Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mike Mansfield Section 106 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
HPC finds GSA seismic retrofit of Mike Mansfield Federal Building poses no adverse effect
Summary
The Butte-Silver Bow Historic Preservation Commission on May 5 concluded a Section 106 review of the Mike Mansfield Federal Building seismic retrofit and modernization, finding the project consistent with No Adverse Effect after GSA described largely behind‑the‑scenes structural work and exterior masonry and terracotta repairs.
The Butte‑Silver Bow Historic Preservation Commission unanimously found the General Services Administration’s planned seismic retrofit and limited modernization of the Mike Mansfield Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse consistent with No Adverse Effect under Section 106 review.
Kate McCourt, Historic Preservation Officer for Butte‑Silver Bow, introduced the project as a primarily structural undertaking intended to meet seismic standards while restoring common spaces to a more historic appearance. McCourt said exterior work will address spalling granite, masonry efflorescence, repointing mortar joints, cleaning and sealing metal grating, and restoration of damaged terracotta features.
Steve Janzen, a GSA representative, told commissioners the work is “mostly structural to meet seismic standards, and most of the work will be behind the scenes.” He said the project includes replacement of non‑original window sashes with painted wood sashes and installation of an unobtrusive ADA‑accessible ramp at the building’s front.
Chairman Steve Hinick moved that the Section 106 review be found consistent with No Adverse Effect; Commissioner Russell O’Leary seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
The approval clears a key federal review step but does not describe final construction timing in detail. GSA representatives at the meeting included Dan Hill, Steve Janzen and Natalie Loukianoff; the HPO presented technical details on materials and treatments expected to be used. The commission’s action documents that its review considered impacts on the National Historic Landmark District and recorded the mitigation and materials choices discussed at the meeting.
The commission did not set a construction start date at the May 5 meeting. Follow‑up materials and technical reports (including mortar or materials analyses where applicable) were discussed as part of ongoing coordination between GSA and the HPO.
