Idaho SHPO

I am an architectural historian whose recent work has focused on the same kinds of evidence this position handles: National Register research, architectural survey, ICRIS documentation, field photography, mapping, and public interpretation.

With TAG Historical Research and Consulting, I co-prepared the Meridian Water Tower National Register nomination under Criterion A in community planning and development and Criterion C in engineering. I wrote the architectural description and historic context, evaluated integrity, the period of significance, and the boundary justification, and completed the field photography. That project taught me how closely the research, physical evidence, maps, and photographs must agree.

I have documented more than 350 properties in Boise’s North End and am documenting more than 180 in the East End. For the Parma School District survey, I developed a KML system connecting photographs to GPS coordinates and camera directions. I also used EXIF and GIS data to organize images by property and view. The technology was not the point. The point was creating consistent records that another reviewer could understand and verify.

My preservation work in Boise, Parma, Payette, and Weiser, along with StoryMaps, tours, community writing, and work with historic-property owners, has taught me to explain statewide standards in practical terms. I hold a Master of Architectural History and a Certificate in Historic Preservation from the University of Virginia.

I could contribute quickly to nomination review, survey quality, historic-context research, documentation, and technical assistance. I have not administered the federal rehabilitation tax-credit program or run the Historic Sites Review Board. I would learn those responsibilities through the governing standards, active files, office procedures, and experienced staff. From the first day, I would bring strong Idaho field knowledge, careful documentation, and the judgment to verify facts before giving a definitive answer.

The technology was not the point. The point was creating consistent records that another reviewer could understand and verify.

The area where I could contribute most quickly is architectural survey and the quality of the documentation behind it.

I documented more than 350 properties in Boise’s North End between June and December 2025, and I am documenting more than 180 in the East End. For TAG, I also surveyed the Parma School District campus, including its schools, gymnasium, administrative office, athletic fields, and associated resources. That gave me experience with both large residential surveys and a complex institutional campus.

What I learned at that scale is that fieldwork is only the first half of the job. The record must remain clear and internally consistent months later. For Parma, I developed a KML system connecting photographs to GPS coordinates and camera directions. I used EXIF and GIS data to organize images by property and view. The purpose was to make sure the photo logs, file names, directional descriptions, maps, and written records agreed, and that someone who had never visited the property could still understand and verify the documentation.

That experience translates directly to reviewing surveys completed by staff, consultants, and CLGs over many years. I would begin by learning how this office applies its ICRIS conventions and survey-review standards, because consistency with the statewide record matters more than any particular system I bring with me. I could contribute immediately through careful field judgment, organized records, and practical quality control.

Fieldwork is only the first half of the job. The record must remain clear and internally consistent months later.

I have not administered the federal rehabilitation tax credit. My closest experience is different in kind, not a smaller version of the same thing. As a California realtor working with historic properties, I explained Mills Act benefits and owner obligations to buyers and owners. That taught me to make an incentive program clear to people with money and property decisions at stake. The Mills Act provides local property-tax relief, not a federal income-tax credit, and I would not present the programs as equivalent.

I understand the program’s basic structure. Part 1 documents significance and, when necessary, seeks certified historic structure status. Part 2 describes proposed work and evaluates it against the Standards for Rehabilitation. Applicants should submit it before work begins because proceeding first places the project at risk. Part 3 documents completed work and requests certification. SHPO reviews, advises, recommends, and forwards the application. NPS makes the certification decisions. The IRS administers the credit and the tax rules, including the substantial-rehabilitation test.

I would study recent Idaho files alongside the governing guidance, especially projects requiring more information, conditions, design revisions, or an adverse recommendation. Those files show how the Standards apply to actual Idaho projects. I would also use NPS guidance and relevant Preservation Briefs and observe experienced reviewers before handling consequential questions independently.

My experience reading drawings, documenting existing conditions, and identifying character-defining features gives me a foundation for Part 2 review. I would still need to develop rehabilitation judgment under the Standards, knowledge of program precedent, and the boundary between SHPO technical assistance and decisions reserved to NPS. Until my judgment was calibrated, I would route consequential recommendations through my supervisor and be candid about what I could and could not decide.

My closest experience is different in kind, not a smaller version of the same thing.

I would begin with the office’s established procedures, prior commitments, statewide preservation priorities, and direction from my supervisor. I would not create a new priority system in the middle of a deadline. Consistency is what protects the office when people disagree with an outcome.

I would review the entire queue using the same written criteria. The first question is readiness: which nominations are complete, technically adequate, and able to meet owner and local-government notice requirements and the Board packet deadline? Triaging on readiness is familiar work. On the East End survey, I have had to sequence a large queue of properties by which records were actually complete, rather than by which properties I found most interesting.

Next, I would identify nominations deferred from an earlier cycle or already given a documented commitment. If more nominations remained ready than the office could review, I would apply any adopted statewide, geographic, or program priorities. I would consider other urgency only when office policy permitted it and the circumstances were documented. I would take difficult ties to my supervisor rather than make an informal exception.

I would communicate decisions early and in writing. A preparer whose nomination could not advance would receive the specific reason, one consolidated list of required revisions, the next Board date, and the internal deadline for a complete revised draft. For substantive issues, I would offer a short technical meeting so the preparer understood the path forward.

I would not guarantee anyone a place on the agenda or a particular Board outcome. Scheduling depends on a complete nomination and procedural deadlines, and the Board exercises its own judgment. The goal would be a decision that was fair, explainable, and supported by the file.

I would not create a new priority system in the middle of a deadline. I would take difficult ties to my supervisor rather than make an informal exception.

1. Office procedures and supervisory direction.
2. Completeness and technical readiness.
3. Notice and packet deadlines.
4. Prior deferrals and documented commitments.
5. Adopted statewide, geographic, or program priorities.
6. Documented urgency when policy permits.
7. Supervisor review for close or unusual cases.

My understanding is that this position supports Section 106 rather than leading it. The office has compliance staff for that work. The National Register side connects through eligibility because determinations of eligibility, National Register listings, and the survey record help the compliance process identify historic properties.

I would not make an effect determination for a federal agency. Under Part 800, the federal agency identifies historic properties within the area of potential effects, applies the criteria of adverse effect, and makes the finding. SHPO’s role is consultative. The office may concur, not concur, or request more information.

If an agency contacted me directly, I would first clarify what it was asking. If the question concerned National Register eligibility, I could research it, but I would coordinate the response with the compliance staff so the office spoke with one voice. If the agency was asking me to make the effect finding itself, I would explain that the finding belongs to the agency and connect it with the appropriate compliance staff member for SHPO review and consultation.

I would document the contact either way. In consultation, a phone call that is not written down becomes a problem later.

In consultation, a phone call that is not written down becomes a problem later.

I would not guarantee placement on the agenda. I would explain that scheduling depends on a complete, technically adequate nomination and enough time to satisfy notice and Board-packet requirements.

I would promptly complete a focused review and document the deficiencies in one consolidated response. The period of significance must follow from the historic context and the events or development patterns that make the property significant. The integrity analysis must identify which of the seven aspects matter to that significance and explain how the property still conveys it. The photographs and photo log must correspond so the Board and NPS can tell exactly what each image shows and where the camera was facing.

I would separate corrections required for the nomination to advance from minor editorial comments. I would give the consultant a realistic deadline for a corrected draft and offer a short technical meeting to resolve substantive questions. At the same time, I would verify whether a revised submission could still satisfy owner and local-government notice periods and the Board packet deadline.

If the consultant submitted a complete and defensible revision in time, I would move it through the normal review process. If not, I would defer it to the next meeting, provide the next submission deadline, and explain the path to completion. I would document the review, the decision, and all communication in the file.

After resolving the immediate submission, I would consider whether earlier check-ins or draft milestones could prevent the same problem in the next cycle. Proactive communication matters, but it does not replace a complete record or the required public process.

Answer the facts in front of you before discussing how better planning might have prevented them. Prevention is the final step, not the opening answer.

1. Do not guarantee an agenda position.
2. Review against governing requirements.
3. Consolidate deficiencies in writing.
4. Separate required corrections from minor edits.
5. Verify notice and packet deadlines.
6. Offer technical help and a realistic deadline.
7. Advance only if the revision becomes complete and defensible in time.
8. Document the decision and communication.
9. Improve the process after resolving the case.