2. 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. 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)

4.  Build Routes: ◦ M1 through UTAC ◦ E1A through the Rouchleau Pit (Fill and Bridge) ◦ E2 through the Rouchleau Pit  No-Build Routes: ◦ No-build (close the existing highway) ◦ Existing TH 53 (buy the easement)

6. PRELIMINARY – Subject to Change Looking Northwest

7.  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

8. PRELIMINARY – Subject to Change Looking Southwest

9. Stability Analysis – Typical Section

10.  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

11. PRELIMINARY – Bridge Type and Pier Location TBD Looking Southwest

12.  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

13. PRELIMINARY – Bridge Type and Pier Location TBD Looking North

14.  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 – ◦ Longer alignment ◦ Tall piers ◦ Geotechnical issues

15. Alternative E-2 Bridge Must accommodate Mesabi Trail & Utilities

17. Project Limits Proposed gas line Proposed electric substation Existing Utilities Virginia Eveleth Midway (Virginia)

18. StepsTimeframe DEIS publicationDecember 22, 2014 Public comment period for DEIS - 45 days.Ends February 5, 2015 Consultant prepares Draft combined FEIS/ROD ( 1 mo) February-early March 2015 Consultant submit Draft combined FEIS/ROD to OES March 9, 2015 OES review and commentMarch 23, 2015 Consultant revise combined FEIS/ROD per OES comments March 30, 2015 OES submit to FHWAApril 1, 2015 May 1, 2015 FHWA Review (30 days) Consultant submit revised FEIS (state publication version) to District/OES May 19, 2015 Consultant submit revised FEIS (state publication version) to FHWA May 21, 2015 District/OES approve and FHWA “approve” pending FEIS/ROD updates to occur in July By June 11, 2015 EQB Monitor DeadlineJune 15, 2015 - Publish FEIS under state rules - Beginning of state comment period (10 business days). June 22, 2015 End of state comment periodJuly 6, 2015 FHWA/MnDOT agreement on additional noise balloting July 16, 2015 Noise ballot mailingJuly 17, 2015 Consultant/OES submit FEIS/ROD including all updates EXCEPT final noise voting information to FHWA. July 27, 2015 Meeting for additional noise wall votersAug 3, 2015 Submission of early Legal Sufficiency ReviewAugust 6, 2015? Receipt of votes on noise wall August 15, 2015 Consultant updates early Legal Sufficiency review version of FEIS/ROD to add final noise voting with conclusion/submits to OES August 17, 2015 Consultant completes revised Legal Sufficiency review version of FEIS/ROD and submits to OES and FHWA August 19, 2015 FHWA submits for enhanced Legal Sufficiency Review August 21, 2015 FHWA enhanced Legal Sufficiency Review of FEIS (2 weeks) August 24 -September 4, 2015 Receipt of Legal Sufficiency Review (to account for Labor Day) September 8, 2015 Consultant revise FEIS/ROD based on Legal Sufficiency Review September 10, 2015 MnDOT issues Adequacy Determination September 11,2015 Obtain MnDOT and FHWA signatures for FEIS/ROD September 15, 2015 FHWA submit FEIS/ROD to Federal Register publication By September 16, 2015 FEIS/ROD Publication in Federal Register By September 25, 2015 DONE 15 DAYS EARLY!

19.  What is it?  Why are we using it?  Construction Manager / General Contractor (CMGC) is an integrated approach to planning, designing and constructing a project. Owners, designers and contractors work collaboratively to develop the project scope, optimize the design, improve quality, and manage cost.

20. CMGC Contractor Procurement for Professional/Technical Service CMGC = Construction Manager General Contractor

21.  The project team worked in the Metro from March through September with the designer (Parsons Transportation Group) and Contractor (Kiewit) to: ◦ Refine work package contents. ◦ Advance the design work on three work packages. ◦ Design in constructability and risk reduction. ◦ Quantify baseline schedule and cost based on design information.

22.  A “work package” is a separate CMGC contract – a sub-project of the entire project to optimize the construction schedule and completion date.

23.  This contract is material procurement only.  Purchased prior to the completion of the environmental process at risk.  Cost: $17 million  Bid date: May 8, 2015  Estimated arrival: Summer of 2016

24.  Bridge of Rouchleau Pit  Roadway  Interchange with Bridge over TH 53  Drainage  Lighting  New signal at 2 nd Avenue West

25.  Bridge 69129: The big one ◦ Vetted bridge type and started formal bridge design in March 2015 ◦ The design was 100% complete 9/18/15 ◦ This is an incredible accomplishment!

27.  Bridge 69129: The big one

30. Borings needed here

32.  Roadway Design: ◦ Started in March 2015 ◦ Original goal was to finish in November of 2015 ◦ July 2015: Decision made to combine roadway package with bridge package  This meant accelerating roadway design by two months.  Completed: October 7, 2015

34. November begin construction Completion Date: November 2017