2.  Add potential impacts for a 53/135 interchange  Meeting with FHWA to resolve issues  Do not have a plan/timetable from FHWA for review.  Submit to Cooperating Agencies (EPA and Corp of Engineers)  45 day review -April ?  Publish in May  45 day public review  Public hearing in 45 day period in Virginia area  Preferred Alternatives Selection  July 2014

3. - Contractors -3 grading -2 bridge -2 large firms -I JV - General Comments -Get a ROD as early as possible -Time = cost -Material delivery (ste el or geo grid) not an issue -Winter a huge risk -No consensus on flyrock - M-1 -Easiest to build – access and dry

4. - E-1a -Don’t dewater- many issues -Multiple crews needed – 24/7 construction -Access from both ends - E-2 -Use barges and traditional cranes -4- span Steel bridge is appropriate -Use drilled shafts -Candidate for launching girders (haunch issue) -Precast hollow bridge piers appropriate

5.  25% of water to the Enterprise pit and local lakes  West Two Rivers Reservoir ◦ 5.5 miles ◦ $13.7 million  Minntac Cell 2 Tailings Pond  6 miles  $21.6  3 month pumping + set up time  Costs not in E-1a estimate

6. - Ongoing this week - Emphasis on constructability & geotech - Ott Construction Consultants - Geo Tech -Nick LaFronz – Geo tech from the “Hoover Dam” bridge -Options instead of dewatering -Ideas for testing underwater - Report on Friday 10-noon -Smart Board – CO G22

7. Proposed TH 53 & TH 135 Interchange -Only E-1a & E-2 -M-1 major impacts -Cost (not included) -E-1a $ 4 million (reduces cut) -E-2 $7 million

8. Elements No Build Alternative Existing US 53 Alternative Alternative M‑1 (2 bridges) Alternative E-1A (w/out future bridge) B Alternative E-2 (1 bridge) Construction$1 to $2N/A$153 to 211$74 to 106$120 to 150 ROW/Land/ Mitigation N/A $400 to $600 $96 to 108$ 7 to 11$ 87 to 104 Total Capital Cost for Construction $1 to $2 $400 to $600 $248 to 319$81 to 117 B $207 to 254 B-C Ratio04.504.2510.915.86

9.  Existing Roadway  $400- $600 million per initial estimate  Does not include loss of revenue, jobs etc if mine cannot expand.  Flawed methodology per mine geologists  Rough calculations by geologists concur with range  Need full depth cores and assay to validate  Few cores done by MnDOT in 2001 in mine’s possession  Will allow to view, but not test.  Anecdotal information indicates high quality material with low silica  Require condemnation and possible Loss of Going Concern

10.  M-1 $95.5 million estimated  $75 million in AQ mitigation (model non-compliance)  $10 million in Minerals (Mine says too low)  $10 million in mine operating costs  $0.5 million for other properties  Mine has stated that they will not cooperate.  Will require condemnation- possible Loss of Going Concern claim  Cliffs Natural Resources & RGGS  Delay of 6 months +

11.  E-1a $6.8 million  $4.7 million estimated in ferrous minerals (assay results due end of March)  No gold costs, but low risk of gold.  Gold assay results due in May  If gold, 3 D easement  $500,000 in mine operating costs  Remainder in other properties/agreement with other parties.  Major agreement issues /risks  Air and Water Quality  No costs included.

12.  E-2 $87.4 million  $87 million in minerals discounted to present day  Not in operating mine or under lease  RGGS and School Trust  Both open to sale “if the price is right”  $0.4 million for other properties  Outside any leased or permit to mine area  No gold costs included  Awaiting assay results – due in June (both gold and ferrous)

13.  Changing EPA standards- re-evaluated every 5 years (NAAQS)  Two years behind schedule  May be new evaluation system with new standards  Must meet at mine boundary or at public receptors  Modeled or monitored non-compliance permitted by MPCA.  Mine could lose AQ permit (closure)  Existing T.H. 53 an exception to the permit to mine.  New rules for changing permit to mine boundaries.

14.  M-1 has modeled non-compliance over NW ¼ in mine  PM 10 (dust from trucks) passing under road  Southerly portion high – disperses dust  E-1a has modeled compliance with a margin of safety  Requires mine to relocate stock piles.  All mining on one side of the road.  Modeled at 4% grade – high above operation  Several low volume roads in Permit to mine areas with monitors.

15.  Mine  Fewer trucks –large cost, need to retrofit crusher  Alternate conveyance system in pit (rail, conveyor belts)  More watering/dust control –winter issues  Pave in-pit roads – continually changing routes  State  Cover and possible fans - $40-75 million  Change permit to mine boundary –  EPA variance – no process

16.  All road run off must be captured or will re-open mine NPDES permit  If mine NPDES re-opened must meet standards for entire mine ($$)  M-1 – storm sewer and ponds on north end  E-1a - sag in middle of pit  Additional concern for drinking water supply.  Series of ponds (need MPCA concurrence)  Storm sewer- possible pumping  Need agreement on storm/BMP’s to mitigate.

17.  How do we transfer risk to mine?  Agreement on issues and standards  Possible payment  Negotiate Permit to Mine Boundary with DNR  Mining Commissioners Board  Will mine need an EAW to expand boundary?  Appropriate parties for negotiation.  Next steps - Nex

18. May 5, 2017