21, es governing easements, the Garfield County court stated, “Where rights-of-way and easements are concerned, one party cannot serve as the sole judge of scope and extent, or as the sole arbiter of what is ‘reasonable and necessary.’ ” 122 F.Supp.2d at 1242. “And ‘ordinarily ... no. material changes can be made by either party without the other’s .consent....’” Id. at 1243 (quoting 28A C.J.S. Easements § 173, at 391). The court concluded: Hodel instructs that “the initial determination of whether the activity falls within an establishe rcise its rights so as not to interfere unreasonably with the rights of the owner of the servient estate, derives from general principles of the common law of easements rather than the peculiar status of National Parks.' See Jenks, 22 F.3d at 1518 (<HOLDING>). Just as the National Park Service has
holding that the burden on the servient estate cannot be increased without the consent of the owners of the servient estate and that the owner of the dominant estate to which the appurtenant easement is attached has no power to convey or expand use of that easement in connection with a tract of land owned by another 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 recognizing that the dominant easement owner not the servient estate owner bears responsibility for maintaining an easement holding that the duty to maintain an easement was upon those entitled to its use rather than upon the servient estate holding that an easement is not a separate estate when dominant and servient tracts are under the same ownership