1. ECNM Meeting October 1, 2014

2. Project Purpose The purpose of the US 53 project is to address the termination of the 1960 easement agreement that affects the current highway location in order to continue to provide a transportation facility that will safely maintain adequate roadway capacity and mobility as well as local, regional, and inter-regional connectivity

3. ● 1960 Easement Agreement with US Steel – Expires May 5, 2017 3

4. MnDOT Project Goals  Allow existing TH 53 area to be entirely or partially vacated and mined by May of 2017  Construct the project to provide best value while minimizing future maintenance costs  Minimize impacts to the environment  Minimize or eliminate future risk to MnDOT related to mining operations  Minimize impacts to all project stakeholders (includes utilities)

5. Project Givens  Total Project cost: $290  Preferred alignment will be selected Fall 2014  Bridge construction will be steel or concrete  Four lane facility  Interchange @ TH 135  Bridge Option on E1A or E2; fill option not moving forward  RECORD OF DECISION by August of 2014  Start construction: Fall 2015  Finish construction: Fall 2017  Easement is permanent – no future moves

6. Initial Alignment Alternatives - 2011  West (W) Alignments (10+ mi.); four alignments using existing travel corridors;  Middle/Mine (M) Alignments (approx. 2 mi.) – Would use the now-filled Auburn Pit grade  East (E) Alignments (3-5 mi.); four alignments, characterized by a crossing of the Rouchleau Pit 6

7. Alternative M-1 PRELIMINARY – Subject to Change Looking Northwest

8. Alternative M-1  Pros  Short/direct route  Cons  High Construction costs and schedule Risks  Geotechnical issues  Bridge foundations subject to mine blasting  Not supported by landowner  Air and Water quality issues  Steep grades  No trail  No direct connection to 2 nd Avenue

9. M1 Typical Section

10. 10

11. February 21, 2013 Notified by Cliffs Natural Resources that they would not support the M-1 route.  Environmental ◦ Air and Water Quality  Safety  Mineral Resource encumbrance  Mine Operations ◦ Temporary Construction ◦ Permanent – lack of access in mine 11

12. February 21, 2013  CLOCK TICKING Notified by Cliffs Natural Resources that they would not support the M-1 route.  Environmental ◦ Air and Water Quality  Safety  Mineral Resource encumbrance  Mine Operations ◦ Temporary Construction ◦ Permanent – lack of access in mine 12

13.  Added in March 2013  Strong public opposition  Lack of connectivity  Outside of resource areas  No options for utilities  Economic Study  User costs $323 m over 20 yrs  Average commuter -$3,000 yr  Major impacts to East Range  Housing  Employment W1-A

14. August 23, 2013

15. August 23, 2013  CLOCK TICKING

16. Build Routes in the 2013 Amended Scoping Decision Document

17. Build Alternatives PRELIMINARY Looking Southwest

19. Alternative E-1A – Alignment (Fill) PRELIMINARY – Subject to Change Looking Southwest

20. Drilling – 2013 and 2014

21. E-1A Alignment Results of Resistivity Study Recovered Core Samples from Drilling Submerged Haul Road Embankment 40 – 120ft Mine Waste Rock Boulders/Cobbles over Cherty Bedrock

22. E-1A Embankment Design Stability Analysis – Typical Section

23. Alternative E-1A– Alignment (Fill)  Pros  Less resource encumbrance than E2  Utility corridor  Connection to 2 nd Avenue  Cons  High Construction Costs and Schedule Risks  Geotechnical issues  4% grades  Low point in pit  Air and Water quality issues  Future bridge for haul trucks  Seismic concerns/setbacks

24. Alternative E-1A – Alignment Bridge PRELIMINARY – Bridge Type and Pier Location TBD Looking Southwest

25. Alternative E-1A – Alignment Bridge  Pros  Small footprint  No dewatering required  Good roadway profile  Little resource encumbrance  Manageable schedule risks  Cons  Geotechnical issues  Future bridge operating costs  High Construction Costs  Winter maintenance – icing  Tall piers  Utilities placement  Seismic concerns  Air and Water quality issues

26. Alternative E-2 PRELIMINARY – Bridge Type and Pier Location TBD Looking North

27. Alternative E-2  Pros  Shortest bridge  Not in permit to mine area  More bridge type options  Less bridge maintenance  Lowest Construction Costs and Schedule Risks  Cons  Large resource encumbrance – maybe 100 million Long Tons Crude Tons  Longer alignment  Tall piers  Geotechnical issues

28. Environmental Work To Date  Traffic  Right-of-Way  Economic and Business  Parks & Recreation/Section 4(f)/6(f) Lands  Cultural Resources  Land Use  Environmental Justice  Social, Neighborhood, and Community Facility Impacts  Visual and Aesthetic Impacts  Utilities  Water Supply and Water Body Modification  Wetlands  Surface Water/Water Quantity and Quality  Geology and Soils/Soil Erosion  Noise  Air Quality  Vegetation and Cover Types  Fish & Wildlife/Threatened & Endangered Species  Hazardous Materials and Contaminated Properties  Excess Material  Geotechnical and Earthborne Vibration  Climate Change  Construction Related Impacts

29. Engineering Work To Date  Land Surveys  Preliminary geometric layouts  Preliminary bridge analysis  Borings and testing in pits  Drainage study  Preliminary construction scheduling  Subsurface Taconite Assessment and Drilling Report  Alternative M-1 Air Quality Mitigation Assessment  Traffic Analysis Technical Report  Roadway soils borings  Water Management Study  Water Resources Technical Report  Environmental Site Assessments (hazardous materials and contamination)  Noise Impacts Technical Report  Geotechnical Engineering Reports  Seismic Study  Economic Impact Study  Constructability Reviews

30. Draft Environmental Impact Statement  Status  Reviewed by FHWA  EIS Process  Identification of the preferred alternative  Publication of Draft EIS  Public comment period  Final EIS  Record of Decision

31. Engineering Issues (all alternatives)  Probably the most challenging project in the nation  Geotechnical  Unknown, non-homogenous mine fill - difficult to quantify characteristics  No similar examples worldwide  Stability for high fills and bridge foundations  Inability to test under water

32. Examples of Challenges  Bridge foundations – non-uniform fill  Hardest rock in the world  Limited construction seasons  Access to the pit areas  Seismic (blasting) affects  Water quality concerns/drinking water  ROW costs and mine regulations  Highest bridge in state

33. Blatnik Bridge

34. Bridge Comparison PRELIMINARY – Bridge Type and Pier Location TBD

35. Last Engineering issues = Foundations  Drilling in the Rouchleau Pit (2013 and 2014)  Test cores  Electro resistivity  Seismic testing  Rotosonic sampling  Soil borings and exploration along routes  Geological mapping  Researching old records  Numerous technical experts on specific topics from MnDOT and nationwide working as a team

36. Test Foundations Contract  Three different types of bridge foundations  6’ diameter drilled shaft  16” and 24” drilled pile  Currently working on access Road  Drilling to start Mid October

37. Drilled Shaft and Drilled Pile

40. Test Foundation Results  Determine feasibility of construction within the existing fill material  Indicate optimum type of foundation and time to place  Will guide the bridge type  Refine schedule and cost information

41. Frequently Asked Questions  What is the current project cost?  Current construction cost estimates range from $150 million to $300 million. Easement costs currently being negotiated.  Where will the money come from?  Currently have $290 million. Some state and some Federal.

42. How will the project schedule be expedited?  Take Risk on choosing preferred alternative in the Draft EIS stage – Fall 2014  Concurrent activities  Design  EIS  Easements being negotiated  Design factors to include rapid construction techniques  CMGC construction  Accelerated construction methods

43. Questions?

44. Upcoming Meetings  Coffee & Conversation  Thursday, October 2, 2014 – 10:00 – 11:00 am  MnDOT Virginia Office, 101 Hoover Road