Welcome – Archived January 2026 Online Open House

You are at the text only version of the January 2026 Online Open House. The open house is available January 13 – February 12, 2026.

Seward Highway MP 98.5–118, Bird Flats to Rabbit Creek | Project No. 0A31034/ Z566310000

The purpose of this Online Open House is to share information regarding the project that was presented during the January public meetings, and solicit your comment and feedback on the Draft EA.

About the Project

This project is taking a corridor approach to finding a solution for these 20 miles of the Seward Highway. The public and agency stakeholders asked DOT&PF to develop a unified vision and mitigation strategy for the entire corridor at once.

This environmental phase is the first step toward identifying the solution and advancing towards design and construction.

Poster Text includes:

The Seward Highway has a long history of crashes that result in serious injuries and fatalities. Due to these safety concerns, it was designated as a Highway Safety Corridor in 2006.

The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) proposes to construct a 4-lane divided highway and separated Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant pathway along the Seward Highway between Mileposts (MP) 118 and 98.5.

DOT&PF initiated this project in 2023.

Now, we are sharing the Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Individual Section 4(f) Evaluation and want your comments. Your feedback will help us finalize these documents and inform DOT&PF’s decision.

Purpose and Need

The purpose and need describes the problems that we are trying to address. It is used to determine which alternative(s) will solve the problem and merit further study in the Draft EA. You can read more about the project’s purpose and need in the Draft Environmental Assessment in Section 1.2 and Appendix C: Project Purpose and Need Memorandum. 

Thank You! Your input has already shaped the purpose and need by changing our focus from “improve congestion” to “improve safety” and added a focus on mixed users such as vehicles, pedestrians, the railroad, and truckers.

Poster Text Includes:

Reduce High Crash Rate and Severity

• Proposed Improvements
• Curve flattening
• Rock and ice fall mitigation
• Wider shoulders
• Divided highway
• Increased line of sight
• Adding turning lanes and acceleration/merge lanes

Measurable Result

• Reduction in severe and fatal crashes
• Removal of the Safety Corridor designation

Increase Mobility and Reliability

• Proposed Improvements
• Frontage roads
• Emergency services turnarounds
• and shoulders
• Additional passing lanes/spaces
• Improved wayfinding signage
• Adding space for emergency response
• Adding deceleration and acceleration lanes

Measurable Result

• Decrease in traffic delays and time spent following (platooning of traffic), faster emergency response, and improved incident management.

Safely Accommodate Mixed Uses in the Corridor

• Proposed Improvements
• Pedestrian highway undercrossing
• Separated multi-use pathway
• Improved scenic and recreational pull offs
• Consolidated and improved trailhead parking

Measurable Result

• Preservation of the highway’s outstanding scenic designations while improving safety for all users.

Alternative Screening Process

Read more about the Project alternatives and screening in the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) Section 2 and Appendix D: Alternatives Development Memorandum. This memorandum describes the many alternatives that were considered but not advanced in the EA, including a stacked structure, tunneling through curves, intermittent passing lanes (3-lane alternative), undivided highway, multimodal strategies, public transit, and commuter rail.  

We also spent many hours discussing the concepts and screening them with our Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) to look for win-win solutions. 

The Draft EA Appendix E: Highway Configuration Development and Selection Memorandum and Appendix G: Traffic and Safety Analysis provide more detail on how we decided on the best highway configuration to evaluate in the Draft EA.  

See later slides for highlights of the Draft EA’s environmental analysis, proposed mitigation, and ways for you to comment.  

Thank you! Based on your input, we have added a pedestrian crossing at Beluga Point and other locations in the corridor, ensured a separated pathway was a priority in design, helped minimize impacts to wildlife and the Turnagain Arm, expanded parking and improved parking in more strategic places, and are protecting scenic views so travelers can enjoy the Scenic Byway.

Poster Text Includes:

1. Concept

• First, we developed many potential solutions through:
• Prior studies such as Windy Corner
• Constraints analysis
• Engineering feasibility studies
• Traffic analysis
• Stakeholder Working Group meetings
• Small group meetings with comments from focus groups such as trucking associations, first responders, and rock climbers
• Public meetings and comments
• Agency meetings and comments

2. Screening Factors

Next, we evaluated these ideas on how well they:

• Solved the purpose and need
• Managed the magnitude of cost
• Were practicable and reasonable 

3. No Action versus Proposed Action

Then, we analyzed impacts under laws:

• National Environmental Policy Act (overall environmental and social impacts)
• Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (wetlands and waters of the United States)
• Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act and Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act (parks, wildlife refuges, historic sites)
• Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (cultural and historical resources)
• Endangered Species Act (Cook Inlet beluga whales and critical habitat) 

4. Comment Period – We are here

With the publication of the Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Individual Section 4(f) Evaluation, we will:

• Share project-related information with you
• Consider to your comments 

5. Selected Alternative

Once your comments are reviewed, we will decide which alternative to advance and finalize mitigation commitments, then we will:

• Publish the Final Environmental Assessment and Final Individual Section 4(f) Evaluation

EA Timeline

We initiated this project with a scoping phase in 2023. We received a lot of input on important things to consider and what you think we need to do to make the highway safer.  

Since then, the project team has been doing environmental field work, developing engineering concepts and investigations, and working with stakeholders and the public. We shared draft concepts at the end of 2023. 

For more information on the public process to date, please review Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) Section 6, Comments and Coordination, Appendix V: Stakeholder Engagement (Public and Agency Coordination), and Appendix Q: Section 106 Consultation/Findings. 

 In 2024–2025, the project team developed preliminary engineering layouts, conducted noise and visual impact analyses, conducted preliminary hydrology assessments, and coordinated with state and federal agencies on issues that included cultural and historical resource impacts (Section 106), endangered species impacts (Endangered Species Act), and park and refuge impacts (Section 4(f) and Section 6(f)). We also drafted the EA and Section 4(f) Evaluation to document the process and present findings. 

Now, we are sharing the Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Individual Section 4(f) Evaluation and want your comments. Your feedback will help us finalize the document and inform DOT&PF’s decision on which alternative to advance. 

Once DOT&PF has made a decision, we will issue a final decision document, post it on our website, and share it with you.  

 If the project moves forward, design and construction would follow in several stages, probably over 10 to 20 years. DOT&PF followed a similar process approximately 20 years ago, completing an EA for the Seward Highway through Anchorage, from 36th Avenue to O’Malley Road. Once DOT&PF published that decision document, projects were phased over time into separate design and construction efforts. 

No Action

The Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes the environmental consequences of the Proposed Action (constructing a four-lane, divided highway with a multi-use pathway) and the No Action alternative, addressing impacts on physical, biological, and human environments. The document also outlines mitigation measures, public involvement outcomes, and compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and related federal and state regulations. 

 The No Action alternative is our baseline for comparison with action alternatives. Under the No Action alternative, the Seward Highway would stay as it is today—two lanes, no corridor-wide safety improvements, and no new multi-use pathway. Crash rates, congestion, and emergency response delays would continue similar to current conditions. 

This option helps us understand the environmental impacts of doing nothing versus making improvements. 

You can read more about the No Action alternative in the Draft EA Section 2. 

Proposed Action Overview

The Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes the environmental consequences of the Proposed Action (constructing a four-lane, divided highway with an Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant multi-use pathway) and the No Action alternative, addressing impacts on physical, biological, and human environments. The document also outlines mitigation measures, public involvement outcomes, and compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and related federal and state regulations. 

The Proposed Action is to construct a four-lane divided highway with a separated pathway. This alternative would reduce crash risks, improve travel reliability, and create safer access for all users. 

The rendering shown is for visual purposes only and is not final. Elements shown may change during the design process and should not be interpreted as engineering plans or construction details. 

 To see more on the Proposed Action, you can also review the Draft EA Appendix F: Proposed Action Mapbook  and visit our web mapper. This will allow you to see the land you are interested in and figure out what our best concepts are right now.  

If progressed, future design stages would include conducting more public involvement during each stage and developing a lot more engineering detail.

Proposed Action Details

The Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes the environmental consequences of the Proposed Action (a four-lane, divided highway with a multi-use pathway) and the No Action Alternative, addressing impacts on physical, biological, and human environments. The document also outlines mitigation measures, public involvement outcomes, and compliance with National Environmental Policy Act and related federal and state regulations.

The Proposed Action includes:

• A four-lane divided highway with a 55-mile-per-hour (mph) design and posted speed
• A 14-mile, separated, multi-use pathway that meets Americans with Disabilities Act standards with safe crossings
• Turn lanes, consolidated pullouts, and frontage roads for safer access
• Expanded parking at major recreation sites
• Railroad realignment
• Rockfall catchment that meets requirements
• Construction would be phased over 15 to 20 years to keep traffic moving.

Learn more in the Draft EA Section 2 and Appendix F: Proposed Action Mapbook.

Draft EA Impact Highlights: Topography, Earthwork, and Blasting

The Proposed Action requires major earthwork: rock blasting, excavation, and fill placement. Approximately 40% of the corridor involves mountain cuts of varying heights. 

These changes are necessary to improve safety and reduce crash risks.

Explore the Sandbox to see where these features are planned. Details are provided in the Draft Environmental Assessment Section 3.1.1 and Appendix H: Geotechnical Data Review.

Draft EA Impact Highlights: Wildlife, Habitat, and Marine Mammals

The Proposed Action affects wetlands, wildlife habitat, and portions of the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. We’ve minimized impacts where possible and will provide mitigation through wetland banking and land replacement, where required by regulations.

Construction will follow strict timing windows to protect fish and birds.

Cook Inlet beluga whales and other marine mammals use Turnagain Arm. The Proposed Action includes in-water fill, but the National Marine Fisheries Service determined impacts will not adversely affect these species.

Mitigation includes timing restrictions and monitoring during construction.

See the Draft Environmental Assessment Section 3.2, Appendix I:Wetland/Waterbody Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Report, Appendix K: Essential Fish Habitat Report, Appendix L: Eagle Nest Survey Technical Report, and Appendix M: Section 7 Biological Assessment and Consultation for details.

Draft EA Impacts: Parks and Section 106 Resources

The Proposed Action uses land from Chugach State Park and the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. It also affects some recreation facilities, which will be rebuilt or relocated.

Historic properties (i.e., cultural resources eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Properties) were avoided, so the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with a finding of no adverse effects.

See the Draft Environmental Assessment Sections 3.3.5 and 3.3.11, Appendix S for the Section 4(f) Evaluation, and Appendix Q for Section 106 consultation details.

Draft EA Impacts: Draft Individual Section 4(f) Evaluation

Section 4(f) requires us to avoid or minimize impacts on parks, refuges, and historic sites. The Proposed Action uses land from Chugach State Park and the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge, but no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative exists.

Mitigation includes replacing park land, rebuilding trailheads, and adding grade-separated crossings.

The Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix S contains the Draft Individual Section 4(f) Evaluation. It outlines that there are no alternatives that can avoid Section 4(f) resources within the project area. The draft evaluation presents the basis for future decision making by DOT&PF, and public and agency input is solicited to inform the final evaluation. DOT&PF must discuss the basis for concluding that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of any Section 4(f) property and that all possible planning to minimize hard to the property has been included.

We need your comments addressing whether and how the draft Section 4(f) evaluation meets those requirements. 

Draft EA Impacts: Draft Individual Section 4(f) Evaluation

Section 4(f) requires us to avoid or minimize impacts on parks, refuges, and historic sites. The Proposed Action uses land from Chugach State Park and the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge, but no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative exists.

Mitigation includes replacing park land, rebuilding trailheads, and adding grade-separated crossings.

The Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix S contains the Draft Individual Section 4(f) Evaluation. It outlines that there are no alternatives that can avoid Section 4(f) resources within the project area. The draft evaluation presents the basis for future decision making by DOT&PF, and public and agency input is solicited to inform the final evaluation. DOT&PF must discuss the basis for concluding that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of any Section 4(f) property and that all possible planning to minimize hard to the property has been included.

We need your comments addressing whether and how the draft Section 4(f) evaluation meets those requirements.

Poster Text Includes:

• Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge
• Chugach State Park
• Historic sites
• Describes the Proposed Action’s use of Section 4(f) resources
• Assesses alternatives to determine if there is a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative
• Describes coordination with the land managers (“officials with jurisdiction”)
• Describes measures to minimize harm and mitigate impacts on Section 4(f) resources, including:
  • Rebuilding/enhancing affected trailheads, parking areas, and viewpoints
  • Providing grade-separated crossings connecting parking areas to the new multi-use pathway
  • Replacing park land lost to the project with land of equal or greater value under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Section 6(f) requirements.

What’s Next for the Overall Project? When is Construction?

Design starts only after the environmental process is complete and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is issued for the Proposed Action. Construction will be phased over 10 to 20 years to keep traffic flowing.

Each phase will include its own design, public involvement, and context-sensitive solutions process. When design is refined in future changes, each project will need to comply with the requirements of the FONSI or complete a re-evaluation of the environmental impacts.

See the Draft Environmental Assessment for details on next steps.

We would like your feedback.

Public comment period for the Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Individual Section 4(f) Evaluation is open from December 29, 2025, through February 12, 2026.

You can participate in the Safer Seward Highway Project in several ways. Scan the QR codes with your smartphone to instantly:

• Sign up for emails: You can receive meeting notices, project announcements, and other up-to-date information via email: http://eepurl.com/ih4q3n
• Leave a comment: You can leave a comment using forms available here or use the QR code below to submit them electronically: https://form.jotform.com/230466754071052
• Email us: You can email the project team directly at info@safersewardhighway.com.
• Call us: If you have any questions or require additional information, please leave a message for the project team at (907) 802-3656.

Mail us: You can mail the project to the following address:

Safer Seward Highway
c/o HDR
582 E 36th Ave., Ste 500
Anchorage, AK 99503