The county then began putting up its own "road open" signs in areas the BLM had designated closed.

Earlier this year, the county began posting signs designating off-road vehicle routes in a wilderness study area, setting off another round of charges and accusations. Habbeshaw said the county plans to eventually post signs on all roads the county claims under RS2477.

Durbin wanted answers from Norton as to what specific legal steps the department intends to take to force Kane County to permanently remove all road signs placed on BLM lands in the county. There is no hint in Norton's response last Friday as to what those legal steps might be.

Rather, "We are urging Kane County to go forward with the consultation as the preferred alternative to that litigation, and the current indication is that negotiation will be their primary focus," Norton wrote.

Durbin's office could not be reached for comment Monday evening.

Habbeshaw described a two-tier process that will be followed in the negotiations.

First, the sides will address immediate issues. Then they will work "to resolve Kane County's RS2477 issues through a future process."

The 10th Circuit decision brought clarity to the matter, he said: "It created some duties and obligations on the BLM-Interior's part, and it also gave some direction to the counties that we're limited in our actions on these roads."

The sides should be able to sit at the table and come up with a solution, he said. Habbeshaw noted that the court said both have a duty to look out for the common good and that the sides need to have mutual respect in property rights issues.

"In other words," he said, "we should not infringe on public lands, resources and values, nor should the federal government infringe on rights-of-way that have been granted to the counties by Congress."

The disagreement involved rights or easements across federal land, he said, and that's where mutual respect comes in.

"If we have a valid, existing right, the BLM has a duty to recognize that right and let us operate with the scope of that right-of-way. We, on the other hand, have a duty ... to not take action that would impair, injure, either the public lands, the resources or their values."

These are rights the county has asserted as valid under state law, Habbeshaw noted.

The federal government will most likely develop a policy that allows a process to go ahead with agency determinations concerning right-of-way claims, he predicted. If rights-of-way are recognized, "We could manage the road, sign the road, (and) with consultation with the BLM we could make future improvements to the road."