It's good to have trailhead numbers but current and projected use levels just don't, to me, justify the sometimes draconian sounding numbers they propose nor the headers of the alternatives. The several other comments sent me from NPS friends seem to agree with this, so maybe there's hope they'll rethink this.
Remember these are preliminary draft alternatives just used in scoping (getting feedback from public). The Draft EIS will include a Purpose and Need and Affected Environment. The need portion must clearly state the issues and the Affected Environment should provide the data to substantiate that the issues are real. Failure to do so would constitute a fatal flaw in the courts. The alternatives then will be tweaked (my guess is significantly from what we have seen) to address the Issues described under "Need." Finally the "Enviornmental Consequences" of the alternatives must be described and these include not only consequences on the "environment of the wilderness" but also on the "users." Because the mechanism for developing the plan is an EIS an alternative that has impacts that can be considered "bad" can be chosen if the decision maker considers the negative stuff necessary to achieve an overall best choice. For example a certain amount of impacts of overall use may be acceptable close to trailheads (for example lack of Solitude) in order to provide reasonable access to more distant destinations.
Anyhow I would not be surprised if we are 2 years away from a draft EIS (which will provide another comment period and 4 to 5 years from now for the Final (another opportunity to provide imput and a time at which imput must be made by individuals and organizations if they might be willing to go to court to change a decision). You can't enter the "game" or cause "overtime" unless you participate in the process to establish "status."