Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
109 Utah 213, 174 P.2d 148, 158 (1946)). This requires a system of coordination between the holder of the easement and the owner of the land through which it passes. The Court thus concluded that the BLM needed to make an “initial determination” regarding the reasonableness and necessity of any proposed improvements beyond mere maintenance of the previous condition of the road. Id. at 1084-85. This approach was elaborated and applied in district court cases after Hodel. In United States v. Garfield County, 122 F.Supp.2d 1201 (D.Utah 2000), the court held, with reference to the same road at issue in Hodel, that any road construction within the National Park, beyond “maintenance,” would require advance notification of the Park Service and mutual accommodation between the P Cir.1988) ; see also United States v. Jenks, 22 F.3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that proposed improvements to an rs 2477 route in a national preserve is subject to regulation by the national park service
B. holding that where a regulation could not fairly be read to have spoken at all on an issue an agencys proposed interpretation of the regulation as it pertained to that issue was not a reasonable interpretation of the regulation
C. holding ports authority was not an employer subject to the jurisdiction of the national labor relations board
D. holding that a district court may have jurisdiction over action taken by the national labor relations board despite an express statutory finality provision when the agency has acted in excess of its delegated powers and contrary to a specific prohibition in the national labor relations act
E. holding that a lessors interest can only be subject to liens arising from improvements performed on the leased property if the lease required the improvements or if under judicial interpretation the improvements were the pith of the lease
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.