This is new information and quite bad for AZC. If you look at the alternatives that the USF is considering, 4 out of the 5 options would essentially kill the project. All of the alternatives to the proposed action call for an alternative way (which would be economically prohibitive) of mining the deposit. I have pasted the Forest Service presentation below.
It is not at all clear that the USFD's preview statement is "quite bad" news for AZC. I've read the entire preview statement (see cite at bottom)- not just the totally unedifying power-point that you cite. It does include alternatives to the plan of operation proposed by AZC. Presumably those alternative plans are less efficient than that proposed by AZC- perhaps even "economically prohibitive" as you say. However, the fact that the USFD is evaluating alternative plans is not necessarily bad news.
I am no expert on mining regulatory processes but it is not clear to me (or you) that the evaluation of alternative plans is not standard in the USFD's DEIS process. Certainly, in this case, the USFD has an interest in avoiding the appearance of rubber-stamping the AZC's proposed plan since Rosemont is such a controversial project. So, the fact that they are considering other projects in their evaluation does not compel the conclusion that those alternatives are really in play.
For instance, I have no idea what most of the alternative plans entail but I am familiar with one: the "no action" plan. It has come up in the news in the past (as you know DMJ bec we've argued about it). The no-action plan is NOT a legally viable alternative. In the past, the USFD has stated that it is not a legally viable alternative. It is ONLY being evaluated now to appease local activists (who tweaked when the USFD originally issued the statement). You know this.
Also, if you look at the preview statement, it offers guidlines for the evaluation and those guidelines take into consideration the effect of a particular alternative on operational efficiency. Because those guidelines also include an overriding policy objective to support "minerals development" in the area, if the alternative plans are as clearly "economically prohibitive" as you suggest they are, they are probably not viable alternatives. Of course, I bet you knew all of this DMJ becase you seem up on your Green Valley news.
That's what makes your posts so distasteful. They are incredibly disingenuous. Please do not misrepresent yourself as as a disinterested investor. Whether or not you hold a position in AZC,it is clear from your previous posts that you are a disgruntled local and that your participation on this message board is aimed at discouraging investment in AZC. Nobody expects a full-disclosure on that point but painting yourself as a disinterested investor is just wrong.