it would be very strange if roadlessness, a key factor in determining one of the wilderness characteristics, was alone worthy of NEPA consideration, while other statutorily-enumerated wilderness characteristics were not. Our roadlessness cases, then, are consistent with our holding that a landscape’s wilderness characteristics generally must be considered in NEPA documents prepared for land use plans concerning that landscape, regardless of whether permanent wilderness preservation is an option. 4. The BLM’s Response In addition to insisting, in light of the completion in 1991 of its § 1782 wilderness report, that it had no NEPA duty to address ONDA’s wilderness characteristics concerns, BLM advances three counterarguments to the reasoning we have set out .3d 1163, 1173 (11th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Sw. Williamson County Cmty. Ass’n v.
holding fda seizure action did not constitute final agency action holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence holding that the rod and eis for a program were final agency action holding that it appears wellestablished that a final eis or the rod issued thereon constitute the final agency action for purposes of the apa and collecting cases holding it well settled that a final eis or the record of decision issued thereon constitute  final agency action 