary Bathymetry 30m-grid - New York State. Metadata available from:

http://gis.ny.gov/gisdata/metadata/nysdec.hre_30m_grid.xml. 

60 NYSDEC 2006b Hudson River Estuary Sediment Environment Map. Metadata available from: 

http://gis.ny.gov/gisdata/metadata/nysdec.hudson.sed.environ.html. 



Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-30

4.7.3.3 Wetlands

Executive Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands,” and USDOT Order 5660.1a, “Preservation of 

the Nation’s Wetlands,” require Federal agencies to avoid undertaking or providing assistance for 

new construction in wetlands unless there is no practical alternative to such construction and the 

proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to the wetland. New York 

State regulates freshwater wetlands under Article 24 of the ECL (6 NYCRR Parts 663, 664, and 

665). Wetlands in the study area are described below (see also the Wetland Delineation Report

in Appendix B-2, “Water Resources and Ecology”). 

4.7.3.3.1 Federal Wetlands

The USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps two wetlands in the study area: the Hudson 

River, a riverine tidal wetland with unconsolidated bottom that is permanently flooded (NWI 

category R1UBV); and in the western portion of the study area, a riverine unknown perennial 

wetland with unconsolidated bottom that is permanently flooded (NWI category R5UBH) that 

discharges to the west bank of the Hudson River just north of the rail bridge (see Figure 4.7-4). 

FRA and NYSDOT evaluated the study area for the presence of unmapped wetlands in 

accordance with the criteria defined in the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual and the 2012 

USACE Northcentral and Northeast Regional Supplement in September 2020. One wetland was

delineated within the study area. “Wetland B” is along an unpaved path on the east side of the 

Hudson River (Rensselaer) approximately 450 feet north of the existing rail tracks and about 300 

feet from the river shoreline (see Figure 4.7-5). As detailed in Appendix B-2, Wetland B is an 

approximately 3,050-square-foot (0.07-acre) non-adjacent wetland that occurs in a slight 

topographic depression. Hydrology indicators include surface water, soils saturated at the surface, 

a sparsely vegetated concave surface, a thin muck surface, and a shallow aquitard. The wetland 

is dominated by Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), with lesser duckweed (Lemna 

minor) covering the water surface. FRA and NYSDOT will consider Wetland B as a jurisdictional 

wetland for the evaluation of wetland impacts, pending a response from USACE regarding an 

Approved or Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination.

FRA and NYSDOT also identified a potential wetland along the Canadian Pacific Railway freight 

tracks that cross beneath the existing Empire Corridor tracks on the west side of the Hudson River 

(Albany), approximately 100 feet south of the Empire Corridor tracks (see Figure 4.7-5). It is an 

undelineated area dominated by common reed (Phragmites australis). The presence or absence 

of wetland hydrology and hydric soil indicators were not able to be confirmed during the September 

2020 wetland delineation. FRA and NYSDOT did not delineate the small area of Phragmites 

because it occurs along a railroad track siding owned by others. 

An ephemeral stream, “Ephemeral Stream A,” is also present in the study area on the east side 

of the Hudson River (Rensselaer). This stream is a small, sparsely vegetated scour channel that 

appears to flow only during and shortly after precipitation events. The stream originates upland 

and drains into the Hudson River at the bridge pier. Hydric soils are not present, the hydrology 

source is ephemeral, and the stream channel is sparsely vegetated. Therefore, this drainage 

feature was not delineated as a wetland. FRA and NYSDOT will consider Ephemeral Stream A as 

jurisdictional Waters of the United States for permitting purposes. 

4.7.3.3.2 State Wetlands

The Hudson River in the vicinity of the Livingston Avenue Bridge is tidal but does not include any 

New York State-mapped tidal wetlands. The northern boundary of tidal wetlands in the Hudson 

River mapped by NYSDEC is about 123 river miles south of the Livingston Avenue Bridge, to the

south of the Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge. In addition, a review of the NYSDEC 

Environmental Resource Mapper for Albany and Rensselaer (Troy South Quadrangle), accessed 

on May 4, 2020, indicates there are no NYSDEC-mapped freshwater wetlands or regulated 


Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-31 February 2022

adjacent areas in the study area. This was confirmed during the September 2020 wetland 

evaluation. 

4.7.3.4 Floodplains

The Project site spans both Albany and Rensselaer Counties, which are mapped separately by 

FEMA. The most recent Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Albany County on the west side of 

the river was released on March 16, 2015; the most recent FIRM for Rensselaer County on the 

east side of the river was released on March 18, 1980. Portions of the Project site within and on 

both sides of the river are within the 100-year floodplain (see Figure 4.7-6). 

According to the 2015 Preliminary FIRM for the Project site in Albany County, a portion of the 

Project site on the west side of the river is within the 100-year floodplain (1 percent annual-chance 

flood event) in Zone AE with a base flood elevation of +21 feet NAVD88.61 According to the 1980 

FIRM for the Project site in Rensselaer County (the effective FIRM for this side of the Hudson 

River), portions of the Project site on the east side of the river are within Zone B, which indicates 

areas that are either between the limits of the 100-year and 500-year floodplain boundaries, are 

subject to 100-year flooding with average depths of less than one foot, or where the contributing 

drainage area is less than one square mile, or are protected from the base flood by levees. The 

base flood elevation in this area is +21 feet NGVD29.62 The elevation of the top of the rail of the 

existing bridge ranges from approximately +31 to +35 feet NAVD88, which is above the base flood 

elevations identified by both FIRMs.

Federal Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management,” as amended, requires Federal

agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with 

the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain 

development wherever there is a practicable alternative. USDOT Order 5650.2, “Floodplain 

Management and Protection,” contains policies and procedures for implementing Executive Order 

11988. For actions with a significant encroachment in the floodplain, the USDOT Order requires 

FRA to make a finding that the proposed action is the only practicable alternative and that an 

evaluation was conducted to identify whether other alternatives are available to avoid or reduce 

adverse impacts on the floodplain. New York State regulations, which seek to minimize flood 

hazards and losses, are found in 6 NYCRR 502 - Floodplain Management for State Projects.

4.7.3.5 Groundwater

Groundwater in the study area is classified by NYSDEC as Class GA waters, i.e., fresh 

groundwater with best usage as a source of potable water. NYSDEC GIS data files indicate that 

the study area is in a Principal Aquifer Area, which identifies “aquifers known to be highly 

productive or whose geology suggests abundant potential water supply, but which are not 

intensively used as sources of water supply by major municipal systems at the present time."63 As 

such, Project activities would be subject to the applicable requirements found in 6 NYCRR Part 

703 (Public Wells, Private Wells, and Reservoirs). No municipal drinking water wells, wellhead 

influence zone, or reservoirs are within the study area, according to the Departments of Health in 

Albany and Rensselaer Counties (see Appendix B-1, “General Correspondence”). There are 

no known supply or observation wells in or near the Project site. The two nearest USGS 

observation wells are USGS Well No.424115073495301, in the City of Albany approximately four 

miles northwest of the Project site, and Well No. 423534073423401, in the Town of East 

Greenbush approximately four miles southeast of the Project site in Rensselaer County.

61 North American Vertical Datum of 1988. 

62 National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. 

63 NYSDEC’s Division of Water Technical & Operational Guidance Series (TOGS) 2.1.3, Primary and 

Principal Aquifer Determinations, October 23, 1990.

Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-32

USEPA defines a sole or principal source aquifer as an aquifer that supplies at least 50 percent 

of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer. All designated sole or principal 

source aquifers are referred to as sole source aquifers (SSAs). Based on a review of the USEPAdesignated SSA Areas (using Federal Register Notices, Maps, and Fact Sheets), the Project site 

is not within an SSA Area. Additionally, the Project site is not within the New York City watershed; 

thus, coordination with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection is not required. 

Based on topographic features, groundwater in the study area flows toward the Hudson River 

basin. Precipitation recharges groundwater in the study area through the pervious surfaces that 

dominate the area.

4.7.3.6 Stormwater Management

The existing stormwater controls and drainage within the study area consist of earthen drainage 

swales along the top of the railroad embankment slope. The stone ballast in the rail bed is 

permeable and does not collect stormwater or runoff. The bridge itself is an open truss deck, so 

all rain, snow, and other stormwater discharges directly into the Hudson River. 

The study area is within the urbanized area of the Cities of Albany and Rensselaer. Both of these 

municipalities are designated by NYSDEC as regulated MS4s (operators of Municipal Separate 

Stormwater Sewer Systems). This designation requires the municipalities to develop a stormwater 

management program in accordance with NYSDEC guidelines. This stormwater management 

program requires that private developers submit Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans 

(SWPPPs) for proposed projects for review by the municipality. NYSDOT is designated by 

NYSDEC as a non-traditional MS4, requiring it to develop its own stormwater management 

program; project SWPPPs prepared by non-traditional MS4s do not require review and approval 

from local MS4s.

NYSDEC regulations and stormwater management requirements classify rivers and streams 

according to size, or “stream order.” As described in the New York State Stormwater Management 

Design Manual, “A network of streams drain each watershed. Streams can be classified according 

to their order in that network. A stream that has no tributaries or branches is defined as a firstorder stream. When two first-order streams combine, a second-order stream is created, and so 

on.”64 Different stormwater design criteria apply to different order (size) streams; according to 

NYSDEC regulations, the Hudson River is a “seventh order” stream and therefore stormwater 

management practices at the Project site are not required to meet the NYSDEC stream channel 

protection volume requirements.

65 The channel protection volume stormwater quantity 

requirements are intended to protect stream channels from erosion, which is of lower concern for 

large channels (like seventh order streams) due to the size of the channel and the watershed 

relative to the discharge.

NYSDEC requires stormwater controls for new development and redevelopment on existing 

impervious surfaces. For new development, stormwater management practices treat the water 

quality volume, the volume of runoff generated from the 90th percentile rain event, intended to 

improve water quality by capturing and treating runoff from small, frequent storm events that tend 

to contain higher pollutant levels.

66 For redevelopment, stormwater management involves a 

combination of reducing any increases in stormwater and treating increased volumes on-site, to 

the extent feasible given site constraints. 

64 NYSDEC. New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual, January 2015, p. 4-16.

65 Stormwater quantity controls are not required when the site discharges directly to tidal waters or fifth 

order or larger streams: NYSDEC. New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual, January 

2015, p. 4-8.

66 NYSDEC. New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual, January 2015, p. 4-2.
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-33 February 2022

Under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, stormwater discharges to waters of the United States 

require authorization via a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit or an 

authorized state permit program. New York State has established the State Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (SPDES) program, under the jurisdiction of NYSDEC, for regulating wastewater 

and stormwater discharges to groundwaters and surface waters. Because the SPDES program has 

been determined to be at least as protective of New York State’s waters as prescribed by the Clean 

Water Act, USEPA has approved New York State’s SPDES program for the control of wastewater 

and stormwater discharges. Activities requiring a SPDES permit include point source discharges of 

wastewater into surface or ground waters of New York State, including the intake and discharge of 

water for cooling purposes, constructing or operating a disposal system, discharge of stormwater, 

and construction activities that disturb one acre or more.

As described in Section 4.7.3.1, Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify 

Impaired Waters, where specific designated uses are not fully supported because of water quality, 

and the portion of the Hudson River at the Livingston Avenue Bridge is listed on the Final New 

York State 2016 Section 303(d) List of Impaired/TMDL Waters for PCBs within the river’s 

sediment. However, the Project site is not in an area that directly discharges to a watercourse on 

the list of Section 303(d) segments impaired by pollutants related to construction activity (e.g., silt, 

sediment, or nutrients).

4.7.3.7 Coastal Zone

The study area is within the regulated Coastal Zone in New York State. The Coastal Zone 

Management Act of 1972 requires that Federal activities within a state’s coastal zone be consistent 

with that state’s Federally approved coastal zone management plan. New York State has a 

Federally approved coastal zone management program; the enforceable coastal policies are those 

in the New York State Coastal Management Program (CMP) together with policies of any 

approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program.67 The City of Rensselaer adopted an LWRP in 

1987, and the City of Albany adopted an LWRP in 1991; both cities are currently in the process of 

revising their LWRP documents.68,69 While the 44 specific policies of these two LWRPs closely 

mirror those of the New York State CMP, several policies have additional provisions specific to 

the City of Rensselaer waterfront and to the City of Albany waterfront or its Waterfront 

Revitalization Area subareas. The state and local policies are presented in the Coastal Zone 

Consistency Analysis in Appendix B-2, “Water Resources and Ecology.”

4.7.4 Impacts of the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Livingston Avenue Bridge would not be rehabilitated or 

replaced. The No Action Alternative would not have adverse impacts on water resources in the 

study area. The No Action Alternative would not require new construction and no change to the 

navigable waterway would occur. Maintenance of the existing bridge would continue to be needed 

and would intensify. The bridge would continue to malfunction frequently, resulting in delays to 

boat traffic. 

67 Local governments may participate in a state's Coastal Management Program by preparing and 

adopting a LWRP, which provides more detailed implementation of the Coastal Management Program. 

In New York State, state agency actions must be consistent with LWRPs that are approved by the New 

York State Secretary of State to the maximum extent practicable, and when the Federal government 

has concurred with the incorporation of an LWRP into the state program, Federal agency actions must 

be consistent with the approved LWRP. 

68 https://docs.dos.ny.gov/opd-lwrp/LWRP/Rensselaer_C/Index.html. 

69 https://docs.dos.ny.gov/opd-lwrp/LWRP/Albany_C/Index.html. 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-34

4.7.5 Impacts of the Build Alternatives 

4.7.5.1 Surface Waters

Operation of trains over the replacement bridge under both Build Alternatives would be similar to 

the operation over the existing bridge and would not result in adverse impacts to surface waters 

or water quality. While areas of scouring and sedimentation would initially shift due to the new 

location of piers for the replacement bridge, the spacing of the piers for the Build Alternatives 

would be similar to those of the existing bridge, resulting in magnitude of scouring and deposition 

similar to that of the existing condition. 

4.7.5.2 Wetlands

Neither of the Build Alternatives would affect Wetland B or the undelineated wetland in Albany 

because these resources are not within the Project site and impacts are not anticipated due to the 

distance from the Project site. Construction activities would be designed to avoid impacts to 

Wetland B (see Section 4.16.8 later in this document). Build Alternative 1 would not impact 

Ephemeral Stream A; however, one support pier for Build Alternative 2 (the Preferred Alternative) 

would be within a portion of Ephemeral Stream A. As discussed above, while the ephemeral 

stream was not delineated as a wetland, FRA and NYSDOT will consider Ephemeral Stream A as 

jurisdictional Waters of the United States for permitting purposes. Section 4.16, “Construction 

Impacts,” presents an evaluation of temporary impacts to wetlands and the regulatory permits 

required for Project construction activities. 

4.7.5.3 Floodplains

The Build Alternatives would affect floodplains and flood hazards in the same manner. Both 

alternatives would place new bridge piers within the floodplain in a similar location to the existing 

bridge, but unlike the existing bridge, the new bridge would be designed to be resilient to severe 

storms. All bridge components, including the superstructure and mechanical and electrical 

equipment, would be resilient to storm surges and flooding. 

The Build Alternatives would result in similar placement of material within the 100-year floodplain, 

resulting in localized changes in water circulation around the bridge piers that would not adversely 

impact flooding or floodplain storage. Given the minor modifications to the floodplain that would

result from the Build Alternatives, adverse impacts to the floodplain or flooding of areas adjacent 

to the study area are not anticipated. 

The Build Alternatives would not alter the stream cross-section within the 100-year floodplain of 

the Hudson River. The existing bridge superstructure is above the 100-year flood elevation and 

the proposed superstructure would also not encroach on the flood elevation. The Build Alternatives 

would not significantly encroach on the floodplain, interrupt any other transportation facility 

required for emergency vehicles, or impact natural beneficial floodplain values. The NYSDOT 

Regional Hydraulics Engineer will perform a floodplain hydraulic analysis during the advance detail 

plan phase for the Project. 

In accordance with the provisions of 6 NYCRR 502 - Flood Plain Management for State Projects, 

NYSDOT has considered and evaluated the practicality of alternatives to any floodplain 

encroachments. The proposed action would not constitute a significant encroachment into the 

floodplain, as defined by USDOT Order 5650.2, “Floodplain Management and Protection,” since 

it would not result in: a considerable probability of loss of human life; likely future damage that 

could be substantial in cost or extent, inducing interruption of service on or loss of a vital 

transportation facility; or a notable adverse impact on natural and beneficial floodplain values. 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-35 February 2022

4.7.5.4 Groundwater 

Operation of trains over a replacement bridge under either Build Alternative would be similar to the 

operation over the existing bridge and would not result in adverse impacts to groundwater resources.

4.7.5.5 Stormwater Management

Stormwater management under either Build Alternative would be the same. The drainage patterns 

under either Build Alternative would not be notably different than existing conditions. The bridge 

approaches would not have additional impervious area and the majority of the bridge would retain 

an open deck. Both Build Alternatives would replace a portion of the open bridge deck with 

ballasted reinforced concrete deck pans. If required, after analysis of the detailed design for the 

new bridge and shared use path, additional surface drainage facilities would be installed to protect 

the water quality of the Hudson River. 

Preliminary assessment indicates that stormwater quantity controls are not required because the 

Project would outlet into a seventh order stream (the Hudson River). Therefore, no mitigation of 

peak stormwater discharges to pre-Project rates would be required. However, the Project may be 

required to provide treatment for stormwater quality. Green stormwater treatment practices would 

provide stormwater quality treatment and include measures for preservation of natural features 

and reduction of proposed impervious cover in the new development, which minimizes the volume 

of water quality treatment required. FRA and NYSDOT will assess the potential for this 

requirement during final design.

The Project site is not within a watershed requiring enhanced phosphorous removal described in 

SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity GP-0-20-001 

Appendix C – Watersheds Requiring Enhanced Phosphorus Removal. 

4.7.5.6 Coastal Zone

Portions of the study area are within the designated coastal zone. As a result, the Project must be 

reviewed by NYSDOS for consistency with applicable coastal policies. These policies include 

supporting, promoting, and encouraging well-suited development, including but not limited to 

residential and commercial uses, water-dependent or waterfront uses, and waterway uses; 

protecting ecological resources; protecting or improving water quality; minimizing flooding and 

erosion; and minimizing other environmental impacts to resources. FRA and NYSDOT evaluated 

the Build Alternatives for consistency with the policies in the New York CMP and the approved 

Rensselaer and Albany LWRPs and concluded that the replacement bridge under either Build 

Alternative would be consistent with all applicable coastal zone policies (see Appendix B-2, 

“Water Resources and Ecology”). 

4.7.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation

Implementation and construction of the Project would be subject to a number of Federal, New York, and 

local permits and approvals. The potential relevant permits are as follows:

• USCG Section 9 Permit

• USACE Section 404 Permit and Section 10 Permit

• NYSDEC State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for 

Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (GP-0-20-001) 

• NYSDEC Floodplain Variance

• NYSDEC Water Quality Certification (Section 401) of the Clean Water Act

• NYSDOS Coastal Zone Consistency Certification Statement and Local Waterfront 

Revitalization Certification
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-36

• NYSOGS Grants or License of Land Underwater (New York State Public Lands Law § 6-

75.7b)

NYSDOT will seek a Section 10 permit under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 from the 

USCG/USACE. During final design and permit review, additional information will be developed, 

including:

• For Build Alternative 2, FRA and NYSDOT will confirm the Federal jurisdiction of Ephemeral 

Stream A with USACE.

• The NYSDOT Regional Hydraulics Engineer will perform a floodplain hydraulic analysis during

the advance detail plan phase for the Project. 

• If required, after analysis of the detailed design for the new bridge and shared use path, 

additional surface drainage facilities would be installed to protect the water quality of the 

Hudson River.

• FRA and NYSDOT will assess the need for stormwater treatment during final design. 

The Build Alternatives would not result in adverse impacts to wetlands, floodplains, or groundwater 

since NYSDOT will adhere to all permit conditions. Therefore, no measures to mitigate impacts to 

these resources beyond the permit stipulations would be required.

4.8 General Ecology and Wildlife Resources

4.8.1 Introduction

This section assesses the potential operational impacts of the No Action and Build Alternatives on 

general ecology and wildlife resources. It describes the existing terrestrial and aquatic natural 

resources (i.e., plants, mammals, birds, fish, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and threatened, 

endangered, and special concern species) in the study area and considers the potential for the 

Project to impact these resources. Section 4.16.9 in Section 4.16, “Construction Impacts,”

evaluates potential for construction of the Project to result in temporary impacts on general 

ecology and wildlife resources.

4.8.2 Methodology and Study Area

This evaluation of operational effects of the Project Alternatives on general ecology and wildlife 

resources complies with the requirements of Federal and state regulations and incorporates the 

current status of the study area with respect to ecological and wildlife resource protection 

programs. For terrestrial resources, the study area for the assessment of ecological and wildlife 

resources extends about 400 feet from the Project site, but for threatened and endangered 

species, it extends 1⁄2 mile from the Project site so as to encompass potential nesting, roosting, or 

other sensitive habitats that could be nearby. For aquatic resources, the study area is the Upper 

Hudson River Estuary. FRA and NYSDOT characterized the affected environment using a range 

of data sources, including the following: 

• USGS topographic maps;

• USFWS Information, Planning, and Consultation (IPaC) database results (reviewed on October 

26, 2018, and November 3, 2021) on Federally listed terrestrial species within a half-mile radius 

from the Project site;

• NMFS maps and information regarding Federally listed aquatic species in the study area;

• USFWS NWI maps;

• New York State National Heritage Program database;

• Results of field reconnaissance conducted by NYSDOT contractors in November 2010 and 

September 2020. 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-37 February 2022

The assessment of potential impacts on ecological resources considers whether there would be 

any loss or fragmentation of habitat within the study area, potential impacts on wildlife species, 

and whether threatened or endangered species would be affected as a result of Project operation. 

4.8.3 Affected Environment

4.8.3.1 Aquatic Resources

4.8.3.1.1 Significant Habitat

The study area is in the Upper Hudson River Estuary, which includes the tidal freshwater sections 

of the Hudson River from Poughkeepsie to the Troy Dam. The Upper Hudson River Estuary is 

considered a Significant Habitat Complex by the USFWS. It is recognized for its regionally 

significant habitat for anadromous70 fish and globally rare tidal freshwater wetland communities 

and plants. The complex also supports significant concentrations of other fish and wildlife.71

4.8.3.1.2 Essential Fish Habitat

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on Federal actions 

that may adversely affect areas designated as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The law defines EFH 

as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to 

maturity. NMFS has established EFH for nearly 1,000 species of fish. Adverse impacts to EFH, 

as defined in 50 CFR 600.910(A), include any impact that reduces the quality and/or quantity of 

EFH. Adverse impacts may include: 

• Direct impacts such as physical disruption or the release of contaminants;

• Indirect impacts such as the loss of prey or reduction in the fecundity (number of offspring 

produced) of a managed species; and

• Site-specific or habitat-wide impacts that may include individual, cumulative, or synergetic 

consequences of a Federal action.

NMFS has designated the overall tidal Hudson River Estuary as EFH for a number of federally 

managed fish species under its jurisdiction, as shown in Exhibit 4.8-1. All of these species have 

at least one or more life history stages for which NMFS has designated some portion of the Hudson 

River Estuary as EFH. However, these species prefer salinities of at least 15 parts per thousand 

(ppt), which is much higher than the salinities found in the freshwater tidal region of the river near 

Albany. None of the species for which EFH has been designated in the Hudson River are known 

to migrate into the Hudson River beyond the upper limit of the salt front more than 60 miles south 

of the Livingston Avenue Bridge. While these species would not occur within the study area, prey

for these species (e.g., herring, benthic invertebrates) could occur in the study area and are 

considered as contributing to foraging requirements for EFH designated species. Appendix B-2-1

provides the consultation with NMFS with respect to EFH in the vicinity of the Project site. 

70 Anadromous fish are fish born in freshwater that spend most of their lives in saltwater and return to 

freshwater to spawn. 

71 USFWS Significant habitat complexes of the New York Bight watershed, Upper Hudson River Estuary, 

Complex 33, 1997. https://nctc.fws.gov/pubs5/web_link/text/upp_hud.htm. 


Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-39 February 2022

4.8.3.1.4 Aquatic Biota

Freshwater species commonly associated with the type of sandy substrates found in the study 

area make up the benthic macroinvertebrate community in the study area. Oligochaetes and 

crustaceans (mostly amphipods and isopods) are the most dominant benthic taxa in the freshwater 

tidal regions of the Hudson River near Albany75 and are most likely common in the study area. 

Zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha), a non-native invasive species found in tidal freshwater 

areas of the Hudson River with sandy substrates, are also likely to be present in the study area.

A diverse community of fish is present in the study area, with over 80 resident and migratory fish 

species documented in the tidal freshwater portion of the river.76 Species of recreational, 

commercial, ecological, and/or conservation importance include: Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose 

sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), American shad (Alosa 

sapidissima), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), striped bass 

(Morone saxatilis), white perch (Morone americana), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), 

smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), and yellow perch (Perca flavescens). The anadromous 

alewife and blueback herring (collectively referred to as “river herring”) are important forage 

species for predators such as striped bass (migrant) and largemouth bass (resident) and are 

integral to the process of trophic transfer between marine and fresh waters.

American shad, river herring, and striped bass are anadromous species that are seasonally 

abundant in the study area. Shad and herring migrate from the open ocean during spring to spawn 

in various tidal and non-tidal reaches of the Hudson (and various unblocked tributaries). Striped 

bass also enter the lower tidal river from coastal waters to spawn each spring. These species may 

be present in the study area from spring through fall, after which most species will have undertaken 

migration to coastal waters. In contrast, catadromous American eels can remain in the tidal 

freshwater river as adults, only later returning to the waters of the central North Atlantic to spawn. 

Young eels (elvers) subsequently return to freshwater areas such as the upper Hudson River as

they mature. Resident species such as largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, white perch, and 

yellow perch may exhibit seasonal variations in abundance based on their movements within the 

river, but could be near the study area throughout the year simply because of the persistent 

freshwater conditions. 

Federally endangered Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon migrate, spawn, and forage within the 

Hudson River system and may be present in the study area during portions of their life history. 

The NMFS has designated critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon along the length of the tidal Hudson 

River (see Section 4.8.3.3, “Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species,” for 

more information).

4.8.3.2 Terrestrial Resources

The terrestrial study area consists primarily of developed areas with non-native invasive plant 

species, manicured lawn, and successional woods. The Project site is a rail corridor, along which 

herbicides are used on track ballast and embankment side slopes.

75 Hudson River Estuary Biocriteria Final Report, submitted to NYSDEC by Versar, Inc. and Tetra Tech, 

Inc., May 2003.

76 American Fisheries Society Symposium 45: “Changes in Fish Assemblages in the Tidal Hudson River, 

R. Daniels et al. 2005, pages 471-503.
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-40

4.8.3.2.1 Habitats

The majority of the upland study area is highly developed with a mix of residential, transportation 

infrastructure, industrial, and commercial uses, and are best categorized as Terrestrial Cultural77

communities. The Terrestrial Cultural communities in the study area include paved road/path78, 

railroad79, urban structure exterior80, and mowed lawn81 ecological communities. Of these 

Terrestrial Cultural communities, only the mowed lawn ecological community has more than 

sparse vegetation, and is dominated by crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis), Kentucky bluegrass 

(Poa pratensis), and common plantain (Plantago major). The paved road/path, railroad, and urban 

structure exterior ecological communities occur both west and east of the river. The mowed lawn 

ecological community primarily occurs on the western shoreline, in Corning Riverfront Park. In the 

park, a concrete wall associated with an access road is at the western bridge abutment and the 

western riverbank is armored with boulder riprap north and south of the wall. In addition, portions 

of the study area are undeveloped and categorized as a Forested Uplands82 community, 

specifically the successional southern hardwoods83 ecological community. The successional 

southern hardwoods ecological community north of the existing bridge on the eastern bank of the 

river (within a 7-acre woodlot) is dominated by box elder (Acer negundo), eastern cottonwood 

(Populus deltoides), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), Asiatic bittersweet (Ampelopsis 

brevipedunculata), European buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), and garlic mustard (Alliaria 

petiolata). A small (0.07-acre) freshwater wetland (see the description of Wetland B in Section 

4.7.3.3.1) is also in this portion of the study area. The successional southern hardwoods 

community east of the existing railyard is dominated by Norway maple (Acer platanoides), tree of 

heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica), box elder, white 

snakeroot (Ageratina altissima), and silver maple (Acer saccharinum). These species are common 

to the region, and many are considered invasive/non-native species (e.g., Asiatic bittersweet, 

77 Edinger et al. 2014 defines the Terrestrial Cultural subsystem as “communities that are either created 

and maintained by human activities, or are modified by human influence to such a degree that the 

physical conformation of the substrate, or the biological composition of the resident community as it 

existed prior to human influence.”

78 Edinger et al. 2014 defines the paved road/path ecological community as “a road or pathway that is 

paved with asphalt, concrete, brick, stone, etc. There may be sparse vegetation rooted in cracks in the 

paved surface.”

79 Edinger et al. 2014 defines the railroad ecological community as “a permanent road having a line of 

steel rails fixed to wood ties and laid on a gravel roadbed that provides a track for cars or equipment 

drawn by locomotives or propelled by self-contained motors. There may be sparse vegetation rooted in 

the gravel substrate along regularly maintained railroads. The railroad right of way may be maintained 

by mowing or herbicide spraying.”

80 Edinger et al. 2014 defines the urban structure exterior ecological community as “the exterior surfaces 

of metal, wood, or concrete structures (such as commercial buildings, apartment buildings, houses, 

bridges) or any structural surface composed of inorganic materials (glass, plastics, etc.) in an urban or 

densely populated suburban area. These sites may be sparsely vegetated with lichens, mosses, and 

terrestrial algae; occasionally vascular plants may grow in cracks. Nooks and crannies may provide 

nesting habitat for birds and insects, and roosting sites for bats.”

81 Edinger et al. 2014 defines the mowed lawn ecological community as “residential, recreational, or 

commercial land, or unpaved airport runways in which the groundcover is dominated by clipped grasses 

and there is less than 30 percent cover of trees. Ornamental and/or native shrubs may be present, 

usually with less than 50 percent cover. The groundcover is maintained by mowing and broadleaf 

herbicide application.”

82 Edinger et al. 2014 defines the Forested Uplands subsystem as “upland communities with more than 60 

percent canopy cover of trees (greater than 5 meters tall); these communities occur on substrates with 

less than 50 percent rock outcrop or shallow soil over bedrock.

83 Edinger et al. 2014 defines the successional southern hardwoods ecological community as “a hardwood 

or mixed forest that occurs on sites that have been cleared or otherwise disturbed.”
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-41 February 2022

European buckthorn, garlic mustard, Norway maple, tree of heaven, Japanese knotweed, and 

black locust). The two successional southern hardwoods ecological communities represent the 

most sizable natural habitat within the study area, but are of marginal quality due to their small 

total size, high amount of edge relative to total area, and isolation within heavily developed 

surroundings.

4.8.3.2.2 Wildlife

The terrestrial habitats in the study area support mostly disturbance-tolerant, generalist species 

of wildlife. Mammals that are known or expected to occur in these habitats include common urbanadapted species such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus 

carolinensis), eastern coyote (Canis latrans), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus),

Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), big brown 

bat (Eptesicus fuscus), and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana). Examples of reptiles and 

amphibians that may occur in the study area include northern water snake (Nerodia s. sipedon), 

garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), painted turtle (Chrysemys picta), snapping turtle (Chelydra s. 

serpentina), green frog (Rana clamitans), spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), and northern redbacked salamander (Plethodon c. cinereus).

The 2000–2005 New York State Breeding Bird Atlas documented 59 species as either confirmed, 

probably, or possibly nesting in the survey block that includes the Project site (Block 5972D) (see 

Appendix B-2, “Water Resources and Ecology”). The majority of these species have the

potential to nest in the study area on the basis of their habitat associations, and include mostly 

disturbance-tolerant songbirds such as American robin, gray catbird, downy woodpecker, 

European starling, house sparrow, rock pigeon, mourning dove, black-capped chickadee, and redwinged blackbird. The state-endangered peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) nests on the Dunn 

Memorial Bridge, approximately 0.75 mile south of the existing bridge, and the home range of the 

individuals associated with this nest may extend into the study area (see Section 4.8.3.3, 

“Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species”). Many of the species of birds breed 

in the study area are year-round residents and would therefore also be present during winter. Bald 

eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) frequently occur along the Hudson River during winter and 

have the potential to occur in the study area. Waterfowl that are likely to occur on the river during 

winter include mute swan (Cygnus olar), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), ring-necked duck 

(Aythya collaris), common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), hooded merganser (Lophodytes 

cucullatus), and common merganser (Mergus merganser), among others. Wading birds, such as 

snowy egret (Egretta thula), great egret (Ardea alba), and great blue heron (Ardea herodias) may 

occasionally occur along the river’s shallow edges in search of fish at any time of year.

Birds observed in the study area during the September 8, 2020 wildlife survey include American 

crow, fish crow, blue jay, Carolina wren, European starling, downy woodpecker, Canada goose, 

common yellowthroat, black-capped chickadee, northern cardinal, least flycatcher, white-breasted 

nuthatch, gray catbird, northern flicker, red-eyed vireo, and house sparrow. The survey coincided 

with the fall migration period for most migratory bird species that breed in New York State. Of the 

birds observed during the survey, however, all but least flycatcher are expected to breed in the 

study area. An active osprey nest and two adult ospreys were also observed on the top of the 

eastern swing span tower of the Livingston Avenue Bridge. Mammals, including tracks or signs, 

that were observed during the survey included white-tailed deer, eastern coyote, and eastern gray 

squirrel. Garter snake was the only species of reptile or amphibian observed in the study area. 

4.8.3.3 Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC §§ 1531-1544) forbids any government 

agency, corporation, or citizen from taking (i.e., harming or killing) endangered animals without a 

permit. Once a species is listed as threatened or endangered, the ESA requires that “critical 

habitat” be designated for that species, including areas necessary for the recovery of the species. 

Federal agencies may not authorize, fund, or carry out any action that “destroys or adversely 

Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-43 February 2022

implicata), have the potential to occur in the study area. Osprey (species of special concern) was 

the only state-listed species observed during the September 8, 2020 wildlife survey.

4.8.3.3.1 Shortnose Sturgeon

The shortnose sturgeon is a Federally and state-listed endangered species that can occur in 

riverine, estuarine, and marine environments along the Atlantic coast of North America. The only 

known New York population of shortnose sturgeon occurs in the Hudson River. In rivers on the 

northern end of their range (including the Hudson River), shortnose sturgeon are amphidromous—

i.e., they spawn in fresh water but regularly enter saltwater habitats during their life. In general, 

adult shortnose sturgeon primarily occur in either saline estuarine waters or, more rarely, coastal 

waters, between spawning cycles, while juveniles tend to remain in the estuary. The Hudson River 

shortnose sturgeon population currently appears to be stable and has recovered from a significant 

decline due to overfishing and habitat degradation that started in the late 1800s and continued 

well into the 20th century.87

Shortnose sturgeon are distributed throughout the Hudson River, though their distribution varies by 

life stage and time of the year. Shortnose sturgeon of all life stages have the potential to be present 

in the vicinity of the Livingston Avenue Bridge for at least some of the year. Foraging juveniles and 

adults could be present all year long. Spawning adults have the potential to be present from midMarch to mid-May, and early life stages can be present through June. Adult shortnose sturgeon 

range between RM 23 and RM 110 during the summer months, at least 33 miles south of the study 

area (the Livingston Avenue Bridge is at RM 145), and then congregate in overwintering areas at 

specific locations within that range.88,89 Juvenile shortnose sturgeon overlap with adults in their 

distribution and are typically found downstream of Catskill (RM 107). Non-spawning adults are not 

likely to occur in the vicinity of the Livingston Avenue Bridge, while spawning adults and early life 

stages (i.e., eggs and larvae) occur during a short period of time during the spring, generally 

between March and mid-July. Juveniles could also be present in the spring, although they are more 

likely to occur downriver. Non-spawning adults typically range downstream of Catskill and are rarely 

collected upstream of that location. Pre-spawning adults overwinter as a group in deep channel 

habitats near Sturgeon Point (RM 86) and downstream of the spawning grounds near Albany (RM 

118-152), which includes the Project site. Spawning activity is known to occur in the study area 

(from RM 131 to 152) and is concentrated near the bottom at water depths of about 1 to 10 meters 

(3 to 33 feet), currents ranging from approximately 0.2 to 1.8 meters per second (0.7 to 6 fps), and 

over substrates of gravel, cobble, and/or boulders with little interstitial silt or organic material.90 After 

spawning occurs, adults disperse quickly to the mid-Hudson area downstream of Catskill. The 

spawning migration in the Hudson River begins in the spring, when adults leave the concentrated 

overwintering area (roughly between Hyde Park and Kingston) and move upriver to the spawning 

grounds near Albany. 

Because newly hatched larvae are subject to passive transport,91 larvae hatching at the Troy Dam 

(RM 152) would drift through the Project site (RM 145). In the Hudson River, the larval life stage 

generally occurs between Albany and Poughkeepsie.92 Larval shortnose sturgeon are collected

87 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Volume 136, “Year-Class Strength and Recovery of 

Endangered Shortnose Sturgeon in the Hudson River, New York,” by R.J. Woodland and D.H. Secor, 

2007, pages 2-81.

88 NMFS Biological Opinion – Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement. F/NER/2013/9592. April 10, 2013.

89 River Miles in the Hudson River are measured from RM 0 at the Battery (Lower Manhattan).

90 Final Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), prepared by the Shortnose 

Sturgeon Recovery Team for the NMFS, 1998, page 104.

91 Copeia, Volume 1995 “Ontogenic Behavior of Shortnose Sturgeon” by A. Richmond, and B. Kynard, 

pages 172-182.

92 Ibid.
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-44

most frequently near Albany (RM 126-141) and primarily during the month of May.93 Larvae begin 

moving downstream of the spawning grounds within four weeks of hatching, and leave the vicinity 

of the Livingston Avenue Bridge by early to mid-July. Juvenile and adult shortnose sturgeon may 

occur year-round in all habitat types (i.e., substrate, salinity) in the species’ range in the Hudson 

River, from the mouth to the upstream limit at the Troy Dam.94 Appendix B-2-1 provides the 

consultation with NMFS with respect to shortnose sturgeon in the vicinity of the Project site, 

including a letter of concurrence issued by NMFS on September 28, 2021 indicating that the 

Project is not likely to adversely affect any NMFS ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat. 

4.8.3.3.2 Atlantic Sturgeon

The New York Bight Distinct Population Segment of the Atlantic sturgeon, which includes sturgeon 

from the Hudson River, is Federally listed as endangered. Juvenile Atlantic sturgeon could 

potentially occur in the study area at any time throughout the year; however, sub-adult and adult 

Atlantic sturgeon and early life stages occur in the Hudson River seasonally during the late spring 

to fall months and potentially occur in the study area during those months. Atlantic sturgeon spend 

most of their lives in marine waters along the Atlantic coast. Adults migrate from the ocean upriver 

to spawn in fresh water above the salt front in the Hudson River from late April to early July. The 

primary spawning area for Atlantic sturgeon is near Hyde Park, New York (RM 83), downriver from 

the Project site (RM 145).95 Additional data collected in 2014 confirmed the presence of a few 

spawning individuals upstream of RM 120 from late April through late July96, suggesting that 

Atlantic sturgeon spawn further upstream in the Hudson River than previously suspected, including 

in the vicinity of the Project site. Females migrate from the river back to marine waters following 

spawning, but males may remain in the river until October or November. Larval Atlantic sturgeon 

can occur between RM 37 and RM 92 and juvenile Atlantic sturgeon are primarily found between 

RM 42 and RM 66, but range farther downriver as well. Early life stages (i.e., eggs, larvae, and 

smaller juveniles) are relatively intolerant of salinity; young-of-year Atlantic sturgeon exhibit poor 

survival at salinities ranging from 5 to 10 ppt, and older juveniles (Age-1 and Age-2) may tolerate 

salinities up to 12 ppt.

Based on the spatial distributions and seasonal movement patterns within the Hudson River, all life 

stages of Atlantic sturgeon could be present in the action area. Spawning adults and early life 

stages could be present from approximately March through September, and non-spawning adults 

could occur year-round. Juveniles could also be found in the action area year-round, although they 

are more likely to migrate downriver or to marine habitats in the winter months.

NMFS has designated critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) for 

the length of the tidal Hudson River from Lower Manhattan to the Troy Dam (about 7 miles north 

of the Livingston Avenue Bridge);97 the study area is within the critical habitat boundaries. For 

Atlantic sturgeon, the physical or biological features (PBFs) of critical habitat that are essential to 

the conservation of the species include:

• PBF #1—Hard bottom substrate (e.g., rock, cobble, gravel, limestone, boulder, etc.) in low 

salinity waters (i.e., 0 to 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt) range) for settlement of fertilized eggs, 

refuge, growth, and development of early life stages.

93 Based on utilities monitoring data, 2000-2009. 

94 NMFS Biological Opinion – Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement. F/NER/2013/9592. April 10, 2013.

95 Ibid. 

96 Fox, D. and K. Hattala. 2014 Personal communication with NMFS. April 2014.

97 NMFS Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Endangered New 

York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina and South Atlantic Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic 

Sturgeon and the Threatened Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic Sturgeon. Final 

Rule. 82 Federal Register 39160-39274, August 17, 2017.
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-45 February 2022

• PBF #2—Aquatic habitat with a gradual downstream salinity gradient of 0.5 to up to as high 

as 30 ppt and soft substrate downstream (e.g., sand, mud) between the river mouth and 

spawning sites for juvenile foraging and physiological development.

• PBF #3—Water of appropriate depth and absent physical barriers to passage (e.g., locks, 

dams, thermal plumes, turbidity, sound, reservoirs, gear, etc.) between the river mouth and 

spawning sites necessary to support: unimpeded movement of adults to and from spawning 

sites; seasonal and physiologically dependent movement of juvenile Atlantic sturgeon to 

appropriate salinity zones within the river estuary; and staging, resting, or holding of subadults 

or spawning condition adults. Water depths in main river channels must also be deep enough 

(e.g., at least 1.2 meters (3.9 feet)) to ensure continuous flow in the main channel at all times 

when any sturgeon life stage would be in the river.

• PBF #4—Water between the river mouth and spawning sites, especially in the bottom meter 

of the water column, with temperature, salinity, and oxygen values that, combined, support: 

spawning; annual and interannual adult, subadult, larval, and juvenile survival; and larval, 

juvenile, and subadult growth, development, and recruitment (e.g., 13°C to 26°C for spawning 

habitat and no more than 30°C for juvenile rearing habitat, and 6 milligrams per liter (mg/L) 

dissolved oxygen (DO) or greater for juvenile rearing habitat).

The Project site contains physical and biological features identified under PBFs 1, 3, and 4. 

Optimal habitat for juvenile foraging and physiological development (PBF 2) does not occur in the 

vicinity of the Project site, which is in lower salinity waters typically less than 0.5 ppt. Appendix 

B-2-1 provides the consultation with NMFS with respect to Atlantic sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon 

critical habitat in the vicinity of the Project site, including a letter of concurrence issued by NMFS 

on September 28, 2021 indicating that the Project is not likely to adversely affect any NMFS ESAlisted species or designated critical habitat. 

4.8.3.3.3 Northern Long-Eared Bat

The northern long-eared bat (Federally and state-listed as threatened) is a cave-hibernating bat 

of eastern North America that has recently undergone severe population declines due to the 

outbreak of white-nose syndrome, a fungal disease that kills bats during the winter hibernation 

period. Northeastern U.S. populations as a whole have declined by 98 percent as a result of the 

disease. As of 2015, northern long-eared bat populations had declined approximately 99 percent 

in New York State.98 Non-hibernating northern long-eared bats generally inhabit mature, closedcanopy, intact forest within heavily forested landscapes and require tracts of unbroken forest for 

both foraging and breeding, and they are sensitive to urbanization. As discussed earlier, the 

majority of the study area is developed with an urbanized mix of residential, transportation 

infrastructure, industrial, and commercial uses, and wildlife habitat is limited to a small woodlot 

and a recreational park consisting of manicured lawn and a manmade, ornamental pond. No large, 

unbroken forest is present in the area. Given the lack of preferred habitat of northern long-eared 

bats in the study area and the current rarity of the species in the region, the potential for occurrence 

of the northern long-eared bat at the Project site or in the study area is extremely remote.

Appendix B-2-1 provides the consultation with USFWS with respect to northern long-eared bats 

in the vicinity of the Project site, as well as a verification letter from USFWS dated November 3, 

2021, indicating that the Project is consistent with the Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) for 

northern long-eared bats issued on January 5, 2016. 

4.8.3.3.4 Bald Eagle

Bald eagle populations in New York have grown dramatically over the past few decades. Bald 

eagles are listed in New York State as threatened and Federally protected by the Bald and Golden 

98 NYNHP Northern Long-Eared Bat, Myotis septentrionalis. Available at

https://guides.nynhp.org/northern-long-eared-bat/, updated March 8, 2019. 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-46

Eagle Protection Act. Bald eagles nest along the Hudson River, usually near large areas of tidal 

mudflat and away from areas with moderate to heavy levels of human activity and shoreline 

development. As such, bald eagles are not known to nest in the study area, and nests were not 

observed during site reconnaissance surveys. Bald eagles are present during the winter along the 

Hudson River, typically congregating in old, dominant trees with open flight paths and clear views 

of the surroundings,99which the study area is lacking. NYNHP did not include bald eagles in the 

list of species documented at the Project site or within the study area,

100 but they may occasionally 

pass over the open water in search of fish during the non-breeding season. 

4.8.3.3.5 Peregrine Falcon

The peregrine falcon is globally widespread and common in many areas. While this species is 

currently listed in New York State as endangered, populations in New York have grown 

dramatically since the 1980s and NYSDEC has therefore proposed reducing its status to special 

concern. Peregrine falcons traditionally nest on cliff ledges, but they will also commonly nest on 

bridges, buildings, and other tall artificial structures, often in cities. As of 2010, territorial pairs were 

most commonly found at cliff sites, but more young peregrine falcons were produced at building 

sites.101 Peregrine falcons do not nest on the Livingston Avenue Bridge, but they nest on other 

nearby Hudson River bridges, including the Dunn Memorial Bridge, 0.75 miles to the south. 

Individuals associated with this nest site may occasionally pass through the study area in search 

of prey.

4.8.3.3.6 Osprey

A pair of ospreys and their nest were observed on the eastern swing span tower of the Livingston 

Avenue Bridge during the September 2020 wildlife survey. The osprey is a species of special 

concern in New York that has been proposed by NYSDEC to be delisted during the next revision 

of the list of endangered, threatened, and special concern species because populations in the 

state have recovered significantly in recent decades following steep range-wide declines that 

occurred throughout the mid-1900s. Ospreys are now commonly found in New York almost 

anywhere there are large waterbodies, and they readily nest on a variety of artificial structures that 

include utility poles, buoy towers, bridges, and platforms erected specifically for use by ospreys. 

4.8.3.3.7 Cobra Clubtail

The cobra clubtail is an uncommon dragonfly, considered rare in New York State, that inhabits 

areas with large, sandy-bottomed rivers and large lakes. Adults usually occur in the riparian zone 

canopy, but during breeding, they are usually found on sandy shorelines or in low overhanging 

vegetation. A large population was recently discovered along the mid-Hudson River from Albany 

to Schuylerville, and a short distance up the Mohawk River. The cobra clubtail is present in the 

vicinity of the study area102 and therefore has the potential to occur at the Project site.

4.8.3.3.8 Alewife Floater

The alewife floater is an uncommon freshwater mussel, considered rare in New York State, that 

occurs from Nova Scotia to Quebec, and south to North Carolina. In New York, the species is only 

known to occur in the freshwater tidal Hudson River and the upper Delaware River. In the Hudson 

River, the species occurs from Dutchess County north to the confluence with the Mohawk River 

at Waterford. It occurs in both running water and quiet standing water with cobble or stony 

99 Landscape Ecology, Volume 14, Issue 6 “The influence of research scale on bald eagle habitat 

selection along the lower Hudson River,” C.M. Thompson and K. McGarigal, 2002, pages 569-586.

100 NYNHP 2019.

101 2010 Peregrine Falcone Season Results, NYSDEC, Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources, 

Endangered Species Unit, B.A. Loucks, 2010. 

102 Correspondence from Andrea Chaloux, NYNHP, to Andrew Freed, NYSDOT, dated February 19, 2019.
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-47 February 2022

substrates where it burrows into the substrate. Although unlisted, this species is thought to be in 

decline. Hudson River populations of the alewife floater have been heavily impacted by the zebra 

mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) invasion. The alewife floater may occur within the study area.103

4.8.3.4 Invasive Species

Conditions for invasive plants and animals are favorable in the study area due to the high levels 

of development and human activity. The degraded habitat conditions present are most suitable to 

these generalist, human-subsidized species. Invasive species known to occur in the study area 

include Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), 

common reed (Phragmites australis), Oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), European 

starling (Sternus vulgaris), and house sparrow (Passer domesticus). Zebra mussels are likely 

present in the river.

4.8.4 Impacts of the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Livingston Avenue Bridge would not be rehabilitated or 

replaced. The No Action Alternative would have no effect on aquatic biota, terrestrial wildlife and 

habitats, or threatened and endangered species. With the No Action Alternative, the existing 

bridge and approach tracks would not be altered, and no new construction related to the bridge 

would occur in the study area. 

4.8.5 Impacts of the Build Alternatives

4.8.5.1 Aquatic Resources

Operation of the replacement bridge under either of the Build Alternatives would not substantively 

differ from the operation of the existing bridge. As a result, there would be no change in impacts 

to aquatic resources in the Hudson River compared to existing conditions. Water and sediment 

quality would not change, and the same species and communities of aquatic biota would continue 

to occur as at present. 

For Build Alternative 1 (replacement on an adjacent north alignment), the size of the piers 

supporting the replacement bridge would be greater than those of the existing bridge (total pier 

footprints would be approximately 0.74 acres for Build Alternative 1, compared to 0.42 acres for 

the existing bridge). Overall, the extent of sediment deposition and scour in this section of the river 

would not change significantly. As discussed in Section 4.7.3.2, most of the river in the vicinity of 

the Project site is a dynamic environment subject to erosion (“dynamic scour”), which typically 

occurs around obstacles such as bridge abutments. Some small areas of “dynamic drift” (areas 

characterized by deposition in the lee of obstacles) are present north of the existing bridge’s piers 

on its eastern side, and south of the existing bridge below the large pier. A replacement bridge to 

the north of the existing bridge in Build Alternative 1 would likely result in a small shift in this current 

spatial distribution of areas with scour and sediment deposition. For example, sediment deposition 

in the lee of the existing bridge’s piers would decrease following their removal and sediment would 

instead accumulate in the lee of the replacement bridge’s piers. Because the replacement bridge’s 

three easternmost piers would be spaced slightly farther apart than those of the existing bridge 

(approximately 77 feet versus approximately 71 feet), scouring and deposition attributable to 

bridge piers on the eastern side of the river may change slightly but would not result in adverse 

impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation on the eastern bank of the river. The westernmost side 

of the replacement bridge would have more piers than the existing bridge (three versus two) and 

the piers would be spaced more closely together (approximately 48 feet versus 132 and 179 feet), 

resulting in a change in the current scour and deposition pattern in the vicinity of the bridge. No 

103 Ibid. 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-48

submerged aquatic vegetation are known to occur in the vicinity of the location of Build 

Alternative 1’s western piers, and therefore, submerged aquatic vegetation would not be affected 

by any potential change in river hydrodynamics along the west bank of the river due to Build 

Alternative 1. The potential for shifts in the spatial distribution of areas with scour and sediment 

deposition within the study area due to Build Alternative 1 would not result in significant adverse 

impacts to aquatic habitat or aquatic biota. 

For Build Alternative 2 (replacement on an adjacent south alignment), because the size (total pier 

footprints would be 0.5 acres for Build Alternative 2 and 0.42 acres for the existing bridge) and 

number (eight piers for Build Alternative 2 and nine piers for the existing bridge) of piers that would 

support the replacement bridge in Build Alternative 2 are nearly the same as those of the existing 

bridge, and because the alignment of Build Alternative 2 would be closer to the existing bridge 

than the alignment of Build Alternative 1, potential changes in scour and sediment deposition due 

to the replacement bridge under Build Alternative 2 would be minimal. Unlike Build Alternative 1, 

the three easternmost piers for Build Alternative 2 would be spaced slightly closer together than 

those of the existing bridge (approximately 62 feet versus approximately 71 feet), and as such, 

scouring and deposition attributable to bridge piers on the eastern side of the river may change 

slightly but would not result in adverse impacts to any submerged aquatic vegetation on the 

eastern bank of the river. The westernmost side of the replacement bridge under Build 

Alternative 2 would be similar to Build Alternative 1. It would have more piers than the existing 

bridge (three rather than two) and the piers would be spaced more closely together (approximately 

54 feet versus 132 and 179 feet), resulting in a change in the scour and deposition pattern in the 

vicinity of the bridge. For the same reasons discussed for Build Alternative 1, the potential change 

in scour and deposition within the vicinity of the replacement bridge with Build Alternative 2 would 

not result in significant adverse impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation, aquatic habitat, or 

aquatic biota. 

Any non-motile benthic invertebrates within the footprint of the replacement bridge (0.74 acre for 

Build Alternative 1 or 0.5 acre for Build Alternative 2) would be lost. This is a minimal loss of bottom 

habitat and benthic invertebrates compared to the availability of similar habitat that would still be 

available in the region. Additionally, demolition of the existing bridge would restore approximately 

0.4 acres of bottom habitat currently occupied by its piers, partially offsetting the benthic habitat 

lost due to construction of the replacement bridge. The net loss of 0.34 acre of bottom habitat with 

Build Alternative 1 or 0.1 acre of bottom habitat with Build Alternative 2 would not result in adverse 

impacts to populations of benthic fauna or their predators.

Because the height above the water surface and width of the deck of the replacement bridge (23.3’ 

by 48.3’) would be similar for either Build Alternative to that of the existing bridge (23.3’ by 38.2’), 

shading from the replacement bridge would be similar to the existing bridge and would be almost 

entirely offset by the removal of the existing bridge. The slightly greater width of the replacement 

bridge would result in a negligible net increase in shading that would not result in adverse impacts 

to benthic organisms, submerged aquatic vegetation, or other aquatic biota. Overall, operation of 

either Build Alternative would not have significant adverse impacts to aquatic resources of the 

Hudson River.

4.8.5.2 Terrestrial Resources

Potential impacts of the operation of the Build Alternatives are limited to noise disturbances 

generated by train pass-bys across the bridge and the permanent loss of woodland (three acres 

with Build Alternative 1 and two acres with Build Alternative 2) on the east bank of the river to 

realign the east approach slightly to the north. Given that the woodland area is of marginal value 

to birds and other wildlife due to its small size and large amount of edge habitat, the permanent 

loss of 2 or 3 acres of this habitat would not result in an adverse impact to wildlife, especially given 

the availability of similar habitat in the region. The permanent loss of woodland with either 

alternative would reduce the number of individuals able to inhabit it, but would not change the 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-49 February 2022

assemblage of wildlife present; the same wildlife species would continue to inhabit the remaining 

portions of the woodlot. The reduced number of individuals of some species would not adversely 

affect the size or viability of their local populations.

Because the study area has been developed with the present land uses for many years and the 

existing bridge has been in operation for more than a century, the wildlife communities in the study 

area have already been shaped in part by existing noise levels. These communities are primarily 

composed of generalists and disturbance-tolerant species that will inhabit areas with high noise 

levels and otherwise degraded habitat conditions. Operation of the replacement bridge under 

either Build Alternative would not increase disturbance levels above what is currently attributable 

to the existing bridge, and thus, any species currently inhabiting the area, including migratory 

birds, would continue to occur in the area in the future. Individual animals currently inhabiting the 

area are habituated to existing noise levels from rail traffic; operation of the replacement bridge 

under either Build Alternative would not elicit negative physiological or behavioral responses, and 

would not alter reproductive success. Overall, noise resulting from operation of either Build 

Alternative would not have any adverse impacts to wildlife.

4.8.5.3 Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species

Threatened, endangered, or special concern species that have the potential to occur within the 

study area include Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, northern long-eared bat, bald eagle, 

peregrine falcon, cobra clubtail, and alewife floater. In addition, a pair of ospreys (special concern) 

currently nest on the eastern swing span tower of the Livingston Avenue Bridge. As detailed below, 

because operation of the replacement bridge under either Build Alternative would not result in 

notable changes to aquatic or terrestrial habitat within the vicinity of the replacement bridge, it is 

reasonable to conclude that either Build Alternative may affect but is unlikely to adversely affect

the Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, northern long-eared bat, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, 

cobra clubtail, alewife floater, or osprey. FRA completed Section 7 consultations with NMFS dated

January 26, 2021 and September 21, 2021, with concurrence issued by NMFS on September 28, 

2021, and with USFWS on November 3, 2021 with respect to the Federally listed species. FRA 

also submitted a Biological Assessment for the monarch butterfly, a candidate species, to USFWS 

on November 15, 2021. Appendix B-2-1 includes this consultation record.

4.8.5.3.1 Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon

Relative to the benthic acreage near the Project site at RM 145, the permanent loss of 0.34 acre 

of bottom habitat with Build Alternative 1 is equivalent to approximately 0.25 percent of the 

available benthic habitat. The majority of this loss would occur over gravelly sand substrate 

documented in the navigation channel, which provides potential habitat for spawning and early life 

stages of both sturgeon species. The area affected by the replacement bridge piers would be 

small in comparison to the surrounding habitat that would continue to be available to sturgeon, 

including spawning adults, within the study area. Areas of sandy gravel are present upstream and 

downstream of the Project site, bordered by sand and gravelly sand, and since it has a greater 

proportion of gravel compared to sand, these areas would provide more favorable spawning 

habitat for shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. Additionally, where the existing bridge is removed, the 

bottom habitat would be restored through natural redistribution of river bottom material into the 

former footprint, making this area available for spawning. With the exception of the spring months, 

it is not likely that shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon are using the study area as foraging habitat as 

these areas are typically found well downstream of the spawning grounds. The majority of the 

benthic substrate within the study area is coarse-grained sand and gravel, rather than the finegrained silt and mud that sturgeon are thought to prefer as foraging habitat. Based on this 

information, the small loss of benthic habitat resulting from the implementation of Build 

Alternative 1 is not likely to adversely affect shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River.

With a net loss of 0.1 acre of soft bottom habitat in the footprint of the foundation piles, Build 

Alternative 2 would modify less benthic habitat, including critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon, and 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-50

have less of an effect on fish and other benthic organisms than Build Alternative 1 and therefore 

is also not likely to adversely affect shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River.

FRA concluded that the effect of the habitat modification resulting from the Project would be too 

small to be meaningfully measured or detected and would be insignificant, and received 

concurrence from NMFS on September 28, 2021, as indicated in Appendix B-2-1.

4.8.5.3.2 Atlantic Sturgeon Critical Habitat

Operation of either Build Alternative would result in the permanent conversion of waters resulting 

in the loss of benthic habitat within designated critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. Construction 

of the replacement bridge and demolition of the existing bridge would result in the modification of 

bottom habitat, including gravelly sand substrate identified in the navigation channel. As described 

above, given that the benthic habitat that would be lost as a result of the Project is small (0.34 

acres for Build Alternative 1 and 0.1 acres for Build Alternative 2) in comparison to the amount of 

similar habitat in the vicinity, there is more favorable habitat (i.e., sandy gravel) just upstream and 

downstream of the existing bridge, and the substrate in the footprint of the existing bridge would 

be restored with material similar to the surrounding substrate, habitat modification resulting from 

the Project would not result in significant adverse impacts to Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat. The 

replacement bridge would not create a physical barrier to passage between the river mouth and 

spawning sites and would not impede the movement of adults to and from spawning sites, 

seasonal movement of juveniles, or staging, resting, or holding of subadults or spawning adults. 

The Project would not affect water depth, flow, dissolved oxygen, salinity, temperature, or the 

ability for sturgeon to migrate through the area. Appendix B-2-1 provides the consultation with 

NMFS with respect to Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat in the vicinity of the Project site.

4.8.5.3.3 Northern Long-Eared Bat

The land cleared for either Build Alternative would represent a negligible loss of low quality, 

fragmented woodland that is not likely to represent suitable habitat for northern long-eared bats 

and would not adversely affect the size or viability of any remaining local population. The fragment 

of woodland in which the majority of the clearing would occur is not considered to be valuable or 

high quality habitat for northern long-eared bats because of its small size, high edge to area ratio, 

second stage growth, limited amount of large dead or dying trees, and heavily developed 

surroundings. As a conservative measure, to avoid the potential removal of an active roost tree, 

no tree clearing would take place from June 1 to July 31. Appendix B-2-1 contains FRA’s Section 

7 consultation with USFWS with respect to northern long-eared bat.

4.8.5.3.4 Bald Eagle and Peregrine Falcon

The Build Alternatives would not notably increase disturbance levels above what is generated by 

the existing bridge, and therefore, would not have the potential to result in adverse impacts to the 

bald eagle or peregrine falcon. Neither bald eagles nor peregrine falcons nest on or in close 

proximity to the bridge, and as such, there would be no potential for the Build Alternatives to disturb 

or disrupt breeding activity. Because urban, bridge-nesting peregrine falcons are highly tolerant of 

and habituated to human disturbance, activities from the Build Alternatives would not have the 

potential to negatively impact hunting opportunities or other behaviors of the pair of peregrine 

falcons that nest on the Dunn Memorial Bridge, approximately 0.75 miles away. FRA will initiate 

consultation with USFWS under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act to request concurrence with these findings.

4.8.5.3.5 Osprey

Ospreys have become highly habituated to human activity and now commonly nest throughout 

New York State wherever there are large bodies of water. They have been proposed by NYSDEC 

to be removed from the list of endangered, threatened, and special concern species during the 

next revision. In compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and to avoid direct impacts to 

nesting ospreys, the osprey nest on the Livingston Avenue Bridge will be removed during the 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-51 February 2022

winter, when the nest is inactive. FRA and NYSDOT will coordinate with the USFWS and NYSDEC 

prior to removal. Upon their return to the area in the spring, these ospreys should easily establish 

a new nesting site on one of the many other tall, artificial structures along this section of the 

Hudson River and remain a part of the area’s breeding population. Following completion of 

construction, the replacement bridge will once again represent a potential nesting site for these or 

other ospreys in the area. For these reasons, no adverse impacts to ospreys at the individual or 

population level would be expected to occur from the construction and operation of the Build 

Alternatives. 

4.8.5.3.6 Cobra Clubtail

Tree clearing on the eastern bank of the river that would occur under either Build Alternative would 

potentially eliminate some riparian habitat of the cobra clubtail dragonfly, but occurrence of the 

species in this area is unconfirmed. Loss of a small section of shoreline vegetation (approximately 

300 linear feet for Build Alternative 1 and 150 feet for Build Alternative 2) would not result in a 

substantial reduction in the amount of comparable riparian habitat available to the cobra clubtail 

along the Hudson River, and would not result in adverse impacts to the species’ local or regional 

populations. 

4.8.5.3.7 Alewife Floater

Upon removal of the existing bridge, the area of river bottom currently occupied by the bridge’s 

piers would gradually accumulate sediment and return to benthic habitat, thereby largely offsetting 

any loss to the new bridge’s support piers. The permanent loss of 0.34 acre of bottom habitat with 

Build Alternative 1 would constitute a negligible reduction in benthic habitat available to the alewife 

floater in the freshwater tidal region of the Hudson River. The direct loss of a few individuals that 

could potentially occur within the areas of sediment that would be removed to install the piles 

would not substantially affect the size or viability of the Hudson River population, which numbers 

in the millions. Therefore, Build Alternative 1 would not adversely affect populations of the alewife 

floater or its habitat.

With a net loss of 0.1 acre of soft bottom habitat in the footprint of the foundation piles, Build 

Alternative 2 would affect a smaller amount of potential alewife floater habitat. As with Build 

Alternative 1, the direct loss of any individuals inhabiting the small area of river bottom in which 

piles would be installed would not adversely affect the size or viability of the local population.

4.8.5.4 Significant Habitat Areas

Operation of the replacement bridge under either Build Alternative would not adversely affect the 

Tidal Hudson River Estuary EFH or the ecology of the Upper Hudson River Significant Habitat 

Complex. FRA concluded that the net loss of approximately 0.32 acres (Build Alternative 1) or 

0.08 acres ((Build Alternative 2) of bottom habitat would not result in significant adverse effects to 

EFH and received concurrence from NMFS on March 1, 2021, as presented in Appendix B-2-1.

As discussed in Section 4.8.5.1, shading caused by the replacement bridge would be almost 

entirely offset by removal of the existing bridge and have no adverse impact to submerged aquatic 

vegetation. 

4.8.5.5 Invasive Species

Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species seeks to prevent the introduction of invasive species 

and provide controls to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that 

invasive species can cause. Due to the high levels of development and human activity in the study 

area, habitat conditions are highly degraded and favorable for non-native invasive plants and 

animals. During Project construction for either Build Alternative, NYSDOT will implement best 

management practices (such as washing construction equipment) to minimize the introduction of

new invasive species to the area, and to limit benefits to any that are already present. As such, 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-52

there would be no change in the status of invasive species from the existing condition under either 

Build Alternative. 

4.8.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation 

Operation of the Build Alternatives would not result in significant adverse impacts to natural 

resources. Therefore, mitigation measures are not required. Appendix B-2-1 provides the 

consultations with NMFS and USFWS regarding EFH and threatened and endangered species 

that could be affected by the Project. Section 4.16, “Construction Impacts,” discusses timing 

restrictions for construction work in the Hudson River to protect spawning Atlantic and shortnose 

sturgeon and their eggs and larvae, and other measures to mitigate potential impacts to natural 

resources during construction. In addition, during Project construction for either Build Alternative, 

NYSDOT will implement best management practices (such as washing construction equipment) 

to minimize the introduction of new invasive species to the area, and to limit benefits to any that 

are already present.

4.9 Geology

4.9.1 Introduction

This section presents FRA’s and NYSDOT’s assessment of the potential impacts of the No Action 

and Build Alternatives related to geology, topography, and soils. 

4.9.2 Methodology and Study Area

FRA and NYSDOT used maps published by the USGS and the USDA Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) web soil survey to obtain information on the topography and 

geology at the Project site. Information gathered from prior projects in the vicinity of the Project 

site was also used. The assessment of potential impacts on geology considers whether the Project 

Alternatives would result in any loss or change to geology characteristics, properties, or functions 

within the study area.

4.9.3 Affected Environment

In Albany, based on information gathered during the construction of I-787 in 1952, the subsurface 

in the vicinity of the Livingston Avenue Bridge consists of several layers of silty sand ranging from 

fine to coarse. There are lenses of soft plastic clay in the upper layers of sand and occasional 

cobbles and small boulders in the deeper coarse sand layers. The rock layer occurs fairly 

consistently at about 40 feet below the surface and consists of a soft shale rock with recovery 

rates over 70 percent in most locations. Subsurface information from the construction of the 

Patroon Island and Dunn Memorial Bridges shows that the soil properties are similar to those in 

the vicinity of the Livingston Avenue Bridge. The recorded rock layer at the Patroon Island and 

Dunn Memorial Bridges varies between 20 and 80 feet in depth. A very hard layer of soil occurs 

consistently around 40 feet deep in locations where the recorded rock surface is deeper. Based 

on the original plans for the Livingston Avenue Bridge, the existing abutment and pier foundations 

consist of timber piles. It is unlikely that these timber piles extend to the rock layer.

In Rensselaer, topography is variable across the site. Topographic maps indicate that Project site 

elevations range from 0 at the shore of Hudson River to approximately 30 feet at the railroad 

embankment. Slopes in the wooded area north of the bridge and in the vicinity of Tracy Street 

generally ranging from 0 to 15 percent. According to the NRCS web soil survey, three soil types 

are present on site, dominated by Udorthents, sandy. Both Udorthents, sandy and Udorthents, 

loamy soil types are soils that have been altered through either soil removal or soil removal and 

replacement.
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-53 February 2022

The City of Rensselaer anticipates that the Kiliaen’s Landing Development would require 9 to 15 

feet of fill in the area adjacent to the Livingston Avenue Bridge to meet the requirements of the 

National Flood Insurance Program and enhance the long-term viability and sustainability of the 

site.104

4.9.4 Impacts of the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, FRA and NYSDOT would not rehabilitate or replace the 

Livingston Avenue Bridge. The No Action Alternative would have no effect on geology, 

topography, or soils.

4.9.5 Impacts of the Build Alternatives

NYSDOT will perform a geotechnical investigation prior to construction of the new bridge under 

either Build Alternative to determine the suitability of the existing soils for the track bed and the 

depth to bedrock at proposed bridge pier locations. NYSDOT will incorporate any necessary 

precautions or measures and engineering practices to address unfavorable conditions. Through 

the use of test borings, NYSDOT will identify design and construction requirements for the 

earthwork and bridge foundation. This will include consideration of vibration and possible 

settlement of the existing bridge, which would still be in operation, during construction of the new 

bridge’s deep foundations. As discussed in Section 4.16, “Construction Impacts,” NYSDOT will 

require the use of pile installation that limits vibration near the existing bridge, to avoid potential 

damage to that structure. The specific pile installation measures will be determined during final 

design after a detailed geotechnical study is performed to determine the susceptibility of the 

existing structure to vibration. The new bridge under either Build Alternative would be constructed 

to meet modern seismic codes. The Build Alternatives would not result in any substantial change 

to local topography and would not affect existing soil and rock strata except for the locations

directly displaced to construct the new bridge foundations. Previously disturbed geology conditions 

would be changed temporarily during construction as supports for the temporary pier and spud 

barges are installed, and any required soil movement is undertaken to create a level staging area. 

Geology conditions would be properly restored where necessary and practicable using established 

engineering practices. Geology characteristics, properties, and functions within the study area 

would not be adversely affected by the Build Alternatives. The design of the Build Alternatives 

takes into account the geological and soil conditions of the Project site and will incorporate any 

necessary precautions or measures to address unfavorable conditions. Therefore, no adverse 

impacts related to geology, topography, or soils are anticipated for ether Build Alternative.

4.9.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation 

The Build Alternatives would not result in adverse impacts related to geology, topography, or soils.

Therefore, mitigation measures are not required. NYSDOT will perform a geotechnical 

investigation prior to construction of the new bridge under either Build Alternative to identify design 

and construction requirements for the new bridge.

4.10 Air Quality

4.10.1 Introduction

FRA and NYSDOT analyzed the potential local and regional impacts of the Project on air quality. 

Neither Build Alternatives would lead to an increase in the number of trains using the bridge 

compared to the No Action Alternative. However, both Build Alternatives would shift the rail 

alignment either to the north or south of the existing bridge, allow for trains to operate at higher 

104 Kiliaen’s Landing Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement, City of Rensselaer, May 2018, p. 

3-22.
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-54

speeds, and allow for an increase in weight of the freight loads transported across the bridge. No 

changes in the amount of boat traffic would result from the Build Alternatives, but boats may 

experience shorter waits for bridge openings and there would be fewer delays due to bridge 

malfunction, which could reduce localized diesel emissions from boat traffic. The operational 

impacts of the Build Alternatives are presented below in comparison to the No Action Alternative. 

Project-level conformity to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) is also presented in this section. 

The potential temporary impacts on localized air quality related to construction activities are 

addressed in Section 4.16.10 in Section 4.16, “Construction Impacts.”

4.10.2 Methodology and Study Area

The Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended in 1990, is the primary basis for regulating air pollutant 

emissions. As required by the CAA, USEPA promulgated, and revises periodically, regulations 

that established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for carbon monoxide (CO), 

ozone, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), lead, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter (PM) regulated in 

two size categories: respirable PM smaller than 10 micrometers (PM10), and fine respirable PM 

smaller than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). These are sometimes referred to as criteria pollutants.

The pollutants of concern for the Build Alternatives are those related to diesel emissions from 

passenger and freight trains that operate on the Empire Corridor. Pollutant emissions from diesel 

combustion contain nitrogen oxides (NOx, including both nitrogen oxide and NO2), PM, and CO,

which can potentially affect local concentrations near diesel sources; and volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), which along with NOx can react photochemically to form ozone and may be 

of concern on a regional scale. Lead and SO2 are not of concern from diesel sources.

FRA and NYSDOT evaluated the potential impacts of the Build Alternatives on air quality by 

considering:

• Whether local concentrations of NOx, CO, or PM would change at nearby sensitive locations 

(e.g., residences, public waterfront uses) as a result of the Build Alternatives; 

• Whether the changes in bridge operating conditions would affect regional pollutant burdens; 

and

• Whether the Project would conform to the SIP’s purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity 

and number of violations of the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of such 

standards.

4.10.3 Affected Environment

4.10.3.1 NYSDEC Air Monitoring Data

Representative criteria pollutant concentrations measured in recent years at NYSDEC air quality 

monitoring stations nearest to the Project site are presented in Exhibit 4.10-1. The recently 

monitored levels did not exceed the NAAQS.

Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-56

dressed according to the requirements of 40 CFR Part 93 Subpart A (transportation conformity 

regulations).

4.10.4 Impacts of the No Action Alternative

In the No Action Alternative, the Livingston Avenue Bridge would not be rehabilitated or replaced 

and, in the short-term, the condition of the bridge would continue to worsen and delays would 

increase, possibly worsening air quality due to inefficient train and boating operations. In the No 

Action Alternative, two additional passenger trains would operate on the bridge in accordance with 

Amtrak’s plans. 

As described in Chapter 1, “Project Purpose and Need,” because of the bridge’s design and 

condition, passenger and freight trains operating over the bridge are subject to loading and speed 

restrictions. This condition would remain in the No Action Alternative, and the two-track bridge 

would continue to be used by only one train at a time with reduced speed limits in place. 

If the bridge eventually deteriorates to the point that it needs to be closed, this would require rail

traffic to be re-routed via a longer route for trips north of Albany (this is discussed in Section 2.3.1

in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives”). In this scenario, passenger service to Albany-Rensselaer 

Station and Schenectady Station would be terminated, and some freight rail deliveries to 

customers on both sides of the Hudson River would need to be rerouted or shifted to trucks. This 

scenario would involve longer travel routes that would therefore result in increased air emissions 

associated with diesel trains, automobiles, or freight trucks. 

4.10.5 Impacts of the Build Alternatives

The Project would allow an increase in the speed of trains operating across the bridge and would

allow freight trains with heavier rail cars. Under the Build Alternatives, the new bridge would have 

the same track capacity as the existing bridge, one track in each direction. No increase in the 

number of trains each day is planned as a result of either Build Alternatives. 

4.10.5.1 Localized Pollutants (Microscale Analysis)

Adverse impacts to local air quality would not result from the Build Alternatives. The alignment 

shift under either of the Build Alternatives would not bring rail operations notably closer to existing 

sensitive receptors than the existing alignment. No change in the amount of boat or train traffic 

would occur with the Build Alternatives compared to the No Action Alternative. Boats may 

experience shorter waits for bridge openings and there would be fewer delays due to bridge 

malfunction, which could reduce localized diesel emissions from boat traffic. Passenger and freight 

trains would operate at higher speeds. This more efficient operation would result in a decrease in 

diesel emissions. With a new bridge, freight trains could potentially carry heavier loads, although 

restrictions may currently exist elsewhere on the Empire Corridor to prevent the operation of 

heavier freight trains. Diesel emissions from heavier freight trains would not result in localized air 

quality impacts. 

4.10.5.2 Regional Pollutants

The Project would not meaningfully affect regional pollutant burdens since it would not:

• Increase or decrease vehicle miles traveled;

• Generate additional or heavier train trips;

• Affect land use development patterns;

• Result in a shift in travel patterns; or

• Substantially increase or decrease automobile operating speeds.
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-57 February 2022

Since transporting freight by rail is more efficient and less polluting than truck and barge, the longterm effect of the Project would be improved air quality. 

4.10.5.3 Project-Level Conformity 

The conformity requirements of the Clean Air Act and regulations promulgated thereunder limit 

the ability of Federal agencies to assist, fund, permit, and approve projects in non-attainment 

areas or maintenance areas that do not conform to the applicable SIP. Conformity is regulated 

under two categories—Transportation Conformity and General Conformity. 

4.10.5.3.1 Transportation Conformity

Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act of 1977, as amended (42 USC § 7506), forbids any department, 

agency, or instrumentality of the Federal government from engaging in, supporting in any way or 

providing financial assistance for, licensing or permitting, or approving, any activity which does not 

conform to a SIP after the activity has been approved or promulgated. As defined in Section 

176(c)(1), conformity to an implementation plan means conformity to an implementation plan’s 

purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and 

achieving expeditious attainment of such standards; and that such activities will not:

• Cause or contribute to any new violation of any NAAQS in any area;

• Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any NAAQS in any area; or

• Delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any required interim emission reductions or other 

milestones in any area.

Projects that are funded and approved by FRA are subject to the transportation conformity 

regulations at Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 93. As indicated above, the Project would not cause or 

contribute to any new violation of any NAAQS, increase the frequency or severity of any existing 

violation of any NAAQS; or delay the timely attainment of any NAAQS or any required interim 

emissions reductions or other milestone. Therefore, the Project would conform to the SIP.

4.10.5.3.2 General Conformity

In some cases, if construction non-road emissions are considered to not be included in the SIP 

(transportation conformity covers on-road emissions, and the SIP includes forecast growth for 

non-road construction engines), general conformity may also apply. A general conformity 

applicability analysis is required under Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act since the Project would 

require Federal permits from USACE and USCG. An applicability analysis is the process of 

determining whether a Federal action (such as issuing a permit) must be supported by a general 

conformity determination. As described in 40 CFR § 93.153, the applicability analysis may find 

that a conformity determination is not required if, among other things, the Federal action: 

• Is part of a continuing response to an emergency or disaster;

• Is covered by an existing transportation conformity determination;

• Will result in no emissions increase or an increase in emissions that is clearly de minimis; 

• Is presumed to conform (e.g., based on comparisons with other projects); or 

• Will result in total direct and indirect emissions of the criteria pollutants or precursors that is 

less than the de minimis rates contained in 40 CFR § 93.153(b). The de minimis rates 

applicable to the study area will be 50 tons of VOC, or 100 tons of NOx, CO, PM2.5, PM10, or 

SO2. 

Actions taken by FRA, including a decision to fund or approve the Project, are subject to general 

conformity; therefore, general conformity would apply to the Project. An applicability analysis has 

been undertaken for the Project’s construction, which is based on analyses prepared for much

larger bridge replacement projects. Based on analyses for other projects, construction activities 

would not result in annual pollutant emissions exceeding the above general conformity thresholds. 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-58

For example, the Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project Final EIS (FEIS)107 included a 

conformity analysis for that project, which involved a rail bridge replacement along Amtrak’s 

Northeast Corridor in northern New Jersey. According to FRA’s ROD for that project, “the FEIS 

included an estimate of pollutant emissions based on capital construction costs and similar 

transportation projects within the region. It was determined that the estimated annual emission 

rates of each pollutant would be well below the conformity thresholds.” The Portal Bridge project 

evaluated in that document included two bridges with multiple tracks, approximately 9,000 feet 

long each, at a total construction cost of $1.4 billion—which is much larger than the Livingston 

Avenue Bridge Project. 

The Portal Bridge example illustrates why additional analysis is not needed. The construction 

means and methods are alike for both projects, but the scale of construction for the Livingston 

Avenue Bridge is much less intensive. Because freight traffic would not change with the proposed 

project, it is not a relevant consideration in the conformity analysis. Therefore, since the Portal 

Bridge project analysis concluded that that large construction project would have emissions below 

the general conformity thresholds, it can be concluded that construction emissions for the smaller 

Livingston Avenue Bridge Project would also be well below the general conformity thresholds, and 

that a conformity determination is not required for the Project.

4.10.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation

The Build Alternatives would not result in adverse impacts on air quality. Therefore, measures to 

avoid, minimize or mitigate air quality impacts are not required.

4.11 Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.11.1 Introduction

FRA and NYSDOT evaluated the potential long-term impacts of the Project on energy usage, 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and resilience by considering:

• The net energy usage of the Build Alternatives;

• Potential GHG emissions that would be generated by the Build Alternatives; and 

• The ability of the new infrastructure to withstand the impacts of future severe weather events.

GHGs are those gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural and manmade, which 

absorb and emit radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of infrared radiation emitted 

by the Earth’s surface, the atmosphere, and clouds. Water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous 

oxide, methane, and ozone are the primary greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. CO2 is 

by far the most abundant and, therefore, the most influential GHG. CO2 is emitted from any 

combustion process (both natural and manmade); from some industrial processes such as the 

manufacture of cement, mineral production, metal production, and the use of petroleum-based 

products; from volcanic eruptions; and from the decay of organic matter. CO2 is removed 

(sequestered) from the lower atmosphere by natural processes such as photosynthesis and 

uptake by the oceans. CO2 is included in any analysis of GHG emissions. The total GHG impact 

can be measured as CO2 equivalent (CO2e), which is a sum of GHG emissions multiplied by a 

“global warming potential” (GWP)—a factor that weights the warming effectiveness of each 

pollutant relative to CO2 (e.g., the GWP of CO2 is 1, other GHGs have higher GWP).

107 FRA. Portal Bridge Record of Decision, December 15, 2008. 

https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L01425. 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-59 February 2022

4.11.2 Methodology 

FRA and NYSDOT conducted the assessment consistent with guidance from the USDOT and 

FHWA regarding climate change, including but not limited to USDOT’s adaptation plan108 and 

USDOT’s Climate Change Clearinghouse.109 FRA guidance recommends that an assessment of 

irreversible and irretrievable energy resource commitment and the potential for energy 

conservation be performed as part of evaluations being conducted in accordance with NEPA. 

Consistent with Executive Order 12185, Conservation of Petroleum and Natural Gas 

(December 17, 1979), the assessment should focus on alternatives with the potential to conserve 

petroleum and/or natural gas. NEPA guidelines require a discussion of major direct energy (e.g., 

energy consumed by vehicles using a proposed facility) and/or indirect energy (e.g. construction 

energy, change in automobile use) impacts as well as the energy conservation potential of each 

alternative.

In accordance with NYSDOT’s Energy Analysis Guidelines for TIPs and Long Range Plans, 

detailed energy and GHG analyses are performed only for regionally important projects. The 

Livingston Avenue Bridge Project is not identified as regionally important since it would not 

increase vehicle miles traveled. As a result, FRA and NYSDOT have determined that detailed 

energy and GHG analyses are not warranted. A qualitative assessment is also consistent with the 

Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transit Projects: 

Programmatic Assessment.110

4.11.3 Affected Environment

As discussed in NYSDEC’s policy related to evaluations of energy use and climate change in 

environmental analyses, climate change will have broad impacts to the environment, including 

rising sea levels, increases in temperature, and changes in precipitation levels.111 Although this is 

occurring on a global scale, the environmental impacts of climate change will also be experienced

at local scales. New York State has established sustainability initiatives and goals for reducing 

GHG emissions and for adapting to climate change. 

The Livingston Avenue Bridge currently induces energy use by passenger and freight locomotives 

and this energy use results in both direct and indirect GHG emissions. Since passenger and freight 

transportation by rail are substantially more efficient than on-road or in-water transportation, which 

are the most common alternatives, the net effect is lower energy use and GHG emissions. 

According to a 2009 study of rail and truck fuel efficiency, freight movement by rail is generally 

more efficient than by truck, with fuel efficiency ratio ranging from 1.9 to 5.5 on a ton-mile basis.112

When accounting for factors such as route circuity and range, fuel savings can be considerable, 

ranging up to 1,100 gallons per carload.

As described in Chapter 1, “Project Purpose and Need,” the existing Livingston Avenue Bridge 

is structurally deficient, and as such, Amtrak and CSX must operate trains at slower speeds (15 

mph) and at lower maximum weight along this segment of the Empire Corridor than elsewhere on 

the route. The one-track operation of the bridge can cause substantial delays to passenger and 

108 USDOT. U.S. Department of Transportation Adaptation Plan 2014: Ensuring Transportation 

Infrastructure and System Resilience. 2014.

109 USDOT. https://www.transportation.gov/sustainability/climate/about-center. 

110 FTA. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transit Projects: Programmatic Assessment. FTA Report No. 

0097. January 18, 2017.

111 NYSDEC. DEC Policy: Assessing Energy Use and Climate Change in Environmental Impact 

Statements. July 15, 2009.

112 FRA, Comparative Evaluation of Rail and Truck Fuel Efficiency on Competitive Corridors, November 19, 

2009.
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-60

freight rail traffic. The unreliable swing mechanism of the bridge results in unpredictable and 

substantial delays to both rail and river traffic.

4.11.4 Impacts of the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, FRA and NYSDOT would not rehabilitate or replace the 

Livingston Avenue Bridge. In the No Action Alternative, the reduced efficiency that is occurring 

today would continue and could worsen. The potential for required closure and additional 

maintenance would increase, resulting in increased emissions from traffic shifted to on-road 

modes, as well as emissions associated with increased maintenance. If the bridge eventually 

deteriorates to the point that it needs to be closed, this would require rail traffic to be re-routed via 

a longer route for trips north of Albany (this is discussed in Section 2.3.1 in Chapter 2, “Project 

Alternatives”). In this scenario, passenger service to Albany-Rensselaer Station and 

Schenectady Station would be terminated. This scenario would involve less efficient travel modes 

that would therefore result in increased energy consumption and related GHG emissions. 

4.11.5 Impacts of the Build Alternatives

The Build Alternatives would replace the existing bridge with a new bridge, allowing passenger 

and freight trains that use the bridge to operate at higher speeds and carry heavier loads. The 

ability to increase speed across the bridge could result in increased fuel, and therefore, energy 

used to power locomotives. However, the new bridge would substantially improve the reliability of 

the freight rail network, and freight rail is a much more efficient mode of transport than trucks or 

barges. A shift in the mode of transport from truck or barge to rail would likely represent reduced 

net energy use. Overall, any changes associated with the Build Alternatives would be small but 

beneficial. 

There would also be emissions associated with construction—both direct emissions from 

construction activity and indirect emissions associated with materials manufacture such as cement 

and steel. However, over the lifetime of the Project, these would be offset by the increased 

efficiencies in moving freight, with newer equipment that meets more stringent emissions 

requirements than the locomotives currently operating on the Empire Corridor, and a reduction of 

emissions due to improving the passage of boats beneath the bridge. 

4.11.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation

The Project would not cause an increase in GHG emissions from either bridge operations or rail 

operator use of the bridge over the long term. Since no adverse impacts would occur, no mitigation 

is required. 

4.12 Noise and Vibration

4.12.1 Introduction

FRA and NYSDOT evaluated the potential noise and vibration impacts associated with the Build

Alternatives by comparing existing noise levels with the projected future noise levels at sensitive 

receptors near the Project site. Ambient noise and vibration levels could change because of the

shift in the rail alignment, increased number and speed of trains crossing the bridge, or increased 

weight of freight trains crossing the bridge. This section presents the evaluation of the potential 

for adverse noise and vibration impacts from the operation of the Project Alternatives. Section 

4.16.11 in Section 4.16, “Construction Impacts,” addresses the potential for constructionrelated noise and vibration impacts.
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-61 February 2022

4.12.2 Methodology and Study Area

FRA and NYSDOT conducted the analysis by following the methodology developed by FTA and 

documented in Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, FTA Report No. 0123, 

September 2018. To examine potential airborne noise and vibration and ground-borne noise

impacts during operation, the FTA guidance lays out a three-step approach: a screening 

procedure to identify whether any sensitive uses are within distances that could be affected by the 

Project; general noise assessment and general vibration assessment methodology to identify 

locations with the potential for impacts; and, where appropriate, detailed methodology for each 

type of analysis. 

4.12.2.1 Airborne Noise

FRA and NYSDOT conducted a general noise assessment in accordance with FTA guidance to 

evaluate the impacts of the Build Alternatives on airborne noise. This involves conducting a 

screening assessment to identify whether any noise-sensitive locations are present that could be 

affected by a project, and when such locations are present, conducting the general noise 

assessment to evaluate impacts.

The FTA guidance manual defines airborne noise impact criteria based on three noise-sensitive 

land use categories: 

• Noise Land Use Category 1: Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element of the 

intended purpose; 

• Noise Land Use Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep (where 

nighttime sensitivity to noise is greatest – e.g., homes, hospitals, and hotels); and 

• Noise Land Use Category 3: Institutional land uses with daytime and evening use (e.g., 

schools, libraries, theaters, parks/recreational areas and churches where avoiding speech 

interference is critical).

In accordance with the FTA guidance, evaluation of noise impacts associated with rail projects is 

warranted when noise-sensitive land uses are within 750 feet of a rail line with a clear line of sight 

to the tracks, or within 375 feet of the rail line if there are intervening buildings. The noise metric 

used to characterize noise exposure at Category 1 and Category 3 sites is the hourly Leq, or Leq(h). 

This hourly metric should represent the hour of noisiest railroad activity during hours of noise 

sensitivity. The noise metric used to characterize noise exposure at Category 2 land uses, where 

nighttime noise sensitivity is of concern, is the Ldn. This is a 24-hour day/night noise descriptor, 

which weights nighttime noise levels by adding a 10 dBA (A-weighted sound level) penalty during 

nighttime hours (10 PM–7 AM) to account for this noise sensitivity. FTA guidance identifies 65 

dBA as the upper limit for acceptable noise levels for Category 1 and 2 land uses. The upper limit 

for acceptable noise levels is 70 dBA for Category 3 land uses, which are less sensitive to noise. 

For the Livingston Avenue Bridge Project, FRA and NYSDOT conducted a general noise 

assessment to evaluate the impacts of the Project Alternatives on sensitive receptors within the 

screening distance, which include residences and Corning Riverfront Park in Albany, residences 

along Broadway adjacent to the bridge approach in Rensselaer, and future residences to be 

constructed along the Hudson River immediately north of the bridge in Rensselaer. The Corning 

Riverfront Park sensitive receptor represents the impacts in the portions of the park immediately 

adjacent to the rail right-of-way. Other locations in the park are farther from the Project site and 

would therefore experience less noise.

The general noise assessment methodology consists of determining the Project noise exposure 

(i.e., the noise generated by the Project alone) at 50 feet from the centerline of track, adjusting for 

distance (from the track to the receptor location), and comparing the calculated levels with impact 

criteria based on land use categories. FRA’s Chicago Rail Efficiency and Transportation Efficiency 

(CREATE) model was used, which calculates hourly-equivalent (Leq) and day-night (Ldn) noise 








Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-69 February 2022

4.14 Contaminated Materials 

4.14.1 Introduction

FRA and NYSDOT assessed the likelihood of encountering contaminated materials at the Project 

site and the potential for exposure to them during and after construction of the Build Alternatives. 

Contaminated materials are defined as potentially harmful substances that may be present in soil, 

groundwater, sediment, surface water, or building materials and may pose a threat to human 

health or the environment. Soil and groundwater can be contaminated due to past or present uses 

on a project site or on neighboring properties. The assessment is summarized below. Specific 

methods that would be employed to protect public health, worker safety, and the environment in 

the event that contaminated materials are encountered during Project construction are discussed 

in Section 4.16.13 in Section 4.16, “Construction Impacts.” 

4.14.2 Methodology and Study Area

A contaminated materials site screening was conducted in accordance with NYSDOT’s The 

Environmental Manual (TEM)113 to evaluate the potential presence of contaminated materials at 

the Project site. The screening included the following:

• An environmental database search consistent with current industry standards, including 

American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) E1527-13 (the databases searched were 

consistent with the standard although this study does not constitute a comprehensive Phase I 

Environmental Site Assessment). A report summarizing the environmental database search 

was prepared by Toxics Targeting, Inc. of Ithaca, New York. A copy of the report is attached 

as Appendix B-6, “Contaminated Materials.”

• A review of historical fire insurance maps to determine previous on-site and adjacent land 

uses. 

• A site reconnaissance and general characterization from public rights-of-way. 

• A review of plans provided by CSX and NYSDOT’s design engineers for the Livingston 

Avenue Bridge to identify the likelihood of encountering asbestos-containing materials (ACM), 

and PCB-containing electrical equipment on the bridge.

• A determination of the need for further investigations to identify and quantify potential 

contamination and related liabilities. 

4.14.3 Affected Environment

In 1984, USEPA declared 200 miles of the Hudson River a CERCLIS (i.e., Superfund) site based 

on the historic release of PCBs into the river.114 From approximately 1947 to 1977, GE released 

as much as 1.3 million pounds of PCBs from its capacitor manufacturing plants at the Hudson 

Falls and Fort Edwards facilities directly and indirectly into the Hudson River.115 Information 

regarding the Hudson River PCBs site was compiled by Toxics Targeting and included in 

Appendix B-6, “Contaminated Materials.” PCBs in sediment or surface water are addressed in 

Section 4.7, “Water Resources.”

In addition to the potential PCB-contaminated sediment in the Hudson River, FRA and NYSDOT 

identified the following concerns related to contaminated materials in and near the Project site:

113 New York State Department of Transportation, The Environmental Manual (2010).

114 CERCLIS (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System) 

is a database maintained by USEPA as part of the Superfund program.

115 https://www.epa.gov/hudsonriverpcbs. 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-70

• Numerous sites currently have, or once had, petroleum above-ground storage tanks (ASTs) 

and/or underground storage tanks (USTs) containing fuels. Some of these tanks have been 

removed, and others, although no longer in use, may remain buried in place or within 

basements. Reported and unreported spills from such tanks nearby may have affected 

subsurface conditions at the Project site, particularly any tanks at the Amtrak Maintenance 

Facility in Rensselaer and Quackenbush Square in Albany. 

• Bedding and ballast on the rail right-of-way could be contaminated due to anthropogenic fill 

materials (of unknown origin) and/or releases from railroad operations (including both routine 

herbicide use and releases from locomotives or equipment repair activities). Fill material of 

unknown origin was used to fill areas of Albany Basin, Little Basin, and Erie Canal in the study

area (north of the existing Livingston Avenue Bridge). 

• The railroad ties and bridge timbers within the Project site likely include creosote-treated 

wood. New York State Law (ECL Article 27, Title 25) exempts railroads from phasing out the 

use of creosote and creosote-treated products, but proper management of removed creosotetreated wood is required.

• Based on the age of the existing bridge, and the document/drawing review, lead-based paint, 

ACM, and PCB-containing electrical equipment are likely present on the bridge. 

• In addition to materials on the bridge, any existing subsurface utility lines, whether currently 

used or remaining from historical operations, may be coated with asbestos or encased in 

“transite,” an ACM.

• Auto-related, train-related, and industrial facilities have historically occupied the study area. 

Reported and unreported spills from these sites may have affected local groundwater quality. 

According to the Albany Community Development Agency, the Corning Preserve Tidal Ponds in 

Corning Riverfront Park in Albany was identified as a potential Brownfield Opportunity Area (BOA) 

in 2004. Based on recommendations from Albany Community Development Agency personnel 

and community input, the site was selected for further investigation. A grant application package 

for further inventory and investigation was submitted under the NYSDOS BOA program. The site 

is no longer listed on the NYSDOS BOA list at the time of this report.116 The City of Albany is 

currently in the process of nominating the North Warehouse District, which includes most of the 

Project study area in Albany, to the state BOA list.117

4.14.4 Impacts of the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Livingston Avenue Bridge would not be rehabilitated or 

replaced. The No Action Alternative would not result in adverse impacts related to contaminated 

materials. Applicable regulatory requirements relating to management of lead-based paint (on 

existing painted surfaces) and known or potentially PCB-containing items (e.g., transformers and 

other electrical equipment), would be followed for any maintenance work. Remediation of sites 

already known to regulatory agencies would continue.

4.14.5 Impacts of the Build Alternatives

Based on the records review and past and current land use on and near the Project site, 

contaminated materials are likely to be encountered during Project construction. The measures 

that NYSDOT will require the contractor to implement during construction to avoid impacts related 

to contaminated materials are described in Section 4.16.13 in Section 4.16, “Construction 

Impacts.” With implementation of these measures, no adverse impacts related to contaminated 

materials would result during construction and demolition activities. 

116 http://opdgig.dos.ny.gov/#/map/BOA. 

117 https://www.albanynywaves.com/. 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-71 February 2022

Following completion of the Project, rail operations across the bridge would not be notably different 

from the No Action Alternative or the existing condition. 

4.14.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation

The Build Alternatives would not result in adverse impacts related to contaminated materials with 

the implementation of the best management practices and adherence to Federal, state, and local 

laws described above. Therefore, no mitigation is required.

4.15 Safety and Security

4.15.1 Introduction

FRA and NYSDOT have reviewed safety and security considerations related to the design and 

operation of the Project. 

4.15.2 Methodology and Study Area

FRA guidance requires that environmental reviews address safety and security concerns, 

including potential pedestrian and traffic hazards as well as transit user and employee security 

issues. Specific regulations relevant to safety and security are discussed below. The safety 

procedures and security systems that Amtrak implements to protect rail employees, passengers, 

river traffic, and the general public are described below. 

4.15.3 Affected Environment

4.15.3.1 Pedestrians, Bicycles, and Vehicular Traffic

Pedestrians trespass on the bridge for access across the Hudson River between Albany and 

Rensselaer. The only other nearby pedestrian crossing over the river is at the Dunn Memorial 

Bridge, but it is less desirable as a crossing in many ways: it is significantly higher and longer than 

the Livingston Avenue Bridge and farther from many destinations in Albany and Rensselaer. The 

trespassing is a safety concern for Amtrak and CSX. Warning signs are at either end of the bridge 

to alert against trespassing, but there are no other security or protection measures in place at this 

location. Trespassing is not only a burden to rail operations, but it also impacts the opening of the 

bridge to allow for the passage of waterborne traffic. 

A vehicular accident analysis was performed for streets that may be affected by construction 

activities for the Build Alternatives. This information is presented in Section 4.16.4.4 in Section 

4.16, “Construction Impacts.” 

4.15.3.2 Employees 

Amtrak and CSX comply with all applicable Federal safety regulations and industry standards, 

including FRA 49 CFR Part 214: Railroad Workplace Safety; FRA 49 CFR Part 237: Bridge Safety 

Standards; National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) regulations; OSHA regulations; and 

AREMA regulations. Signaling and communications are currently in place to prevent any trains from 

entering the bridge when the movable span is open or when personnel are on site for repairs. 

Personnel undergo Amtrak safety training before they are permitted on site. Amtrak inspects all 

bridge structural components regularly and repairs them as needed.

In 2006, Amtrak instituted a System Safety Program that applies to all Amtrak facilities, including 

the Project site. The program provides guidance on hazard management, incident reporting, 

inspection, maintenance and repair of current facilities and stock, training and certification, 

emergency response, environmental management, drug and alcohol programs, and a number of 

security policies. One section of the System Safety Program is devoted to employee safety, with 

a particular focus on field safety.
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-72

4.15.3.3 Passengers 

There are no recorded rail accidents within the railroad right-of-way or high rail accident locations 

within the study area. Amtrak maintains and updates a Passenger Train Emergency Response 

Plan, approved by FRA. The plan includes train operations on the Empire Corridor and therefore 

also covers the Project site. Amtrak also conducts Passenger Train Emergency Response 

Training.

4.15.3.4 Boat Traffic

Navigational collisions, while rare, are also a concern for the railroads. In January 2019, chunks 

of river ice tore several boats from their moorings upriver of Albany. The unmoored boats traveled 

downstream, striking several bridges, and one boat, a passenger cruise ship, became lodged 

against the Livingston Avenue Bridge.118 Trains operated at slow speed over the bridge for several 

hours until the bridge was inspected and the speed restrictions were lifted. 

4.15.4 Impacts of the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Livingston Avenue Bridge would not be rehabilitated or 

replaced. Amtrak and CSX would continue to adhere to current regulations regarding worker and 

passenger safety. The No Action Alternative would not improve safety or security in the Project 

site.

4.15.5 Impacts of the Build Alternatives

FRA and NYSDOT have performed a preliminary hazard analysis to assess all possible hazards 

associated with the Build Alternatives. The preliminary hazard analysis found that a replacement 

bridge would provide enhanced safety and security versus the existing condition. NYSDOT will 

undertake a final hazard analysis during the Project’s final design.

4.15.5.1 Pedestrians, Bicycles, and Vehicular Traffic

Pedestrian and bicycle safety would be improved through the provision of the shared use path on 

the bridge, which would eliminate the current safety concern regarding trespassing. The path 

would be 12 feet wide to provide two-way pedestrian and bicycle traffic across the river. It would 

have a bicycle-height railing on the outboard side and a pedestrian security fence and bicycleheight railing on the inboard side to prevent unauthorized access from the walkway onto the 

railroad tracks. The walkway would include scenic overlooks at each end of the movable span to 

provide an area for pedestrians to collect and bicyclists to dismount when the bridge is 

opening/closing and the walkway gates are closed. The walkway would have additional lighting, 

cameras, and other security devices to ensure safe operation of the movable bridge span and 

prevent pedestrians and bicyclists from being on the movable span during operation.

The shared use path approach ramps would connect to existing or proposed surface shared use 

paths. The approach ramps would descend at a maximum grade of 5 percent and widen to a 14-

foot walkway once off of structure per the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Pedestrian Facilities and 

Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Build Alternatives would not require any permanent modifications or impacts to the streets 

and highways near the Project site. Both Build Alternatives would shift the western abutment of 

the rail bridge from its existing location, which would improve sightlines and traffic safety along 

Quay Street.

118 https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Breaking-Bridges-closed-after-boats-get-loose-in13560816.php. 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-73 February 2022

4.15.5.2 Construction Employees

Construction and operation of the Project would comply with all relevant Federal, state, and local 

safety regulations, including: FRA 49 CFR 214: Railroad Workplace Safety; FRA 49 CFR 237: 

Bridge Safety Standards; NFPA regulations; OSHA regulations; and AREMA regulations.

During construction of the Project, NYSDOT would develop written Safe Work Plans to identify 

potential hazards and safety measures to be implemented for the protection of workers at the 

Project site and the general public in the vicinity of the Project. 

Examples of specific safety design elements for the Project include:

• Manufacturer-recommended work areas, service clearances, and staging requirements for all 

bridge operation equipment.

• Fire Department approvals and/or permits as may be required for systems and equipment 

such as: diesel fueling system, sprinkler and standpipe systems, and certain air conditioning 

systems and air compressors.

• Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for paints, coatings, sealers, and chemical substances.

With the implementation of the safety measures described above, no adverse impacts to safety 

or security of employees would result from the Project.

4.15.5.3 Passengers

The Build Alternatives would improve the structural and operational reliability of the existing 

Livingston Avenue Bridge and increase the safety of the freight and passenger trains traveling 

over the bridge.

4.15.5.4 Boat Traffic

The Build Alternatives would provide navigational benefits by improving the reliability of the bridge 

and minimizing delays during bridge openings and closings. To prevent and/or minimize future 

accidents due to an off-center channel, navigation channel fenders and a dolphin system would 

be incorporated to protect the piers from all aberrant vessels. 

4.15.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation

The Build Alternatives would not result in adverse impacts related to operational safety or security; 

therefore, no mitigation is required. 

4.16 Construction Impacts 

4.16.1 Introduction

This section describes the anticipated construction process for the Build Alternatives and 

assesses the potential for temporary adverse environmental and socioeconomic impacts during 

construction. Both Build Alternatives would likely be constructed using the same general 

construction sequencing and methods. This section includes: a discussion of key Project 

construction elements; an overall description of the construction sequencing and the estimated 

Project schedule; and an analysis of the potential for temporary impacts during the construction 

period. The No Action Alternative would not involve any construction and is therefore not 

discussed in this section. 

This section includes a general description of the construction means and methods anticipated for 

the Project. These are based on the preliminary engineering and NYSDOT’s past experience on 

similar projects. While the construction techniques used for the Project would ultimately be 

determined by the contractor, the potential for environmental impacts and types of mitigation 

measures described herein would likely be the same.
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-74

4.16.2 Construction of Key Elements

Construction of the new bridge under either Build Alternative would involve mobilization and 

establishing staging areas, installing bridge piers and abutments, building the superstructure, 

reconstructing the wye track and potentially modifying the Troy Industrial Track, modifying the 

Water and Centre Street bridges, and decommissioning and removing the existing bridge once 

rail traffic is moved onto the new bridge.

4.16.2.1 Construction Staging Areas

As with many major transportation infrastructure construction projects, staging areas would be 

determined by NYSDOT’s construction contractor. A likely location for a primary construction 

staging area would be on the property adjacent to the Livingston Avenue Bridge in Rensselaer

where the City of Rensselaer is proposing a new residential development, Kiliaen’s Landing. If the 

portion of the development site would be available for the duration of Project construction, this 

would be a convenient construction staging site. An access road would be constructed from Tracy 

Street to the staging area (see Figure 4.16-1), a distance of approximately 1,100 feet, using an 

existing utility easement/corridor. Access to the staging area from the south could also be provided 

via the Amtrak maintenance yard to the south of the existing bridge. This staging location would 

provide water access for material and equipment deliveries via barge. The water in this area is too

shallow for barges to reach the shoreline, so a temporary pier (also referred to as falsework) that 

extends to the navigation channel could be erected. The pier would likely consist of a temporary 

pile bent structure constructed span by span with the pile driver/crane walking out on each span 

to construct the next span. (Use of a temporary gravel causeway would be preferred from a 

construction standpoint but would result in the potential for adverse impacts to submerged aquatic 

vegetation and fish spawning habitat, if they are present in the area.) 

The pier needed for Build Alternative 1 would likely be 20 feet wide and 150 feet long from the 

edge of the river’s eastern shoreline, and would be to the north of the existing bridge. The pier

needed for Build Alternative 2 would likely be 20 feet wide and 100 feet long and located south of 

the existing bridge. The contractor would design the pile bent structure, but it is likely to consist of

a platform supported on 14-inch-diameter steel piles, with four to five piles per bent (i.e., a row of 

piles fastened by a pile cap or bracing that run across the width of the platform). This would result 

in an estimated seven spans with four to five piles each for Build Alternative 1 and five spans with 

four to five piles each for Build Alternative 2. The piles would be installed using pre-drilling and 

vibratory hammering, if necessary after pre-drilling, to the greatest extent practicable. If necessary, 

the piles would be driven the last few feet to their final depth using an impact hammer in 

conjunction with a soft start and cushion block. Overall, pile installation for the temporary pier 

would occur over a duration of about 5 weeks. The in-water construction zone would be 

surrounded by a turbidity curtain during pile installation and pile removal to limit adverse impacts

to water quality away from the zone. 

The temporary pier would be installed prior to work on the new bridge’s eastern approach piers. 

The pile installation equipment, excavators, and cranes would use the temporary pier during 

cofferdam and bridge construction. For either Build Alternative, the pile bent structure would be 

needed for the entire construction period and would be removed when the construction of the 

replacement bridge is complete, including full removal of all piles. This temporary pier would 

facilitate the delivery of concrete and other material. A temporary haul road to construction access 

would be constructed between the pier and Amtrak yard. 

An off-site staging area would be used for the erection of the float-in spans and lift tower sections. 

The primary mode of transport between the off-site staging area and the on-site staging area

would likely be barges. During construction, the barges would be moored using four 14-inch 

square spud piles pushed 5 to 10 feet into the river bottom. Additional means to drive the spud 

piles to the desired depth would only be used as necessary and would likely comprise use of 

equipment available on the barge to push or hammer them to the desired depth. If hammering is 

Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-75 February 2022

required, a cushion block would be used. The barges would move throughout the site for the 

duration of construction. For Build Alternative 2, a smaller construction staging area would also be 

required just to the south of the existing bridge along the eastern shoreline (part of the Amtrak 

property just north of the maintenance facility).

In addition to the primary staging area and the off-site staging area, temporary construction staging 

space would also be needed on the west side of the Hudson River in Albany. A likely location for 

this staging site is in the area between Quay Street and I-787 (state-owned property to the north 

and south of the existing bridge). Partial closure of NYSOGS Lot 11 under the I-787 overpass 

would be required and approximately 20 parking spaces in the parking lot just north of the existing 

bridge would be displaced during the construction period.

4.16.2.2 Bridge Piers

The new bridge piers would most likely be supported by steel H-piles. However, the use of drilled 

shafts or mini-piles is also possible. NYSDOT will require the use of pile installation that limits 

vibration near the existing bridge, to avoid potential damage to that structure. The specific pile 

installation measure will be determined during final design after a detailed geotechnical study is 

performed to determine the susceptibility of the existing structure to vibration. Piers would be 

constructed by installing a steel sheet pile cell by vibration hammering and creating a concrete 

tremie seal,

119 dewatering the cell, dredging inside the cell to the required depth, and then 

installing the pile within (the contractor would potentially elect to instead install the deep 

foundations first, and then dredge, based on his/her chosen equipment). Water recovered during 

dewatering within the sheet pile cells would be treated as necessary prior to discharge back to the 

Hudson River.

Based on the likely footprint area of each sheet pile cell and the total depth of excavation including 

the depth of the concrete tremie seal, approximately 19,500 cubic yards of dredged material would 

be removed during construction of the nine piers associated with Build Alternative 1 (northern 

alignment). Approximately 14,500 cubic yards of dredged material would be removed during 

construction of the eight piers associated with Build Alternative 2 (southern alignment). Dredged 

material would likely be placed in a dump scow, dewatered, and then transported for disposal in 

compliance with applicable regulations. Approximately 20 to 25 disposal trips would occur over 

the course of construction. Installation of the bridge piers, including the dredging efforts, would 

take approximately 12 months. 

4.16.2.3 Abutments

The new bridge abutments would also likely be supported on steel H-piles. The H-piles would be 

installed using land-based equipment. A small amount of excavation dewatering could potentially 

be required, depending on the elevation of groundwater near the shoreline. Any discharge would 

be treated prior to being returned to the river.

4.16.2.4 Superstructure

Once the bridge piers are in place but prior to construction of the superstructure, Build Alternative 1 

(replacement on an adjacent north alignment) would require modification to the existing Livingston 

Avenue Bridge so that the swing bridge could continue to operate without interference from the 

new structure to its south. Specifically, the existing swing span would be modified so that it could 

swing in the opposite direction.

119 A tremie seal is a concrete slab at the bottom of an excavation area that, in combination with 

containment around the area, minimizes water intrusion into the area. The tremie seal is installed 

underwater and after it has hardened, the excavation can be dewatered.
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-76

Both Build Alternatives would require staged construction of the approach spans, where the new 

bridge would tie into the existing bridge (see Section 4.16.3 for a discussion of staging).

For either Build Alternative, the new bridge superstructure truss spans would be constructed on 

barges at the off-site staging area and floated into place. The shorter girder spans would be placed 

using barge- or track-mounted cranes to lift the individual spans into place.

4.16.2.5 Channels and Fenders

The dolphin and fender system that would protect the bridge piers would be installed using bargemounted equipment after the existing bridge has been entirely removed. The fender piles would 

comprise about 60 14-inch diameter piles made of either timber or fiberglass composite and would 

be installed using pre-drilling followed by vibratory hammering. Dolphins would be constructed as 

sheet pile cells, which would be installed using a vibratory hammer. Installation of the dolphin and 

fender system would take approximately 6 months. 

4.16.2.6 Wye Track and Other Track Work

Following construction of the new bridge and prior to decommissioning and removal of the existing 

bridge, the bridge tracks would be tied into the existing approach tracks east and west of the 

bridge. In Rensselaer, the wye track alignment for Build Alternative 2 (southern alignment) would 

be slightly shifted from the existing wye track alignment. Build Alternative 1 (northern alignment) 

would require a more substantial shift in the location of the wye track alignment, along with raising 

the elevation of the Troy Industrial Track (where the mainline tracks swing close to the industrial

track). Since the work would be farther from the existing alignment, the new wye track alignment 

for Build Alternative 1 would require a less staged construction than Build Alternative 2. 

Build Alternative 1 would require that the profile of the Troy Industrial Track between the mainline 

and wye tracks be increased. The profile would likely be adjusted incrementally using overnight 

and weekend track outages.

In addition, the shared use path would be tied in to existing shared use paths on both sides of the 

river. Retaining walls would be constructed to support the shared use path as it slopes down to 

grade.

4.16.2.7 Water and Centre Street Rail Bridges 

Both Build Alternatives would require changes to two rail bridges in Albany, the bridges over Water 

and Centre Streets. As described in Section 2.4.2.6.1 in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” at 

each of those bridges, the beam seats of the bridge abutments that support the bridge girders 

(i.e., the beam seats and girder bearings) would be modified or replaced and several pairs of deck 

girders (i.e., bridge beams) would be repositioned to support the new alignment. At the Water 

Street bridge, a set of existing deck girders would be removed to accommodate this shift. Under 

either Build Alternative, the beam seats and girder bearings would be modified or replaced. This 

would be accomplished by building a temporary support frame in front of the bridge abutments 

and then replacing the beam seat concrete. Once that is complete, modifications to deck girders 

would be made, including removing one girder pair from the Water Street bridge and shifting girder 

pairs on both bridges to shift the track locations. Existing tracks would also be realigned on 

trackbeds that are not relocated. 

4.16.2.8 Existing Bridge Decommissioning and Removal

Decommissioning and removal of the existing bridge would occur once the new bridge is fully 

operational. The means and methods for decommissioning and removing the existing Livingston 

Avenue Bridge and its approaches would be determined by the construction contractor. The bridge 

superstructure could be removed span-by-span using a barge and a multi-wheeled crawler or 

crane and then transported to and disassembled in the staging yard. Several of the existing pier 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-77 February 2022

footings are elevated from the river bottom and surrounded by a sheet pile cell. The existing 

stacked stone piers would likely be pulled apart with an excavator situated on a barge, without the 

use of cofferdams. The excavator could then pull out the pier footings and the timber piles would 

be cut off below the mud line.

4.16.2.9 Material Transport and Debris Removal

A combination of modes (e.g., barge, rail, and truck) would be used for material transport and 

debris removal. All materials would be disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations.

4.16.2.10 Vessels

In-water construction activities would be supported by an estimated six boats, including one crew 

boat, one safety boat, up to two staging barges, and two tug boats. Vessel drafts would range 

from 5 to 10 feet. Most of these boats would operate between the construction zone and a suitable 

landing site for construction activity, such as the Port of Coeymans, an industrial marine terminal 

on the Hudson River approximately 12 miles south of the Livingston Avenue Bridge. Vessel 

speeds are expected to be less than five knots for push boats and tugs and less than 10 knots for 

crew boats working within the immediate vicinity of the bridge.

4.16.3 Construction Schedule and Sequencing

4.16.3.1 Construction Schedule

The entire construction period would last approximately three years. More specifically, 

construction of Build Alternative 1 (northern alignment) would likely extend 3 to 3.5 years. Build 

Alternative 2 (southern alternative) would likely extend 2.75 to 3 years. The general construction 

schedule discussed here is typical for a movable rail bridge replacement project. To some extent, 

the nature of in-river work limits equipment access and feasible construction techniques. The 

actual Project schedule will require consideration of in-water work restrictions and other limitations 

intended to protect fish spawning, fish migration, birds, and/or other considerations. Such 

restrictions and construction work windows would be defined and formalized during the preliminary 

design and permitting stage. 

Construction activities would typically occur between 7 AM and 7 PM on weekdays. However, 

some time-critical activities may occur overnight and on weekends. In addition, construction 

activities that would affect active rail tracks (i.e., the Empire Corridor, Troy Industrial Track, and 

the wye) would be staged to occur overnight and on weekends to avoid disruptions to train service.

4.16.3.2 Construction Sequence

The new replacement bridge would be constructed alongside the existing bridge. When it is 

complete and connecting tracks have been tied in to the existing Empire Corridor and Troy 

Industrial Track, train traffic would be shifted to the new bridge, and the old bridge and its tracks 

would be removed. While construction means and methods for the Project would be ultimately 

determined by the contractor, the potential staging for each Build Alternative would likely be similar 

to the description below. Additional construction information and drawings are presented in 

Appendix A-3, “Conceptual Staging.” Both Build Alternatives would involve:

• Mobilization and staging; 

• Construction of bridge piers, bridge abutments, and approach tracks within 14 feet of active 

tracks;

• Installation of the bridge spans, lift, and rail on new structure, with the exception of the span 

near the existing swing span to maintain the navigation channel; 

• Reposition existing girders on Water Street and Centre Street bridges; 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-78

• Float in truss span at the existing swing span;

• Completion of rail installation and switchover to new bridge; and 

• Demolition of existing bridge.

In addition to the construction elements above, Build Alternative 1 would also require retrofitting

the existing swing span to swing in the opposite direction as an early stage before construction of 

bridge piers, abutments, and approach tracks.

4.16.4 Transportation

4.16.4.1 Rail Traffic

The majority of track work affecting the existing Empire Corridor, Troy Industrial Track, and wye 

tracks would be performed during nighttime closures to minimize disruptions to rail traffic. 

Nonetheless, the construction of either Build Alternative would involve some disruption to rail 

traffic. Build Alternative 1 (northern alignment) would maintain through train traffic at all times and 

would require two weekend track closures on the Troy Industrial Track and wye tracks. Build 

Alternative 2 (southern alignment) would require three nighttime closures to all train traffic, one

nighttime closure, and two additional weekend track closures on the Troy Industrial Track and wye 

tracks. All track closures impacting through trains would occur at night. Both Build Alternatives 

would require two major weekend track outages (i.e., for more than 12 hours).

4.16.4.2 River Traffic/Navigable Waters

Impacts to river traffic during the construction period would be minimized through a combination 

of float-in/float-out techniques (e.g., off-site assembly of new bridge spans) and construction 

staging. Some limited closures to river traffic would be required. For Build Alternative 1, closures 

totaling approximately four days are required (two closures of two days each), and for Build 

Alternative 2, a single two-day closure of the navigation channel would be required. These 

closures would be properly noticed through the USCG and other appropriate agencies. Overall, 

the impacts to river traffic during the construction period of either Build Alternative would be

temporary and of short duration.

4.16.4.3 Vehicular / Pedestrian / Cyclists

Construction-related vehicles would access the Albany construction area from Colonie Street or 

Water Street. Construction-related vehicles would access the Rensselaer construction area via 

Tracy Street. It is anticipated that construction workers would park in the staging area.

FRA and NYSDOT have developed a proposed work zone traffic control program to minimize the 

temporary impacts to vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic that would occur in Albany under 

both Build Alternatives. The work zone traffic control program and details on the detours that would 

be required are presented in Appendix A-3, “Conceptual Staging,” and Appendix A-4, “Detour 

Routes,” and summarized as follows:

1. During a two-month construction period for the west bridge abutment and west end span:

• Quay Street would be closed and NYSDOT would install signage in accordance with standard 

procedures for a detour via the NYS Route 5 connector to Broadway to North Ferry Street to 

Erie Boulevard. 

• Access to the Corning Riverfront Park parking lot south of the railroad crossing would be 

closed due to a one-way (northbound) traffic pattern. Access to the Jennings Landing 

(amphitheater) parking facilities would also not be allowed from Quay Street.

• Pedestrian and cyclist access to the Mohawk-Hudson Hike-Bike Trail would be maintained by 

erecting a pedestrian canopy through the work area under the railroad bridge. Access would 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-79 February 2022

be interrupted during heavy lift operations or other operations that may present a risk to the 

public. 

2. During two 2-week periods for work on the Water Street and Centre Street bridges:

• Water Street and Centre Street would each be closed for a two-week period from Quay Street 

to Livingston Avenue and traffic would be redirected for access to parking (NYSOGS Lots 12A 

and 12B) and the street network beyond. Large truck traffic would be restricted from using the 

Colonie Street exit from southbound I-787.

• The pedestrian walkway along Water Street would be relocated to Centre Street for the 

duration of the Water Street bridge construction; 

• Water and Centre Streets would be closed concurrently for bridge resetting over the span of 

two weekends. 

In addition, partial closure of NYSOGS Lot 11 under the I-787 overpass would be required, 

displacing approximately 20 parking spaces just north of the existing bridge (see Figure 3-2 in 

Chapter 3, “Transportation,” for the location of this parking lot). 

4.16.4.4 Accidents / Safety

A vehicular accident analysis was performed for streets that may be affected by construction 

activities for the Build Alternatives. Data were obtained from NYSDOT’s Accident Location 

Information System for the three-year period between November 1, 2013 and October 31, 2016. 

Streets included in the study consist of Broadway, Centre Street, U.S. Route 9 to Broadway, 

Colonie Street, Erie Boulevard, North Ferry Street, North Lawrence Street, Livingston Avenue, 

Water Street, and Quay Street. Collision diagrams and a summary table are contained in 

Appendix B-7, “Accident Report Summary and Collision Diagrams.” A total of 45 accidents 

occurred in this network during the study period. No accidents were reported on Quay Street, but 

three collisions occurred at its signalized intersection with Water Street. Four collisions occurred 

at the unsignalized intersection of North Ferry Street and Broadway. Accident rates were 

calculated for individual segments and compared to the statewide average where possible. 

However, since traffic volume data were not available for all streets, accident rates could not be 

completed for all segments. The statewide average for urban, two-lane, undivided streets is 2.30 

accidents per million vehicle miles (acc/mvm). Statewide average accident rates for urban 

intersections, measured in accidents per million entering vehicles (acc/mev), range from 0.01 to 

0.47 acc/mev, depending on type of facility (three-leg, four-leg, ramp, signal, sign, merge; one to 

five lanes). Half of the accidents in the study group occurred at the intersections of 

Broadway/Livingston Avenue and the U.S. Route 9 ramp/Broadway. Using volumes obtained from 

the NYSDOT Traffic Data Viewer, accident rates were calculated to be 0.99 acc/mev for 

Broadway/Livingston Avenue and 0.35 acc/mev for the U.S. Route 9 ramp/Broadway.

Existing accident history analyzed in this study does not indicate any existing safety deficiencies 

or accident-prone locations that would be exacerbated by Project construction or by increased 

traffic volumes on detour routes. If Quay Street is closed at any time during bridge construction, 

northbound traffic would be detoured through the unsignalized intersection of North Ferry Street 

and Broadway. Since the additional traffic would be making right turns from Broadway onto Ferry 

Street, the potential for collisions would not increase. The same traffic would then turn right from 

Ferry Street onto Water Street. There were no intersection-related accidents at this location and 

no collisions in the linear segment south of the intersection. To account for high traffic speeds it is 

advisable to post advance signing (a combination of static signs and portable variable message 

signs) on the I-787 southbound off ramp and Water Street in advance of the intersection with North 

Ferry Street to alert approaching vehicles of the changed traffic patterns associated with the 

detour.

Collisions recorded at the Water Street/Quay Street/Colonie Street intersection are typical for 

signalized intersections with high traffic volumes during peak travel periods. The combination of 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-80

Water Street traffic exiting from I-787 and commuters from the New York State parking lot exiting 

Quay Street create potential for collisions despite the presence of a traffic signal. Optimized signal 

phasing and timing may alleviate delays for impatient motorists that are a leading cause of 

signalized intersection collisions.

4.16.4.5 Public Transportation

Transit services in the Albany area are provided by CDTA, which operates buses on a network of 

routes. Three CDTA bus routes operate in the vicinity of the Project site. The CDTA No. 114 

Madison-Washington route runs along Quay Street and loops around to Water Street. The CDTA 

No. 224 Albany-Troy route operates along Water Street through the study area. The CDTA No. 

525 Albany Riverfront Express route runs along Quay Street to Water Street, pulls through the 

New York State-owned parking lot located between Quay and Water Streets beneath Interstate 

787, and then follows Colonie Street, Centre Street, Livingston Avenue, and Water Street. These

routes pass under the Livingston Avenue Bridge and the Water and Centre Street bridges and 

would be affected during the two-month closure of Quay Street described above and the two-week 

closure of Water and Centre Streets. The work zone traffic control program will address this 

impact. Therefore, no impacts to scheduled public transit would occur. 

CDTA also operates the Special Travel Available by Request (STAR) paratransit system, which 

is complementary to their fixed route system, and can operate within a 3⁄4-mile radius of the fixed 

bus route. Any STAR service that potentially utilizes Quay Street, Water Street, or Centre Street 

in the vicinity of the Project would be required to follow the detour routes for all traffic during 

construction-related closures.

4.16.5 Land Use, Community Character, and Social and Economic Conditions

Construction activities would take place within the Empire Corridor right-of-way and adjacent 

lands, including the wooded area at the Kiliaen’s Landing site in Rensselaer. In Albany, Corning 

Riverfront Park and the Riverfront Preserve would not be used for staging under either Build 

Alternative and would remain open throughout the construction period. However, access to the 

Corning Riverfront Park parking lot at the northern end of the park would be impeded for 

approximately two months due to the restriction of traffic on Quay Street for work on the bridge 

abutment. Both of the Build Alternatives would require use of a portion of the parking lot (NYSOGS 

Lot 11) north of the bridge in Albany for the duration of construction, which is not used as a parking 

lot for Corning Riverfront Park or the Riverfront Preserve, and its temporary use as a construction 

staging area would not impact park users’ ability to access either park. To the north of Quay Street, 

the City of Albany parking lot would continue to be available for Riverfront Preserve parking and 

event parking at Corning Riverfront Park, and as a rain location for concerts.

A portion of Quay Street and a portion of the Mohawk–Hudson Bike–Hike Trail would be closed 

during the overhead installation of the new bridge spans and the removal of the existing bridge. 

Water and Centre Streets would also have short-term closures to allow for beam seat 

reconstruction and then span shifting/demolition. As discussed in Section 4.16.4, NYSDOT would 

develop detour routes to enable access during construction. The Mohawk–Hudson Bike–Hike Trail 

would close only when there is active structural lifting overhead, most of which could be done at 

night. With the pedestrian canopy in place, the trail would only experience a few short closures 

lasting several hours each time. The magnitude of these closures would depend in part on the 

selected span arrangement and the placement of the new piers. 

The small park at the intersection of Broadway and Tracy Street in Rensselaer may experience 

more vehicle pass-bys and more traffic-related noise during the construction period. Similarly, 

users of Corning Riverfront Park and the Riverfront Preserve may notice construction activity and 

construction-related noise. These temporary impacts would not constitute an adverse effect to 

parks and recreational resources.
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-81 February 2022

Access to the construction staging area at the Rensselaer waterfront would be via an existing 

sewer easement that is the proposed future alignment of the Rensselaer Riverfront Multi-Use Trail. 

NYSDOT will coordinate with the City of Rensselaer to ensure that there would be no adverse 

impact on this proposed recreational resource.

Construction activities would have limited, if any, adverse impacts on local residents or 

businesses. Construction traffic and increases in noise and dust may temporarily affect local land 

uses in the vicinity of the Project site, including Corning Riverfront Park and the Riverfront 

Preserve, a limited number of residences, and the aforementioned parking lots. However, the most 

disruptive activities would be of limited duration and removed in distance from existing residences 

and businesses, which would minimize the adverse impacts on active land uses. The Project is in 

an area that can be considered an environmental justice community, and therefore, any adverse 

impacts from the construction or operation of the Build Alternatives would occur in an 

environmental justice community. There is discussion of construction impacts in Section 5.5, 

“Identification of Disproportionate Adverse Effects.”

As described in Section 4.16.4, several roadways near the Project site in Albany would require 

temporary detours during the construction period. These modifications to existing traffic patterns 

would be temporary and would not have a significant effect on land use patterns in the study area.

Construction activities would generate jobs, resulting in economic benefits to the local and regional 

economy. For instance, construction workers would likely spend some of their income on local 

goods and services, such as food and drink, recreation, and medical services. The higher cost of 

Build Alternative 1 ($356.90 million, compared with $330.78 million for Build Alternative 2), could 

lead to a larger positive impact on the local economy due to the larger amount of public spending 

involved. However, the increase in construction jobs would be temporary and would not have longterm, growth-inducing impacts on local communities.

4.16.6 Cultural Resources

As described in the Draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for this Project (see Section 4.5, 

“Cultural Resources”), to avoid accidental damage to adjacent historic properties as a result of 

construction activities associated with the Livingston Avenue Bridge Project, all historic properties

that are near construction activities and subject to potential inadvertent damage would be included 

in a Construction Protection Plan (CPP). FRA and NYSDOT will prepare the CPP in consultation 

with SHPO and the property owners. The CPP will identify the architectural resources to be 

included in the plan. It will also set forth the specific measures to be used and specifications that 

would be applied to protect these architectural resources during the construction period.

4.16.7 Visual Resources and Aesthetic Considerations

During construction, there would be an increase in the level of activity within the study area. As 

the Project proceeds, cranes and other large pieces of equipment would be visible from much of 

the study area. However, construction of the Livingston Avenue Bridge Project would not 

substantially alter important views. As described in Section 4.6, “Visual Resources and 

Aesthetic Considerations,” the locations in the study area from which substantial views of the 

Livingston Avenue Bridge are currently available are recreational resources along the Hudson 

River Corridor (including Corning Riverfront Park and Jennings Landing, the Riverfront Preserve, 

the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail, and the Rensselaer Boat Launch), the roadways and rail 

corridors that transect the study area, and the river itself, from which boaters have uninhibited 

views of the bridge. The views to visual resources that motorists and rail passengers experience 

are generally of short duration, due to the relatively high speeds at which they tend to travel 

through the study area. Boaters in the immediate vicinity of the bridge and pedestrians in nearby 

recreational areas would experience the longest duration and closest range views of the 

replacement bridge construction area. For the duration of construction, cranes, barges and other 

construction equipment, as well as staging areas on both sides of the Hudson River would be 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-82

visible to boaters and pedestrians. These changes would be temporary and of short duration, and 

therefore would not constitute an adverse effect to visual resources.

4.16.8 Water Resources

Wetland B, which is along the unpaved waterfront path in Rensselaer, is outside the construction 

staging area in Rensselaer but is within the vicinity of the construction access road to that staging 

area. The construction access road to the staging area in Rensselaer (see Figure 4.16-1) would 

be sited to avoid impacts to Wetland B. Construction activities would be conducted under a 

NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (GP-0-

20-001), which is required for construction activities affecting more than one acre. Build Alternative 

1 would result in approximately five acres of land disturbance, whereas Build Alternative 2 would 

result in approximately four acres of land disturbance. A SWPPP would be implemented, and

construction activities would comply with NYSDEC technical standards for erosion and sediment 

control. Implementation of erosion and sediment control measures identified in the SWPPP would 

minimize potential impacts to water quality of the Hudson River from the discharge of stormwater 

runoff during land-disturbing construction activities. The conditions of SPDES permits and 

SWPPPs include best management practices that ensure the control of stormwater runoff.

Construction of the Build Alternatives would require in-water construction activities, which would 

have the potential to result in resuspension of bottom sediment and sediment-bound contaminants 

that would be localized and temporary. Because the sediment would dissipate shortly after the

disturbance, construction activities would not adversely affect water or sediment quality. Sediment 

types within the study area are primarily sand and gravely sand, which are not easily resuspended 

and would quickly settle. Sediment resuspended within the smaller areas of muddy sand along 

the eastern shore and a small portion of the western shore would be expected to dissipate quickly. 

Dredged material would be collected onto a barge and disposed of offsite in compliance with 

applicable regulations. As such, dredging would not resuspend PCBs (see Section 4.16.13, 

“Contaminated Materials”) or other sediment contaminants into the water column and affect 

surrounding areas. All in-water work for Build Alternatives 1 and 2 would be conducted in 

accordance with state and Federal regulations and permit conditions, including a Section 401 

Water Quality Certification, SPDES permit, and Section 404 permit.

Demolition of the existing bridge would also have the potential to result in resuspension of bottom 

sediment. The existing bridge would be demolished by removing parts of the superstructure by 

barge or crane and transporting them to the staging area for further disassembly. Piers would be 

removed with an excavator and their timber support piles would be cut below the mud line. Use of 

turbidity curtains and floating booms would minimize the potential for sediment resuspended 

during the bridge removal activities to result in significant adverse impacts to water or sediment 

quality. 

With either Build Alternative, groundwater dewatering may be required during construction in 

certain locations, depending on the types of foundations to be used for the bridge, the location of 

utility trenches, and construction means and methods. This would occur at sites of excavation on 

land, such as for the bridge abutments and the easternmost pier, to eliminate groundwater that 

seeps into the excavation. The limited dewatering that could be required would not change the 

natural direction of groundwater flow or result in depletion of the groundwater supply. During

dewatering, groundwater samples would be collected prior to construction as a part of the Phase 

II subsurface investigation (see Section 4.16.13, “Contaminated Materials”). These samples 

would be tested for contaminants and the results compared to the NYSDEC surface water quality 

standards, among other standards, to determine the need for treatment prior to discharge to 

surface water. Discharge would be conducted in accordance with applicable requirements of 

SPDES permit for discharge to surface water. Discharge of water would also be conducted in 

accordance with applicable Federal requirements and/or other guidelines or regulations for the 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-83 February 2022

discharge to surface water, as applicable. The construction period would not result in adverse 

impacts on groundwater resources, aquifers, or reservoirs within the vicinity of the Project site.

4.16.9 General Ecology and Wildlife Resources

4.16.9.1 Aquatic Biota

As discussed in Section 4.16.8, “Water Resources,” construction of the replacement bridge, 

demolition of the existing bridge, and upland soil disturbing activities under the Build Alternatives 

would not affect water or sediment quality in the Hudson River, and therefore, would not impact 

habitat conditions for fish and other aquatic biota. Construction activities would result in the 

temporary loss of benthic habitat within the footprint of the piles supporting the temporary pier and 

in the footprint of the spud piles as the construction barges are moored throughout the site over 

the course of construction. Benthic invertebrates unable to move away from these areas would be 

lost. Following the completion of the replacement bridge, the temporary pier would be removed, 

restoring benthic habitat within the footprint of the piles. Benthic organisms are expected to quickly 

recolonize the areas previously occupied by the temporary pier piles, as similar habitat is present 

in the surrounding area that would be unaffected or minimally impacted by the project activities 

and would serve as the source of colonizing invertebrates.

Prior to construction of the temporary pier, NYSDOT will undertake a survey of submerged aquatic 

vegetation and the pier would be installed so as to minimize the potential to affect submerged 

aquatic vegetation (e.g., adjust location and install piles in a manner that minimizes bottom 

disturbance and disturbance to submerged aquatic vegetation beds, if present to the greatest 

extent possible). Because the temporary pier would be narrow (only 20 feet wide) and elevated 

above the surface of the water, light would reach the water beneath the pier over the course of a 

day, minimizing the potential for shading impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation that may be 

present beneath the pier. The spud piles for the barges would also be placed to avoid any indirect 

effects to submerged aquatic vegetation identified in the pre-construction survey to the greatest 

extent possible, and in a manner that minimizes bottom disturbance.

Underwater noise from pile driving can cause lethal injury to fishes if the level and duration of the 

noise is great enough. However, lethal impacts to fish from pile driving are mostly limited to the 

driving of very large piles (e.g., eight-foot diameter) when fish are in very close proximity to the 

pile (within 33 feet).

120 The diameter of the piles for the temporary pier, the spud barges, and the 

permanent bridge piers for both Build Alternatives would be small (14 inches) and require far less 

force to install than the large piles that can produce potentially lethal underwater noise levels 

during impact hammering. More commonly, pile-driving noise has sub-lethal physiological or 

behavioral impacts on fish, by causing recoverable injury or avoidance of the area and other 

temporary behavioral changes. Following best management practices for pile installation,

121 noise 

would be minimized by using a vibratory hammer to the greatest extent possible, or by tapping the 

pile to deter fish from the area before impact hammering. If piles are drilled rather than hammered, 

noise levels would not result in acoustic impacts to fish. The spud piles supporting the barges 

would be allowed to sink into the sediment under their own weight, and if required, equipment 

available on the barge would be used to push or hammer them to the desired depth, using a 

cushion block if hammering is needed. Should pile driving or other in-water activities associated 

with construction cause habitat avoidance by aquatic organisms, the extent of the area that would 

120 Journal of Fish Biology, Volume 75, “The Effects of Anthropogenic Sources of Sound on Fishes, A.N.

Popper and M.C. Hastings, 2009, pages 455-489.

121 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) “Impacts to Marine Fisheries Habitat from 

Nonfishing Activities in the Northeastern United States, Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-209,” U.S. 

Department of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, Gloucester, Massachusetts, 2008. 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-84

be avoided at any one time would be negligible relative to the amount of suitable habitat that would 

remain available nearby. 

Pile installation would be limited to periods outside of the spawning season for shortnose sturgeon 

and Atlantic sturgeon to avoid impacts to this endangered species (see Section 4.16.9.3, 

“Threatened and Endangered Species,” for further discussion). With these measures in place, 

pile installation required to construct the replacement bridge under either of the Build Alternatives 

would not adversely affect fishes or other aquatic organisms in the Hudson River.

4.16.9.2 Terrestrial Habitats and Wildlife

Potential impacts to wildlife from a construction project can occur indirectly, because of 

construction noise, or directly, because of habitat loss. Noise pollution can lead to changes in 

wildlife community composition, decrease reproductive success, and alter predatory-prey 

dynamics.

122 However, noise generated during the construction of either Build Alternative would 

not adversely affect wildlife in the study area because the study area already has existing levels 

of anthropogenic noise from rail operations on the existing bridge, traffic along I-787, and other 

sources associated with the commercial, residential, and industrial land uses in the surrounding 

area. Wildlife communities in the study area have been established under these existing 

disturbances, and as such, wildlife in the area is composed of primarily urban-adapted, generalist 

species. Construction would not increase noise levels above the existing conditions to the extent 

that it would alter species assemblages or otherwise negatively change wildlife in the surrounding 

area from its present state. Some birds and mammals would potentially relocate in response to 

the construction noise, but would be likely to easily acquire suitable alternative habitat given that 

comparable, small woodland fragments are ubiquitous in the surrounding landscape. Any such 

relocation away from the area of disturbance would not significantly affect these individuals in the 

long-term.

123 Overall, noises generated during construction would not adversely affect wildlife in 

the study area.

Woodland acreage would be cleared under both Build Alternatives (Build Alternative 1 would 

involve clearing three acres and Build Alternative 2 would involve clearing two acres) on the east 

bank of the river. As discussed in Section 4.8, “General Ecology and Wildlife Resources,” this 

area is part of a small deciduous woodlot that is of marginal quality as habitat for native wildlife 

due to its small size, fragmentation, and heavily developed surroundings. The loss of acreage in 

this woodlot would reduce the number of individuals able to inhabit it, but would not change the 

assemblage of wildlife species present; the same wildlife species would continue to inhabit the 

remaining portions of the woodlot. The reduced number of individuals of some species would not 

impact the size or viability of their local populations. Overall, land disturbance required for 

construction under either Build Alternative would not adversely affect wildlife at the individual, 

population, or community level.

4.16.9.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 

4.16.9.3.1 Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon

As indicated in Section 4.8, “General Ecology and Wildlife Resources,” spawning adults and 

early life stages (eggs and larvae) of shortnose sturgeon have the potential to occur within the 

study area during a short period of time in the spring (generally between March and mid-July). 

Atlantic sturgeon spawning adults and early life stages have the potential to occur from March 

122 Conservation Biology, Volume 22, “Impacts of Chronic Noise from Energy-Sector Activity on Abundance 

of Songbirds in the Boreal Forest, E.M. Bayne, L. Habib, and S. Boutin, 2008, pages 1186-1193.

123 Biological Conservation, Volume 97, “Why Behavioral Responses May Not Reflect the Population 

Consequences of Human Disturbance, J.A. Gill, K. Norris, and W.J. Sutherland. 2001, pages 265-268.
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-85 February 2022

through September. Juveniles and non-spawning adults could be present in the study area yearround, although juveniles of both species are more likely to occur downriver.

Construction of the Project would result in temporary impacts to sturgeon resulting from vessel 

traffic, sediment resuspension, underwater noise during pile driving, and temporary loss of 

foraging habitat, none of which would result in significant adverse impacts to either species. 

Detailed discussion of these impacts is included in Appendix B-2-1, which provides FRA’s 

completed consultation with NMFS regarding shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon dated September 

28, 2021. Following work windows recommended by NMFS,

124 no in-water construction would 

occur from March 1 through September 30 to protect spawning shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon 

and their eggs and larvae. Once installed, work could occur within the sheet pile cells during the 

March 1 to September 30 window. The measures that would be implemented to minimize potential 

impacts on all life stages of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon would include:

• Seasonal timing restrictions to avoid in-water construction and bridge demolition during the 

spawning period (March 1 through September 30). Work within the sheet pile cells would occur 

during this time period.

• Use of small-diameter piles that produce less underwater noise during installation.

• Use of pre-drilling to install piles and vibratory hammering (if necessary after pre-drilling) to 

the greatest extent practicable before cushioned impact hammering in order to minimize 

underwater noise levels; slow removal of temporary piles using a vibratory hammer.

• Tapping of piles prior to the start of impact hammering in order to give fish an opportunity to 

relocate before underwater sound levels become increasingly greater.

• Use of a turbidity curtain during installation of the temporary pier piles, fender and dolphin 

system, and during removal of temporary pier piles and existing bridge piers.

• Dredged sediments from within dewatered sheet pile cell would be placed in a scow, 

dewatered, and transported offsite for disposal, and water would be treated prior to being 

discharged back to the river.

• Use of nets, tarps, and pans during demolition of the bridge superstructure, and removal of 

any debris that falls into the water.

• Limited number of vessels at any given time during construction, all with shallow drafts (5 to 

10 feet) and maintaining low speeds (less than 5 knots for push boats and tugs, and less than 

10 knots for crew boats).

• Use of posted lookouts and measures to slow down and avoid any observed sturgeon when 

operating project vessels in areas where they may be present.

4.16.9.3.2 Atlantic Sturgeon Critical Habitat

As indicated in Section 4.8, “General Ecology and Wildlife Resources,” the Project site 

contains physical and biological features identified under PBFs 1, 3, and 4 within Atlantic sturgeon 

critical habitat. Construction of the Project would result in temporary impacts resulting from vessel 

traffic, sediment resuspension, underwater noise during pile driving, and temporary loss of 

foraging habitat. Detailed discussion of these impacts is included in Appendix B-2-1, which 

provides FRA’s consultation with NMFS regarding critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. The 

addition of construction vessels would be intermittent, temporary, and restricted to a small portion 

of the overall Project site on any given day, such that the risk of a vessel strike caused by the 

Project would be minimal. Sediment resuspension resulting from pile installation would have 

insignificant effects on water quality, would be intermittent and localized to the vicinity of 

construction activities, and would be minimized through the use of a turbidity curtain. The area of 

increased underwater noise would extend a maximum of 394 feet from the pile being installed, 

124 NMFS correspondence for the Project dated April 15, 2013.
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-86

and the Hudson River is sufficiently wide enough (950 feet) to allow sturgeon to avoid the 

ensonified area while continuing to forage and migrate. While foraging habitat would be 

temporarily lost in the footprint of the temporary pier piles and the spud piles supporting the barges, 

similar habitat would continue to be available within the study area, and benthic organisms are 

expected to quickly recolonize these areas once the temporary piles are removed. Based on the 

analysis provided in Appendix B-2-1 and with the implementation of measures to minimize these 

impacts, as described above, FRA concluded that construction of the Project would not result in 

significant adverse impacts to Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat and received concurrence from 

NMFS on September 28, 2021. 

4.16.9.3.3 Northern Long-Eared Bat

As discussed in Section 4.8, “General Ecology and Wildlife Resources,” the study area lacks 

large, unbroken tracts of forested habitat with which the northern long-eared bat is associated, 

which, combined with the near extinction of local populations, makes it unlikely that the species 

would occur near the Project site. Nevertheless, because it is still possible that northern longeared bats could roost within the area of disturbance, all tree clearing for the Livingston Avenue 

Bridge Project would be limited to October 31 to March 31, during the winter hibernation period, 

to follow recommended guidelines of the USFWS and avoid potential impacts that could result 

from the removal of active roost trees and foraging habitat.

125 The land cleared for either Build 

Alternative would represent a negligible loss of low-quality woodland that would not significantly 

impact the size or viability of any remaining local population of northern long-eared bats. The 

fragment of woodland in which the majority of the clearing would occur is not considered to be 

valuable or high quality habitat for northern long-eared bats given its small size, high edge to area 

ratio, second stage growth, limited amount of large dead or dying trees, and heavily developed 

surroundings. Overall, with the winter tree clearing restriction in place, Project construction would 

not adversely affect to the northern long-eared bat. Appendix B-2-1 provides the consultation with 

USFWS with respect to northern long-eared bats in the vicinity of the Project site, and the USFWS 

determination that the Project is consistent with the activities analyzed in the USFWS’s January 

5, 2016 Programmatic Biological Opinion. The Project may affect the northern long-eared bat; 

however, any take that may occur as a result of the Project is not prohibited under the Endangered 

Species Act Section 4(d) rule adopted for the northern long-eared bat at 50 CFR Section 17.40(o).

4.16.9.3.4 Bald Eagle

Bald eagles have the potential to occur within the study area during the winter, sitting on ice floes, 

searching for fish, or passing by as they move up or down the river corridor. Bald eagles are easily 

disturbed by human activities, even during winter.

126 During wintertime construction for either Build 

Alternative, bald eagles may avoid the section of river within the study area and instead forage 

elsewhere up- or down-river where disturbance levels are lower. Based on Federal guidelines for 

minimizing disturbances to bald eagles,127 which recommend a maximum buffer distance of 0.5 

miles between bald eagles and extremely loud noises,

128 it can be conservatively estimated that 

bald eagles would avoid a maximum of 0.5 miles of river in each direction from the bridge during 

construction. Displacement of eagles from this area would represent a negligible and temporary 

reduction in the amount of foraging habitat available on the upper Hudson River. In turn, the 

potential exclusion of wintering bald eagles from this small section of river would not reduce food 

availability or otherwise affect their energetic condition. Overall, Project construction would not 

adversely affect bald eagles at either the individual or population level.

125 USFWS 2014. 

126 Journal of Wildlife Management, Volume 61, “Flushing Responses of Wintering Bald Eagles to Military 

Activity, M.V. Stalmaster and J.L. Kaiser, 1997, pages 1307-1313.

127 https://www.fws.gov/northeast/ecologicalservices/eagleguidelines/constructionnesting.html. 

128 USFWS 2007. 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-87 February 2022

4.16.9.3.5 Peregrine Falcon

The closest peregrine falcon nest to the Project site is on the Dunn Memorial Bridge, approximately 

0.75 mile to the south, but peregrine falcons have large home ranges and the birds associated 

with this nest have the potential to occur within the study area in search of prey. Urban peregrine 

falcons, particularly those that nest on bridges, have a particularly high tolerance of human 

disturbance, and construction activity from either Build Alternative would have no direct or indirect 

impacts to these individuals. Urban peregrine falcons primarily hunt pigeons, whose abundance 

would not be affected by the construction of the Build Alternatives. Peregrine falcons do not inhabit 

woodlands and would not lose habitat as a result of the tree clearing for the Build Alternatives. As 

such, construction of the Build Alternatives would not directly or indirectly affect peregrine falcons 

or their habitat.

4.16.9.3.6 Cobra Clubtail

Cobra clubtail dragonflies occur in riparian vegetation and on sandy shorelines along the Hudson 

River in the vicinity of the Project site. Tree clearing on the eastern bank of the river that would 

occur under the Build Alternatives would potentially eliminate some riparian habitat of the cobra 

clubtail, but occurrence of the species in this area is unconfirmed. Loss of this short section of 

shoreline vegetation (approximately 300 feet for Build Alternative 1 and 150 feet for Build 

Alternative 2) would not result in a significant reduction in the amount of comparable riparian 

habitat available to the cobra clubtail along the Hudson River, and would not adversely affect the 

species’ local or regional populations.

4.16.9.3.7 Alewife Floater

The alewife floater is known to occur in the tidal freshwater section of the Hudson River. The small 

amount of habitat loss and the minimal amounts of sediment suspension that may occur during 

the construction of the Build Alternatives would not result in adverse impacts to the alewife floater

because the habitat loss would be minimal and the sediment suspension would be limited and 

temporary. The direct loss of any individuals inhabiting the small area of river bottom in which piles 

would be installed would not adversely affect the size or viability of the local population.

4.16.9.3.8 Osprey

A pair of ospreys and their nest were present on the east side of the Livingston Avenue Bridge 

during the September 2020 wildlife survey. The osprey is a species of special concern in New 

York that has been proposed by NYSDEC to be delisted during the next revision of the list of 

endangered, threatened, and special concern species because populations in the state have 

recovered significantly in recent decades. In compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and 

to avoid direct impacts to nesting ospreys, the osprey nest on the Livingston Avenue Bridge will 

be removed during the winter, when the nest is inactive. FRA and NYSDOT will coordinate with 

the USFWS and NYSDEC prior to removal. Upon their return to the area in the spring, these 

ospreys should easily establish a new nesting site on one of the many other tall, artificial structures 

along this section of the Hudson River and remain a part of the area’s breeding population. 

Ospreys are highly habituated to human activity, and Project construction activities would not have 

the potential to disturb osprey hunting and breeding activity in the vicinity of the Project site. 

Following completion of construction, the replacement bridge will once again represent a potential 

nesting site for these or other ospreys in the area. For these reasons, no adverse impacts to 

ospreys at the individual or population level would be expected to occur from construction of the 

Build Alternatives. 

4.16.9.4 Significant Habitat Areas

As discussed above, construction of the Build Alternatives would not result in significant adverse 

impacts to aquatic biota or habitat conditions within the Hudson River. Therefore, Project 

construction would not result in adverse impacts to the Upper Hudson River Estuary Significant 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-88

Habitat Complex, Essential Fish Habitat of the Hudson River Estuary, or submerged aquatic 

vegetation.

4.16.9.5 Invasive Species

Due to the high levels of development and human activity in the study area, habitat conditions are 

degraded and favorable for the many non-native invasive plants and animals currently present. 

During Project construction for either Build Alternative, NYSDOT will implement best management 

practices (such as washing construction equipment) to minimize the introduction of no new 

invasive species to the area, and to limit benefits to any that are already present. As such, there 

would be no change in the status of invasive species from the existing condition under either Build 

Alternative. As such, there would be no change in the status of invasive species from the existing 

condition.

4.16.10 Air Quality

Construction of the Project would result in emissions from on-site construction equipment and the 

transport of construction materials. In general, most construction engines are diesel-powered, and 

produce relatively high levels of NOx and PM. Some construction activities also emit dust. As 

defined in CFR Part 80 Subpart I, diesel fuel sulfur content is limited to 15 parts per million (ppm) 

for nonroad engines, marine engines, and wholesale purchaser consumers in the locomotive and 

marine sectors. Ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) would be used exclusively for all diesel engines 

throughout the construction sites, including tug boats (if appropriate); therefore, sulfur oxides 

emitted from construction activities would be negligible.

To further minimize emissions from construction, the Livingston Avenue Bridge Project would 

incorporate the following measures, to the extent feasible:

• Utilization of Newer Equipment. USEPA’s Tier 1 through 4 standards for nonroad engines 

regulate the emission of criteria pollutants from new engines, including PM, CO, NOx, and 

hydrocarbons. All nonroad construction equipment (excluding marine engines—see below 

regarding marine engines) used for the Project with a power rating of 50 horsepower or greater 

would meet at least the Tier 2 emissions standard. All nonroad engines in the Project rated 

less than 50 horsepower would meet at least the Tier 2 emissions standard.

• Clean Fuel. ULSD fuel would be used exclusively for all diesel engines throughout the 

construction site.

• Idling Restrictions. All efforts will be made to address heavy duty vehicle idling at the Project 

site in order to reduce fuel usage (and associated costs) and emissions. On-road diesel fueled 

trucks are subject to New York's heavy duty vehicle idling prohibition. These vehicles may not 

idle for more than five consecutive minutes except under certain specific conditions as 

described in Subpart 217-3. In addition to enforcing the on-road idling prohibition, all 

reasonable efforts will be made to reduce non-productive idling of nonroad diesel powered 

equipment.

• Dust Control. Strict dust control plans would be prepared and implemented for the construction 

of the Project. For example, stabilized truck exit areas would be established where applicable 

for washing off the wheels of all trucks that exit the construction sites. Truck routes within the 

sites would be either watered as needed or, in cases where such routes would remain in the 

same place for an extended duration; the routes would be stabilized, covered with gravel, or 

temporarily paved to avoid the re-suspension of dust. All trucks hauling loose material would 

be equipped with tight fitting tailgates and their loads securely covered prior to leaving the 

sites. In addition to regular cleaning by local agencies, streets adjacent to the sites would be 

cleaned as frequently as needed. Water spray would be used for all excavation, demolition, 

and transfer of spoils to ensure that materials are dampened as necessary to avoid the 

suspension of dust into the air. Loose materials would be watered, stabilized with a 

Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-90

• Jackhammer (88 dBA)

• Paver (85 dBA) 

• Rail saw (90 dBA)

• Truck (84 dBA)

Using the FTA’s general construction noise analysis procedures, FRA and NYSDOT evaluated 

the potential for construction-related noise impacts for the two Build Alternatives at nearby 

sensitive receptors. They considered the noise associated with construction of the new bridge 

(from abutment to abutment) and from track realignment work on the Rensselaer and Albany 

approaches to the bridge, which is presented below.

4.16.11.1.1 Construction of the New Bridge

The FTA evaluation methodology for construction impacts involves analyzing the noise from the 

two noisiest pieces of construction equipment operating simultaneously to determine the distance 

at which noise levels would be high enough for an impact to occur. For construction of the new 

bridge and demolition of the existing bridge (up to the abutments on either side of the river), the 

noisiest two pieces of equipment would be a pile driver and jackhammer.

The construction activity that would involve use of a pile driver and jackhammer would be 

approximately 550 feet from the nearest business (a commercial printing press in Albany) and 

approximately 600 feet from the nearest residential properties (residential properties along 

Broadway in Rensselaer) with either of the Build Alternatives. Construction activity would be about 

100 feet from the nearest parks, Corning Riverfront Park and the Riverfront Preserve in Albany, 

with either Build Alternative. 

As shown in Exhibit 4.16-2, during the daytime, the two noisiest pieces of equipment (pile driver 

and jackhammer) operating simultaneously for bridge construction would not result in noise 

impacts at the nearest existing residential, commercial, or industrial properties. During nighttime 

(i.e., 10 PM–7 AM), the two noisiest pieces of equipment (rail saw and truck) operating 

simultaneously also would not result in noise impacts at the nearest existing residential, 

commercial, or industrial properties because these receptors are beyond the distance at which 

construction noise levels would reach or exceed impact thresholds, which is 180 feet (maximum 

distance of impact). Depending on the final site layout of the Kiliaen’s Landing project in 

Rensselaer and the timing for its occupancy in comparison to the timing of bridge construction, 

there may be residential uses at Kiliaen’s Landing within the impact threshold distance of either 

Build Alternative. 



Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-94

4.16.13 Contaminated Materials

As discussed in Section 4.14, “Contaminated Materials,” contaminated materials are likely to 

be encountered during Project construction. The Build Alternatives would require substantial 

subsurface disturbance in specific areas such as locations of new bridge supports and new track

work. Soils and dredged materials would be generated during the drilling and installation of the

bridge piers. Excavations may also be required for new or relocated utilities. 

To prevent potential resuspension of PCBs or other sediment contaminants in the Hudson River 

during the installation of the bridge piers, dredged material would be collected onto a barge, 

dewatered, and then transported for disposal in compliance with applicable regulations. 

Dewatering effluent would be treated in accordance with NYSDEC requirements prior to being 

discharged back to the river. During the landside construction activities, common railroad 

contaminants may be encountered. These contaminants include: suspected PCB-containing 

equipment (transformers, fluorescent light ballast, hydraulic equipment and electrical feeder 

cables), creosote (railroad ties), spilled or leaked liquids (gasoline, oil, cleaning solvents, etc.), 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and metals. PCB-contaminated dredged material may 

be encountered during construction of the bridge foundation.

Prior to construction, NYSDOT will conduct a Phase II subsurface investigation in areas where 

excavation would occur. This would include the collection and laboratory analysis of soil samples 

and groundwater samples to characterize subsurface conditions prior to construction. Dewatering 

would be required during deeper excavations for utilities and bridge support structures, and of 

dredged materials from the Hudson River. Water quality testing would be performed to ensure 

compliance with applicable discharge permit/approval requirements and, if necessary, pretreatment would be conducted prior to discharge. Requirements could include treatment measures 

such as settling basins to separate sediments from the groundwater prior to their discharge to 

surface waters. 

To minimize the potential for impacts to the community and construction workers, all excavation 

and construction work involving subsurface disturbance would be performed under a Remedial 

Action Plan and Construction Health and Safety Plan, which would be prepared based on the 

findings of the Phase II investigation. These plans would address the management (and, if 

necessary) remediation of anticipated environmental conditions and contingencies should other 

or more extensive contamination be encountered during construction. These plans would present 

measures for managing contaminated on-site soil and groundwater in accordance with applicable 

Federal, state, and local regulations. Contaminated soil management includes guidelines for 

temporary on-site stockpiling and off-site transportation and disposal. 

Any excavated soil, fill, wood, and other materials requiring off-site disposal would be managed in 

accordance with applicable laws and requirements, and, as necessary, tested in accordance with 

the requirements of the intended receiving facility. Transportation of all material leaving the site 

would be in accordance with applicable requirements covering licensing of haulers and trucks, 

placarding, truck routes, and manifesting. Areas where contamination is discovered during 

excavation activities would be delineated and remediated in accordance with all applicable 

regulations and notification requirements. Both known and unexpectedly encountered petroleum 

storage tanks would be properly closed and removed in accordance with all applicable regulations. 

Unregistered tanks would be registered with NYSDEC, as required. Any associated soil and/or 

groundwater contamination would be remediated as required by NYSDEC’s Petroleum Spill 

Program. 

Prior to any construction activities that might disturb potential asbestos-containing materials, a 

comprehensive asbestos survey of the areas to be disturbed would be conducted. Any activities 

with the potential to disturb structures with lead-based paint would be performed in accordance 

with the applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulation (OSHA 29 

CFR 1926.62 - Lead Exposure in Construction). The railroad ties and bridge timbers within the 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

4-95 February 2022

Project site likely consist of creosote-treated wood. New York State Law (ECL Article 27, Title 25) 

exempts railroads from phasing out the use of creosote and creosote-treated products, but 

regulates their disposal when they are removed. 

4.17 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

4.17.1 Introduction

Cumulative impacts are the incremental consequences of an action when added to past and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. The analysis of cumulative impacts considers resources, 

ecosystems, and human communities that could be affected cumulatively when the impacts of the 

Project Alternatives are combined with other planned projects.

4.17.2 Future Projects—Land Development 

Future land development projects in the study area include:

• The Hudson River Waterfront Gateway Improvements project, which will add lighting, 

landscaping, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and wayfinding signage at key gateways 

to the Albany riverfront including the intersection of Colonie Street and Quay Street, just north 

of the Livingston Avenue Bridge;

• Kiliaen’s Landing, an 18-acre mixed-use development planned for area just north the 

Livingston Avenue Bridge in Rensselaer;

• Rensselaer Riverfront Multi-Use Trail, which will traverse the study area in Rensselaer at the 

water’s edge;

• De Laet’s Landing, a mixed-use development in the southern portion of the Rensselaer study 

area.

Each of these projects is included in the No Action Alternative for the Livingston Avenue Bridge 

Project and has been included in the baseline conditions used for analysis in this EA; therefore, in 

combination with the Project under either Build Alternative, these projects would not lead to any 

substantial adverse effect on resources discussed in the EA. Cumulatively, these projects together 

with the shared use path over the bridge that would be constructed under either of the Build 

Alternatives would improve the non-motorized travel network in the study area and enhance 

waterfront access by providing a series of connected riverfront trails, scenic viewpoints, and 

waterfront uses. This would be a regional transportation and recreational benefit and fulfill longtime plans to better connect the east and west shoreline communities along the Hudson River.

4.17.3 Future Projects—Transportation

The Livingston Avenue Bridge Project is an important improvement to the Empire Corridor rail line, 

which extends from New York City to Niagara Falls and is the premier rail corridor in New York 

State for both passenger and freight movement. The Empire Corridor High Speed Rail Program, 

which is a separate initiative from the Livingston Avenue Bridge Project, seeks to introduce higher 

train speeds on the Empire Corridor and to improve reliability, travel times, service frequency, and 

passenger amenities with the goals of making rail travel more desirable and increasing ridership. 

FRA and NYSDOT are currently preparing a Tier 1 EIS for the Empire Corridor High Speed Rail 

Program; a Draft EIS was published in January 2014.

129 While the Livingston Avenue Bridge 

Project EA is not part of the tiered EIS process for Empire Corridor, replacement of the Livingston 

129 Tier 1 Draft EIS for High Speed Rail Empire Corridor, January 2014. https://www.dot.ny.gov/empirecorridor/deis. 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 4-96

Avenue Bridge, together with a number of other planned improvements to the Empire Corridor, 

would enable full operation of the Empire Corridor High Speed Rail Program.

4.17.4 Commitment of Resources

In accordance with NEPA and the CEQ implementing procedures under 40 CFR Part 1500, this 

EA includes an analysis of any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources that would 

occur if the Livingston Avenue Bridge Project is constructed. 

Implementation of the Project involves a commitment of a range of natural, physical, human, and 

fiscal resources. Land used in the construction of the Project would be an irreversible commitment 

during the time period that the land is used for a transportation facility. However, if a greater need 

arises for the use of the land, or if the transportation facility is no longer needed, the land can be 

converted to another use. There is currently no reason to believe that such a conversion will be 

necessary or desirable.

Construction of the Build Alternatives, described in Section 4.16, “Construction Impacts,” would 

require considerable amounts of construction materials such as concrete, steel, wood, and other 

building materials. NYSDOT and its contractors would consume energy in the form of fossil fuels 

and electricity during the construction and operation of the new bridge. These materials are 

generally not retrievable. However, they are readily available, are not in short supply, and their 

use for the Project would not have an adverse impact on their continued availability for other 

purposes. In addition to materials, NYSDOT would require funding and human labor to design, 

build, and operate the Project. NYSDOT endeavors to minimize the use of irretrievable resources 

and to conserve and reuse resources whenever possible. The Project would also require a 

substantial one-time expenditure of both state and Federal funds, which are not retrievable.

The commitment of these resources is based on the concept that the residents of the Cities of 

Albany and Rensselaer, New York State, and the greater region would benefit by the improved 

quality of the passenger and freight rail system. These benefits are anticipated to outweigh the 

commitment of resources.