right of way is to be made by” the federal land management agency.having authority over the lands in question. 848 F.2d at 1085. For the agency to be able to make that determination, Garfield County needs to communicate its plans to the Park Service in a meaningful fashion, and in turn, the Park Service has a duty to evaluate those plans and make the initial determination contemplated by Hodel in a timely and expeditious manner. If the County disagrees with the agency’s decision, it may appeal or seek judicial review. ... Id. at 1243-44 (footnote omitted). Although Garfield County involved an R.S. 2477 right of way within a National Park, we see no reason why consultation of this sort is not equally required with respect to R.S. 2477 routes across BLM land. Cf. Clouser, 42 F.3d at 1538 (<HOLDING>). The principle that the easement holder must
holding that regardless whether the trails in question are public highways under rs  2477 they are nonetheless subject to the forest service regulations recognizing that the forest service supervisor had authority to issue orders pursuant to 36 cfr  26150 holding under basic principles of property law that easement rights are subject to regulation by the forest service as the owner of the servient estate holding that national forest service had authority to forbid opening rs 2477 routes to motorized travel holding in suit under the administrative procedure act challenging us forest service approval of forest development plan that injury to aesthetic conservational or recreational interests is sufficient to confer standing