Federal Court Lifts Stehekin Road Construction Restraint After Considering Residents’ Public-Safety Concerns

October 2026 | Litigation, Environmental & Natural Resources, Land Use

On October 22, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington denied a motion for preliminary injunction and lifted an existing temporary restraining order (TRO) that had halted emergency road construction within the Stehekin River. The ruling in North Cascades Conservation Council v. National Park Service, No. 2:26-cv-03318-JHC, highlights the importance of public safety and the balance of equities in environmental litigation, even where a plaintiff demonstrates a likelihood of success on a claim under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The dispute arose after severe flooding in December 2025 destroyed a portion of Company Creek Road, disrupting vehicle access to homes in the Stehekin Valley. In response, the National Park Service (NPS) authorized emergency road construction within a portion of the Stehekin River channel that had shifted during the flood. In September 2026, the Court issued a TRO temporarily halting construction based on concerns about the adequacy of the NPS’s NEPA analysis and potential environmental impacts.

Cairncross & Hempelmann represented the Stehekin Heritage Defense Committee (SHDC), a nonprofit organization representing affected residents and property owners, in seeking leave to participate as amicus curiae. SHDC submitted declarations addressing the reliability of temporary road access, access to emergency medical services, flood risks, and the consequences of continued construction delays.

In its October 22 order, the Court granted SHDC’s request to participate and expressly recognized that affected residents offered perspectives not adequately represented by either party. The Court considered SHDC’s evidence in evaluating the balance of equities and the public interest.

Although the Court maintained its earlier assessment of the NEPA issues and recognized potential environmental harm, it concluded that the risks to Stehekin residents weighed against continuing the injunction. The Court therefore denied the motion for preliminary injunction and lifted the TRO, allowing emergency road construction to proceed.

Practical implications

The decision illustrates that, even when a court finds that a plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of a NEPA claim, preliminary injunctive relief does not automatically follow. Courts will also consider the consequences of stopping a project, including risks to public safety and other potential impacts to communities in the project vicinity.

The ruling also highlights the potential value of participation by nonparties whose interests are not fully represented by the existing litigants. Focused declarations and evidence documenting the real-world consequences of project delays can provide important context for a court’s equitable analysis.

Cairncross & Hempelmann’s land-use, environmental, and litigation attorneys represent clients in complex permitting disputes, infrastructure matters, and proceedings involving federal, state, and local regulatory agencies.