Loring AFB Cold War Study

A SYSTEMIC STUDY OF AIR COMBAT COMMAND
COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE
VOLUME II-16: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR

MATERIAL CULTURE AT LORING AIR FORCE BASE
Prepared for
Headquarters, Air Combat Command
Langley Air Force Base, Virginia
Prepared by
James A. Lowe
David P. Staley
Katherine J. Roxlau
Mariah Associates, Inc.

Albuquerque, New Mexico
MAI Project 735-15
Under
Contract DACA 63-92-D-0011
for
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Fort Worth District
August 1997
United States Air Force

Air Combat Command
Volume II-16: Loring Air Force Base
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
James A. Lowe and David P. Staley of Mariah Associates, Inc. conducted a Cold War material
culture inventory at Loring Air Force Base, Maine, between July 18 and 21, 1994. This project to
ascertain extant Cold War resources important to the base's Cold War context and to the Cold War
national history was conducted as part of the Air Combat Command Cold War Study under the
ongoing Department of Defense Legacy Program. On site inspections were conducted to inventory
the resources. This was then augmented with information gathered from the Civil Engineering,
Public Affairs, and Wing History offices. During this inventory and research, resources were
identified and then photographed.
The team selected four resources to further document and evaluate as important to the base's Cold
War context: the Bomber Alert Facility, two Large Aircraft Maintenance Docks, and a Segregated
Storage Igloo. These facilities represent the United States Air Force alert posture, deterrent
capability, and weapons delivery potential during the Cold War. Recommendations for all four of
the resources include eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places, stewardship, and further
documentation.
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACC
ACHP
ADC
AFB
AFS
AGE
AMC
AMMS
AMS
amsl
AREFS
BMS
BMW
DoD
DRMO
FIS
FMS
FTD
HABS
ICBM
MAC
Mariah
MMS
NCO
NHPA
NPS
NRHP
OCONUS
OMS
ORI
PME
RAPCON
SAC
SAGE
SALT
SDI
SHPO
SRAM
START
TAC
USAF
Air Combat Command

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Air Defense Command
Air Force Base
Air Force Station
Air Ground Equipment
Air Materiel Command
Airborne Missile Maintenance Squadron
Avionics Maintenance Squadron
above mean sea level
Air Refueling Squadron
Bombardment Squadron
Bombardment Wing
Department of Defense
Defense Reutilization Marketing Office
Fighter Interceptor Squadron
Field Maintenance Squadron
Field Training Detachment
Historic American Buildings Survey
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
Military Airlift Command
Mariah Associates, Inc.
Munitions Maintenance Squadron
Non-Commissioned Officer
National Historic Preservation Act
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Off the Continental United States
Organizational Maintenance Squadron
Operation Readiness Inspection
Precision Measurement Equipment
Radar Approach Control Center
Strategic Air Command
Semi-Automatic Ground Environment
Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty
Strategic Defense Initiative
State Historic Preservation Officer
Short Range Attack Missile
Strategic Arms Reduction Talks
Tactical Air Command
ii
iii
GLOSSARY
Anti-Ballistic Missile Protocol - signed in 1974, this agreement amends the Strategic Arms
Limitation Treaty I by reducing the number of anti-ballistic missile systems deployed by the
United States and the Soviet Union to one each.
Capehart Housing Act - passed in 1955 as an amendment to the National Housing Act. It
authorized the use of quarters allowances to pay off Wherry housing mortgages.
Construction of new houses was set at 46,500 units at 88 bases. Construction was begun on
9,000 units by 1957.
Defense Triad - a group of three weapons systems that was viewed by President Eisenhower at the
end of the 1950s as the basis for stable deterrence between the United States and the Soviet
Union. The weapons systems included the B-52 bomber, the Polaris submarine launched
ballistic missile, and the Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile.
Historic American Buildings Survey - a division of the National Park Service, this office
provides documentation of historically significant buildings, structures, sites, or objects.
Documentation includes measured drawings, perspective corrected photographs, a written
history, and field documentation.
Killian Report - (also known as the Surprise Attack Study) a list of recommendations presented to
the National Security Council for building the U.S. military. It contains recommendations
for research and development of new technologies, including long-range nuclear missiles,
dispersal of the country's existing bomber force, and development of early warning radar
systems.
Legacy Program - a preservation program developed by the Department of Defense to identify and
conserve irreplaceable biological, cultural, and geophysical resources, and to determine how
to better integrate the conservation of these resources with the dynamic requirements of
military missions.
Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty - a multilateral agreement signed by over 100 nations. The
treaty prohibits nuclear testing underwater, in the atmosphere, and in outer space. It does
not prohibit underground testing. The Treaty, signed in 1963, aimed to reduce
environmental damage caused by nuclear testing.
National Emergency War Order - the war plan kept by the President and other national command
authorities that directs the function of individual military bases should the nation go to war.
iv
GLOSSARY (Continued)
National Register of Historic Places - a listing, maintained by the Keeper of the Register under
the Secretary of the Interior, of historic buildings, districts, landscapes, sites, and objects.
NSC 68 - a National Security Council document developed in 1950 which recommended the
massive build-up of U.S. military forces to counteract the perceived goal of world
domination by the Soviet Union.
Section 106 - a review process in the National Historic Preservation Act by which effects of an
undertaking on a historic or potentially historic property are evaluated.
Section 110 - a requirement in the National Historic Preservation Act that all Federal agencies
locate, identify, inventory, and nominate to the Secretary of Interior all properties, owned or
under control of the agency, that appear to qualify for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places.
Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty I - signed in 1972, this was the first treaty to actually limit the
number of nuclear weapons deployed. Anti-ballistic missile systems and strategic missile
launchers were the weapons systems limited in this agreement.
Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty II - developed in 1979, this treaty further limited the number of
nuclear weapons deployed by each side by setting numerically equal limits. The treaty also
addresses modernization of systems for the first time, allowing development of only one
new intercontinental ballistic missile. Though this agreement was not signed, due to
deteriorization of United States and Soviet Union relations in the late 1970s, both sides
agreed to abide by its terms.
Strategic Arms Reduction Talks - a series of negotiations in 1982 and 1983 between the United
States and the Soviet Union that sought to reduce the number of strategic nuclear weapons.
No agreement was ever reached, primarily because neither side could agree on which
weapons to reduce. The Soviet Union walked out of the negotiations after the United States
began deploying Pershing II ballistic missiles and Tomahawk cruise missiles in Western
Europe in December 1983.
Vladivostok Accord - signed in 1974, this agreement set new limits on the number of nuclear
weapons deployed by the United States and the Soviet Union. Unlike the Strategic Arms
Limitation Treaty I, this agreement set numerically equal limits on the number of nuclear
weapons deployed by each side. It also limited for the first time nuclear weapons equipped
with more than one warhead.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... i
LIST OF ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................................... ii
GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................................................... iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 BASE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................
2.1 CURRENT BASE MISSION ...............................................................................................
2.2 GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION..........................................................................................
2.3 CURRENT BASE LAYOUT ...............................................................................................
2.4 BASE LAND USE ................................................................................................................
4
4
4
6
6
3.0 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 13

3.1 BASE HISTORY AND COLD WAR CONTEXT.............................................................. 13
3.2 BASE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................... 17
4.0 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 22
4.1 INVENTORY ........................................................................................................................ 22
4.2 EVALUATION OF IMPORTANT RESOURCES ............................................................. 23
4.2.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 23
4.2.2 Evaluation of Importance ............................................................................................. 23
4.2.2.1 Cold War Context ............................................................................................... 23
4.2.2.2 NRHP Criteria..................................................................................................... 24
4.2.2.3 Exceptional Importance ...................................................................................... 25
4.2.3 Evaluation of Integrity.................................................................................................. 25
4.2.4 Priority Matrix .............................................................................................................. 26
4.2.5 Resource Organization ................................................................................................. 27
4.3 BASE SPECIFIC METHODS .............................................................................................. 27
5.0 RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY RESULTS ..................................................................... 29
6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS......................................................................................................... 30
6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS ........................................................ 30
6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS ......................................................... 30
6.2.1 Alert Facilities .............................................................................................................. 30
6.2.1.1 Bomber Alert Facility ......................................................................................... 30
6.2.2 Maintenance Docks/Hangars ....................................................................................... 32
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page
6.2.2.1 Large Aircraft Maintenance Dock ...................................................................... 32
6.2.2.2 Large Aircraft Maintenance Dock ...................................................................... 34
6.2.3 Weapons Storage.......................................................................................................... 35
6.2.3.1 Segregated Storage Igloo .................................................................................... 35
6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES ..................................................................... 36
6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES...................................................................................................... 36
6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES ............................................................................................ 36
7.0 UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 37
8.0 FUTURE THREATS TO RESOURCES ................................................................................... 39
9.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 40
9.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY ............................................................................................................ 40
9.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility.................................................... 40
9.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility ................................................................................ 42
9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 44
9.2.1 Bomber Alert Facility................................................................................................... 44
9.2.2 Large Aircraft Maintenance Dock ............................................................................... 46
9.2.3 Large Aircraft Maintenance Dock ............................................................................... 46
9.2.4 Segregated Storage Igloo ............................................................................................. 46
9.3 BASE CLOSURE ................................................................................................................. 47
10.0 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................. 48
APPENDIX A: RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY
APPENDIX B: BASE LAYOUT MAPS SHOWING INVENTORIED RESOURCES
APPENDIX C: PHOTOGRAPHS OF INVENTORIED RESOURCES
APPENDIX D: DATA BASE DOCUMENTATION FOR EVALUATED RESOURCES
APPENDIX E: EXTANT SOURCES OF INFORMATION
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1.1
Bases Selected for the Air Combat Command Cold War Study .............................. 2
Figure 2.1
Location of Loring Air Force Base............................................................................ 5
Figure 2.2
Loring Air Force Base Layout ................................................................................... 7
Figure 2.3
Standard Strategic Air Command Base Layout ........................................................ 8
Figure 2.4
Loring Air Force Base Land Use Diagram................................................................ 10
Figure 2.5
Standard Strategic Air Command Base Land Use Diagram ..................................... 11
Figure 3.1
Loring Air Force Base, 1947-1953 ............................................................................ 19
Figure 3.2
Loring Air Force Base, 1953-1961 ............................................................................ 21
LIST OF TABLES
Table 6.1
Evaluated Resource Prioritization by Air Force Group and Subgroup .................... 31
Table 6.2
Evaluated Resource Prioritization by Priority Rank ................................................. 31
Table 9.1
Recommendations for Evaluated Resources ............................................................. 45
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Mariah Associates, Inc. (Mariah), under contract with the United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Fort Worth District, is conducting a reconnaissance inventory of Cold War material culture on
selected Air Force bases throughout the continental United States and in Panama for the Air
Combat Command (ACC) (Figure 1.1). As each base is inventoried, a report is completed. Once
all 27 bases in the study have been inventoried, a final report will be compiled integrating all
evaluated resources and assessing them for significance at the national level.
Prior to the initiation of base inventories, Mariah developed a historic context for the Cold War and
a methodology for assessment of Cold War material culture (Lewis et al. 1995). The historic
context sets the framework for developing individual base Cold War contexts, evaluating resources,
and defining significance, and the methodology defines how to conduct the inventory and
evaluation. Using the historic context, the methodology also defines four temporal phases of the
Cold War to aid in evaluating resources. The phases are delineated based on significant Cold War
events and related developments in U.S. government policy and military strategy. The relationship
of resources to the phases helps to guide research efforts throughout the inventory, evaluation, and
prioritization processes. The phases are as follows:
Phase I - July 1945 to January 1953

This phase begins with the explosion of the first experimental atomic bomb at Alamagordo,
New Mexico. This event spurred a period of intense technological experimentation. This
phase, spanning the Truman administration, represents the inception and perpetuation of
Cold War propaganda that fueled fear and mistrust of the Soviet Union and significantly
accelerated the nuclear arms race.
Phase II - January 1953 to November 1963

This phase begins with the Eisenhower administration and is characterized by a continued
massing of nuclear and conventional forces and an associated explosion in defense
technology. During this time, deterrence through intimidation was the driving force behind
the U.S. strategy. With the signing of the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty by Kennedy,
both superpowers leaned toward a more amiable co-existence, and a condition of detente
was born.
Phase III - November 1963 to January 1981

This phase covers the entire era of detente between the superpowers and is characterized by
multiple attempts at nuclear arms limitation talks and agreements. Strategic Arms
Limitation Treaty (SALT) I, the Vladivostok Accord, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Protocol,
and SALT II were all signed by the leaders of the two nations during this phase.
Phase IV - January 1981 to November 1989

This phase begins with the start of President Reagan's administration and ends with the
opening of the Berlin Wall. This phase is characterized by the massive buildup of military
forces, triggering new technological developments focused on upgrading and
modernization, all as a prelude to Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START). Detente was
replaced with deterrence through intimidation, with a focus on the threat of the Strategic
Defense Initiative (SDI).
The overall goal of the Cold War study is to comply with Section 110 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended.
Section 110 requires federal agencies to
inventory cultural resources under their control and evaluate those that are significant or
potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The reports
produced by this project will provide a tool for ACC to use in determining which resources are
eligible for the NRHP, and in selecting a number of these resources to be nominated to the
NRHP.
This report is a reconnaissance inventory of Cold War related resources on Loring Air Force Base
(AFB). Loring AFB, a former Strategic Air Command (SAC) installation, is one of the bases being
evaluated in the attempt to determine the extent of ACC Cold War cultural resources nationwide.
As described above, a final report will synthesize the individual base reports and provide initial
management recommendations for evaluated resources.
2.0 BASE DESCRIPTION
2.1 CURRENT BASE MISSION
Loring AFB was scheduled for closure September 30, 1994, and during the field visit possessed
only enough personnel for downsizing the base. The base has no current mission as such. During
the Cold War, the mission at Loring AFB was to develop and maintain the capability for long-range
bombardment operations and effective refueling operations within its SAC commitment to
deterrence. Due to its strategic location in the extreme northeastern United States, aircraft assigned
to Loring AFB also assisted Naval operations by participating in sea surveillance training missions
utilizing the Harpoon anti-ship missile. Since 1959, Air Defense Command (ADC) and then
Tactical Air Command (TAC) Fighter Interceptor Squadrons (FIS) were also assigned to Loring
AFB to intercept, identify, and, if necessary, destroy unidentified aircraft penetrating the sovereign
airspace of the United States and Canada (Civil Engineering Office, Loring AFB 1991:1; Loring
AFB 1990:1,5). [Editor's Note: This report is written based upon existing conditions and findings
made during the field reconnaissance. Since that time, Loring AFB has been closed by the Base
Re-Alignment and Closure Commission.]
2.2 GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION
Loring AFB is located in Aroostook County in the northeastern tip of Maine near the Canadian
border, about 8 mi (13 km) northeast of the town of Caribou and 4 mi (6 km) northwest of
Limestone (Figure 2.1). The base consists of approximately 8,300 acres (3,359 ha) located at
approximately 450 ft (137 m) above mean sea level (amsl) on a relatively high, level plateau. Soils
consist of a silty glacial till containing of a mixture of boulders, gravel, sand, silt, and clay.
Originally, the majority of the area surrounding the base was coniferous forest, chiefly pine,
hemlock, and spruce.
However, while forest still predominates, considerable agriculture is
practiced in the area today with potatoes and broccoli the primary crops (Civil Engineering Office,
Loring AFB 1991:3,4; 1966:2; Loring AFB 1961:1-2).
2.3 CURRENT BASE LAYOUT
The layout of Loring AFB (Figure 2.2) is very similar to the standard SAC base layout (Figure 2.3).
Most of the development is located to the west of the runway. The few auxiliary facilities located
east of the runway include the weapons storage facility, small arms range, grenade launching area,
and cold weather test area. Both ends of the runway are clear of any developments for safety
reasons. The alert apron is in a `christmas tree' formation and is located to the east of the southern
end of the runway.
The major development of the base is located on the western side of the runway, extends from the
center to the southern end of the runway, and expands west. Within this major development are
located the mission, community, housing, and recreation areas. Facilities located along the western
edge of the base include sewage treatment facilities, landfills, and asbestos waste disposal areas.
The recreation areas are also on the far western side of the base, clustered around the main gate.
These areas include a golf course, ski area, and family camping area.
2.4 BASE LAND USE
The following is a list of standard SAC land use categories:

Alert Facility - to provide for air combat readiness and rapid deployment of air crews.
Base Support Facilities - house base support functions and supplies.
Command Post - provides tracking of all base activities and communication between battle
staff and SAC headquarters.
Community - shopping, medical, and family support facilities.
Family Housing - accommodations for married personnel and families, including temporary
housing.
Headquarters - buildings that house administration.
Industrial - facilities for the storage of supplies and maintenance operations for base facilities
and utility systems, and facilities for industrial contractors.
Mission - areas for the preparation and maintenance of aircraft.
Recreation - areas used for athletics, camping, and recreational activities.
Unaccompanied Housing - accommodations for single personnel, temporary personnel, and
visitors.
Weapons and Warhead Storage - for nuclear and conventional weapons.
Open Space is another land use type that occurs throughout Air Force bases; however, it is not
shown specifically on maps in this report. Open space areas are not directly functional but provide
buffers for base facilities, safety clearances, secure areas, utility easements, and environmentally
sensitive areas.
Base land use at Loring AFB (Figure 2.4) generally resembles the standard SAC land use plan
(Figure 2.5), but there are deviations. The most significant difference between Loring AFB and
SAC land use is the location of industrial areas. Loring AFB industrial areas encircle the base.
Landfills are located on the extreme western side of the base; the sewage treatment facilities are
located in the extreme southwestern corner; a small industrial area is located northwest of the
northern mission area; the Defense Reutilization Marketing Office (DRMO) storage area is
northeast of the alert apron; and the warehouse storage facilities are located to the southwest and
south of the mission area and runway. The SAC land use map depicts the standard industrial area
in one area only, on the far side of the base away from the runway.
The mission area location is similar on both plans; however, the Bomber Alert Facility and alert
apron at Loring AFB are on the opposite side of the runway from their placement on the SAC
land use plan. The weapons storage area at Loring AFB, while on the same side of the runway as
on the SAC land use plan, is located away from the alert apron. The standard plan has the
weapons storage area close to the alert apron. Loring AFB has designated clear zones for the
12
landing and takeoff of aircraft and surrounding the alert facility, the weapons storage area, and
the maintenance hangars located northwest of the runway. The SAC land use map does not
depict any clear zones.
Base housing at Loring AFB corresponds to the SAC land use plan with the housing located on the
far side of the base away from the runway and mission areas. Unaccompanied housing, the
community area, and the headquarters facilities at Loring AFB are located in the middle of the main
base development, the same location shown on the SAC land use map.
Recreational areas at Loring AFB correspond roughly to the SAC land use plan with some
recreational areas located along the perimeter of the base (golf course, family camping, and ski
area), and with smaller areas located in the central portion of the base for easier access by
personnel.
13
3.0 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
3.1 BASE HISTORY AND COLD WAR CONTEXT
Loring AFB, originally Limestone AFB, was one of the first postwar United States Air Force
(USAF) bases to be designed and built as an Air Force installation and not converted from a
previous Army air field. As a SAC base, it was also the first to support a new architectural concept
to accommodate the newly created SAC plans for high speed, heavy aircraft, specifically the B-36
Peacemaker bomber. Planning of the installation was begun by the Army Corps of Engineers, New
England Division, in June 1946 for a tract of land that was approximately 80% forest and 20%
farmland (Department of Defense [DoD] 1972:14; Loring AFB 1987:A-1; Nason 1988:3).
The Army authorized the initial construction of Limestone AFB on April 5, 1947. Contracts for the
multi-million dollar construction project were awarded to Lane Construction Company of Meriden,
Connecticut, and T.W. Cunningham, Inc., of Bangor, Maine (Loring AFB 1989:8; Stevens and
Tyson 1980:4). Construction began on April 15, 1947, and lasted until 1953 (DoD 1972:14;
Mueller 1989:327). Limited funding, severe winters, and the enormous size of the project dictated
that the base would have to be built in phases. The first phase called for the construction of a northsouth runway, the Arch Hangar, the Base Operations building and control tower, an electric power
plant, a railroad spur, barracks, and a water supply system. The completion date for the first phase
was scheduled for June 30, 1949 (Loring AFB 1989:8; Pickart and Wessel 1994:3-13 - 3-14;
Stevens and Tyson 1980:4).
The Korean conflict provided the catalyst for the second phase of construction at Limestone AFB
and increased funding from Congress was forthcoming (Lewis et al. 1995). Due to the mounting
tension in Korea, USAF Headquarters determined that Limestone AFB needed to begin limited
operations. On June 12, 1950, the first plane landed at Limestone AFB, and on July 1, the 4215th
Base Service Squadron was given the assignment for increased operational capacity at the base
14
(Stevens and Tyson 1980:35,37,40,41). Construction at the base accelerated in 1951. The original
300 x 9,160 ft (91 x 2,792 m) runway was extended to 10,000 ft (3,048 m), and eight Luria
maintenance hangars were constructed in the vicinity of the Arch Hangar. Other construction
completed by 1952 included a base hospital, motor pool, communications facility, Officer's club,
and additional barracks. One of these barracks was alternately used as an alert facility in future
decades.
Another important construction project of major proportion was implemented on August 4, 1951,
when construction began in the northeastern corner of the base on a maximum security storage area
for the most advanced weapons in the USAF inventory. This mini-base was self-sufficient and
included barracks, recreational facilities, offices, warehouses, weapon maintenance areas, and 28
storage igloos. Named Caribou Air Force Station (AFS) in 1953 and operating under the authority
of the Air Materiel Command (AMC), its sole mission was to protect and maintain strategic
weapons used by SAC (Stevens and Tyson 1980:27).
The 42nd Bombardment Wing (BMW) (Heavy) was activated and assumed host responsibilities at
Limestone AFB on February 25, 1953, and was assigned to the 8th Air Force. The 69th, 70th, and
75th Bombardment Squadrons (BMS), all members of the 42nd BMW, received their full
complement of B-36 bombers by August 13, 1953 (Mueller 1989:327-329; Stevens and Tyson
1980:42,46). The following year, the base was officially renamed Loring AFB in honor of Major
Charles J. Loring. Major Loring, a native of Maine, received the medal of honor posthumously for
deliberately crashing his crippled aircraft into enemy gun emplacements in Korea, destroying them
in the process (Mueller 1989:327; Nason 1988:3; Stevens and Tyson 1980:65).
In October 1954, SAC headquarters activated the 45th Air Division at Loring AFB, and the division
assumed base host responsibilities. In July 1955, the mission of the 42nd BMW was expanded with
the activation of the 42nd Air Refueling Squadron (AREFS) and the arrival of 21 KC-97 tankers
(Mueller 1989:329; Stevens and Tyson 1980:59-60, 62). However, the 75th BMS was deactivated
in October 1955, leaving only two BMSs in the 42nd BMW (Mueller 1989:329).
15
Preparations to receive the B-52 Stratofortress were underway in September 1955 (Stevens and
Tyson 1980:78). On June 16, 1956, the first B-52 arrived at Loring AFB and was christened the
"State of Maine." By September, Loring AFB had acquired 20 of the 45 new aircraft to be
assigned to the base (Stevens and Tyson 1980:79-82). The first KC-135 Stratotanker arrived in
December 1957. The KC-135s replaced the propeller driven KC-97s, and the 42nd AREFS was
now capable of joining the 42nd BMW to pursue the mission of sustaining long-range
bombardment and refueling capabilities worldwide. The 42nd BMW and 42nd AREFS were the
first all-jet, bomber-tanker combat unit in SAC (Loring AFB 1987:A-3; Stevens and Tyson
1980:86-87).
Significant advancements by the Soviet Union in the development of intercontinental ballistic

missiles (ICBMs) caused SAC to implement the ground alert program at various bases in the
United States. The Loring AFB Alert Force was established in October 1957. In July 1958, the
Alert Force moved into four wings of Real Property No. 6000, initially built as a barracks, and
utilized the parking apron located south of base operations for the alert aircraft. However, under
this arrangement, crews remained 1.0 mi (1.6 km) from their aircraft (Pickart and Wessel
1994:3-27,3-28; Stevens and Tyson 1980:88-89). A specially designed Bomber Alert Facility was
constructed east of the southern end of the runway in 1960. An alert apron, with a design known as
the crow's foot or "christmas tree," was built next to this facility to park the B-52s in proximity to
the air crews. This lay out saved valuable minutes for the pilots and crews to reach their aircraft in
response to an emergency situation or during Operation Readiness Inspection (ORI) drills (Stevens
and Tyson 1980:96).
The strategic location of Loring AFB was important to national defense. In October 1959, an ADC
tenant, the 27th FIS, was assigned to Loring AFB (Mueller 1989:329). Equipped with the new F106 Delta Dart, the 27th FIS was "part of a realignment of air defense weapons within the SemiAutomatic Ground Environment (SAGE) System to provide increased defense capabilities for the
northeastern United States" (Stevens and Tyson 1980:93-94). The 27th FIS remained at Loring
AFB until July 1, 1971.
16
Development of the Quail and Hound Dog air-launched missiles began in 1952 and 1956
respectively during the Eisenhower administration (Lewis et al. 1995). Loring AFB received the
Hound Dog and Quail missiles between December 1960 and June 1961, and, by the end of 1961,
the missiles were fully integrated into Loring's Alert Force.
The 42nd Airborne Missile
Maintenance Squadron (AMMS) was activated at Loring AFB on November 1, 1962, as part of a
SAC program to provide specialized maintenance for its airborne missile inventory (Mueller
1989:329; Stevens and Tyson 1980:109).
Caribou AFS became the property of Loring AFB in July 1962 and was renamed East Loring. The
Atomic Energy Commission transferred ownership and control of the special weapons to SAC.
The 3080th Aviation Depot Group was inactivated and replaced by the 23rd Munitions
Maintenance Squadron (MMS) which maintained and loaded the weapons for the 42nd BMW. To
facilitate this, a road connected East Loring directly to the rear entrance of the Bomber Alert
Facility (Civil Engineering Office, Loring AFB 1966:2; Mueller 1989:328; Stevens and Tyson
1980:107-111).
During the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, Loring AFB was placed on heightened alert status. Like
other bases around the United States, Loring AFB participated in increased airborne alert missions:
the 42nd BMW launched four B-52 bombers to participate in "Hard Head" and "Chrome Dome,"
operations over the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean respectively. Many units and their
personnel went on 12 hour shifts, seven days a week, for the duration of the 40 day crisis (Stevens
and Tyson 1980:112-113).
In 1966, the 70th BMS was deactivated, leaving the 42nd BMW with the 69th BMS (Mueller
1989:329). In July 1968, the arrival of the 407th AREFS doubled the strength of the tanker fleet.
This squadron was at Loring AFB until its deactivation in 1990 (Stevens and Tyson 1980:86-87).
During the 1970s and 1980s, the 42nd BMW continued to receive state-of-the-art weapons
technology for integration into the arsenal of the B-52, including the Short Range Attack Missile
17
(SRAM) and the Harpoon anti-ship missile (Lewis et al. 1995). The 42nd BMW at Loring AFB
had integrated a SRAM loaded B-52 into its Alert Force by September 1972. The 42nd BMW
became the first operational unit to utilize the SRAM because of Loring AFB's strategic position as
the northernmost base in the continental United States (Lewis et al. 1995; Mueller 1989:328;
Stevens and Tyson 1980:114). Loring AFB received the first Harpoon-modified B-52 in September
1983; in 1984, the first wing with the Harpoon missile was operational (Lewis et al. 1995; Loring
AFB 1987:A-2).
Throughout the 1980s, the mission of the 42nd BMW in general and the 69th BMS in particular
was to maintain a B-52 force capable of short-notice, long-range bombing worldwide, strategic sea
surveillance and reconnaissance, aerial minelaying, and Harpoon anti-ship missile operations. They
would be assisted by the 42nd and 407th AREFS in sustaining air refueling support (Loring AFB
1990:1). In 1990, the 407th AREFS was deactivated at Loring AFB, leaving only one refueling
squadron.
In June 1991, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission voted to close Loring AFB in
September 1994. In September 1991, as part of SAC-wide restructuring, the 42nd BMW became
the 42nd Wing. In June 1992, the Air Force underwent restructuring, and Loring AFB became part
of the new ACC. The 42nd Wing was again renamed, this time to 42nd Bomb Wing. [Editor's
Note: Loring AFB was closed September 30, 1994. It is currently still under USAF control, and is
managed by the Air Force Base Conversion Agency.]
3.2 BASE DEVELOPMENT
Construction at Loring AFB progressed in stages due to the cost and the enormous size of the base
to be built. Between 1947 and 1949, the initial runway, base operations and control tower, electric
power plant, railroad spur, and Arch Hangar were constructed.
Maps depicting this early
development are not available, although photographs depicting the expansion have been sent to the
USAF archives at Maxwell AFB from the Loring AFB Wing Historian's office.
18
During the Korean Conflict, the base expanded northeast of the runway with the construction of
Caribou AFS. The expansion included recreational, office, warehouse, maintenance, and weapons
storage facilities to protect and store strategic and conventional weapons. In addition, the original
300 x 9,160 ft (91 x 2,792 m) runway was extended to 10,000 ft (3,048 m), and eight maintenance
hangars were constructed in the vicinity of the Arch Hangar, located west of the southern end of the
runway.
Other construction completed by 1952 included a base hospital, motor pool,
communications facility, Officer's club, and additional barracks, all located in the central portion of
the base and west of the runway (Figure 3.1).
Loring AFB kept growing in size and manpower due to the addition of units and responsibilities
to the base. Buildings and facilities completed in 1954 included a base chapel, gymnasium,
Wing and Group headquarters, and an electric power plant (Stevens and Tyson 1980:68). A
housing shortage was alleviated somewhat by the completion of the first Wherry Housing units in
August 1954. These housing units were built in accordance with the 1949 National Housing Act
(Wherry-Spence Act) that provided family housing on or near military installations (Lewis et al.
1995). Additional Wherry housing was completed in 1957. Under the Capehart Housing Act of
1955, Capehart family housing units were completed in 1958 and 1960 (Stevens and Tyson
1980:68, 96-98).
Also in 1954, construction emphasis at Loring AFB shifted toward expanding aircraft parking and
maintenance facilities, and expanding the runway to meet the new USAF criteria for runway
construction (Goldberg 1957:195; Lewis et al. 1995; Stevens and Tyson 1980:68,73,78). The new
B-52 required a longer distance for takeoff, and the runways also had to withstand the heavy weight
of the aircraft. Contracts were awarded in 1953 for the construction of eight multipurpose hangars.
Before these were completed in 1954, the Corps of Engineers let another contract for 11 additional
hangers; all were constructed northwest of base operations. Still another contract was awarded for
the construction of "a mammoth double cantilever maintenance hangar that would dwarf the Arch
Hangar" (Stevens and Tyson 1980:68,73). The double cantilever hangar, known as the DC Hangar,
20
was completed in 1955; the other hangars and additional taxiways and parking aprons for the high
volume of visiting aircraft were completed during 1955 and 1956.
The last construction project of major proportion was the expansion of the runway between May
and November 1955 to prepare for the arrival of the new B-52 and to meet the new USAF
requirements for runways, taxiways, and parking aprons. This entailed replacing 1,000 ft (305 m)
at the southern end of the runway with concrete and constructing a 2,000 ft (610 m) extension with
an additional 1,000 ft (305 m) overrun at the northern end of the runway. When completed, the
runway achieved its present length of 12,100 ft (3,688 m).
Built in response to the 1957 SAC alert strategy, a specially designed Bomber Alert Facility was
constructed east of the southern end of the runway in 1960. An alert apron, with a design known as
the crow's foot or "christmas tree," was built to park the B-52s in proximity to this facility. In 1959,
an alert hangar, crew readiness facility, maintenance hangar, flight simulator building, and rocket
storage building were constructed at the base to accommodate the 27th FIS. Parking aprons and
roads connected these facilities. These facilities were located southwest of the southern end of the
runway and were connected to it by the "hot chute" flight line (Figure 3.2).
Loring AFB is the only ACC base to have its own dam and storage reservoir, built on the Little
Madawaska River in 1959 to augment water supplied from wells which could not keep pace with
base expansion. Other construction during the late 1950s and early 1960s included a large indoor
swimming pool, a second chapel, a library, a non-commissioned officer (NCO) club, and
renovation of the base commissary. A nine hole golf course and club house were built in 1961,
located north of the Capehart housing development near the west gate entrance (Figure 3.2).
Between the 1960s and the present, construction of various new facilities and renovation of older
buildings contributed to maintaining Loring AFB's mission as a SAC base and to making base
personnel comfortable in the far northern environment.
22
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the reconnaissance inventory of Loring AFB was developed to help ACC
meets its requirements under Section 110 of the NHPA, namely, to ensure that resources which are
potentially eligible for inclusion in the NRHP are identified. To this end, the reconnaissance
inventory consisted of two major tasks: an overall inventory and an evaluation of important
resources.
4.1 INVENTORY
The first major task was an overall inventory of base material culture resources that typify the base
and the base's mission as it relates to the Cold War era. The purpose of this inventory is to record
the range of resources extant on the base, regardless of age, function, or importance. The resources
were catalogued in an inventory log, identified on a base layout map, and documented with blackand-white 35 mm photographs.
The DoD Legacy Program outlines three general categories under which Cold War resources may
be included: real property, personal property, and records/documents (USAF 1993:3-4). These
categories divide the extant resources for ease in management. Real property includes buildings,
structures, sites, and landscapes. Objects has been added as a fifth type of real property resource to
accommodate USAF owned items that do not fall under the other categories. Personal property
may include such items as relics of battle or other military activity, weapons, clothing, flags, or
other moveable objects. Records/documents pertains to documents and objects that may provide a
record of the past but are not necessarily associated with real property. Specifically, these may
include photographs, videotapes, manuscripts, books, reports, newspapers, maps, oral histories, or
architectural drawings (DoD 1993:13).
This organizational scheme is used in defining the inventoried resources and is present throughout
the remainder of this report to help understand the resources and for use in management.
23
4.2 EVALUATION OF IMPORTANT RESOURCES
As part of the reconnaissance inventory of Loring AFB, certain inventoried resources were
selected for documentation and evaluation. Selection was based on the importance of the
resource to the base and the base's role in the Cold War, and the importance of the resource
within the national context of the Cold War. The basis for selection and the standards for
evaluation are discussed in detail in the historic context and methodology designed for this
project (Lewis et al. 1995).
Resource selection procedures are detailed in the field guide
designed to standardize the procedures used in the field (Lewis and Higgins 1994).
The
evaluations focus on determining the importance of the selected resources, both within the
context of the Cold War and in regard to NRHP criteria, and the integrity of the selected
resources. These three values are necessary to establish the significance of a resource and for
examining its potential eligibility to the NRHP (see Section 9.0).
4.2.1 Documentation
The evaluated resources at Loring AFB were documented using a recording form designed
specifically for the ACC Cold War study. A Property Management Form was completed for each
evaluated resource, detailing information regarding resource identification, description, integrity,
location, reference information, property type group and subgroup, association with the base's Cold
War context, evaluation of importance, and management recommendations.
4.2.2 Evaluation of Importance
4.2.2.1 Cold War Context
Evaluation of a resource within that resource's historic context ensures an understanding of its role
and helps in making comparisons among similar resources. However, evaluating the importance of
resources within the Cold War era is hindered by two issues: (1) a lack of historical perspective due
24
to the recent origin of the resources; and (2) an absence of data for comparative evaluation due to
the lack of completed Cold War studies. Tools currently available to guide evaluation of Cold War
resources include standard federal legislative stipulations, as well as guidance provided by the
Legacy Program, the National Park Service (NPS) Interagency Resources Division, and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).
Generally, resources are considered for their importance to American history, architecture,
archaeology, engineering, or culture. To be considered important within the historic context of the
Cold War, resources must possess value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the Cold War
heritage of the United States. A resource must be associated with critical aspects or persons of the
Cold War, corresponding to the four temporal phases established in the historic context. These
aspects include policy and strategy, technology, architectural and engineering design, and social
impacts. The importance of the resources within one or more of these aspects is addressed in the
evaluations.
4.2.2.2 NRHP Criteria
The historical importance of the resources is also presented in relation to four NRHP criteria.
The criteria are very similar to the four aspects of the Cold War listed above. These criteria,
adapted by the USAF Interim Guidance (USAF 1993) to meet the needs of Cold War studies, are
as follows:
a) portray a direct association with events that have made a significant contribution to, are
directly identified with, or outstandingly represent the broad national pattern of U.S.
history and aid in understanding that pattern;
b) portray a direct and important association with the lives of persons nationally significant
in U.S. Cold War history;
c) embody the characteristics of an architectural, engineering, technological, or scientific
type specimen valuable for understanding a component of U.S. Cold War history or
representing some great idea or ideal of U.S. citizenry embodying the Cold War;
25
d) have yielded or be likely to yield information of importance to United States Cold War
history.
4.2.2.3 Exceptional Importance
The evaluation of importance for Cold War resources is more complex than the evaluation process
for older resources. Generally, resources must be 50 years of age or older in order to be considered
eligible for NRHP listing. This age criterion, although arbitrary, was established to ensure that the
passage of time has been of a significant duration to allow an adequate perspective for evaluating
the true historical importance of a resource. This ensures that the NRHP is truly a listing of
historically significant resources, not those that are simply trendy or of fleeting importance (NPS
1990).
However, when the requirements for NRHP eligibility were developed, exceptions were made for
resources that are not yet 50 years old. Listing of recently significant properties is allowed if they
are of exceptional importance.
A number of tools are useful in determining exceptional importance. For this study, a historic
context of the Cold War was developed for determining exceptional importance (Lewis et al.
1995). The historic context refers to all of those historic circumstances and factors surrounding
the Cold War, and the effect of the Cold War on the USAF and its properties. Evaluation of a
resource within this historic context ensures an understanding of its role and helps in making
comparisons among similar resources. A final consideration is that the more recently a property
has achieved importance, generally the more difficult it is to demonstrate exceptional importance
(NPS 1990).
4.2.3 Evaluation of Integrity
Integrity is defined as retaining enough physical presence to enable a resource to communicate its
importance. Authenticity of a resource's historical identity, evidenced by the survival of physical
26
characteristics that existed during the resource's historical period, is critical to integrity. If a
property retains the physical characteristics it possessed in the past, then it has the capacity to
convey the association that makes it important (NPS 1991:44).
In terms of historic resources, there are seven attributes of integrity that are important: location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Survival of these attributes
enables a property to maintain a direct link with the past and convey the relationship making it
historically important (ACHP 1991).
However, if an attribute does not directly affect the
characteristics making the resource important, the lack of integrity in that attribute may not preclude
intact integrity for the resource as a whole. It is therefore necessary to decide what characteristics
of a resource contribute to its importance, not only to establish its level of integrity, but also to aid
in decisions about what alterations would damage that integrity.
4.2.4 Priority Matrix
As part of the documentation and evaluation process, a priority matrix was completed for each
evaluated resource. This matrix calculates the urgency for further attention recommended for a
resource. The higher the priority matrix score, the higher the priority for management attention to
that resource. These judgements regarding resource priority should be viewed as a management
tool rather than a ranking of importance.
The matrix calculation is a combination of the importance of the resource within the Cold War
context, the integrity of the resource, and any threats posed to the resource. There are six topics
under which an evaluated resource is ranked. The first is the strength of the relationship between
the resource and the role the base played in the Cold War. The second topic ranks the relationship
of the resource to the four aspects of the Cold War: policy and strategy, technology, architectural
and engineering design, and social impacts. The third ranking is the relationship between the
resource and the four temporal phases. The fourth topic figures the level of contextual importance
27
of the resource. The fifth is the percentage of remaining historic fabric, or integrity, of the resource.
Finally, the sixth topic ranks the severity of existing threats to the resource.
4.2.5 Resource Organization
The USAF Interim Guidance (USAF 1993) refers to resources as property types and suggests five
property type groups, with associated subgroups, that may adequately characterize extant Cold War
resources. These groupings are based on functional descriptions and are another way of organizing
the resources. This grouping scheme was adapted by Mariah for use in this study. It is applied to
the evaluated resources for use in management and is used throughout the remainder of this report
to organize the evaluated resources.
4.3 BASE SPECIFIC METHODS
Upon arrival at Loring AFB, Mariah scientists James Lowe and David Staley were welcomed by
the point of contact and chief informant, Spurge Nason, Community Planner and Base Conversion
Officer. Following discussion of the objectives and needs for completing the base inventory, Mr.
Nason provided the field team with work space within the Real Estate Office. Mr. Nason then
escorted the team to the Civil Engineer's Office and to the recently combined Public Affairs and
Wing Historian's Office. At each location, base personnel were informed of the type of information
and documentation needed by the Mariah team to complete its research and inventory of the base's
history and Cold War context.
Following introduction to the base personnel, Mr. Nason led the field team on a tour of the base.
Mr. Nason has been at Loring AFB for the past 19 years, and his knowledge of the base provided
insight into areas for focus during Mariah's visit to Loring AFB. After the tour, the Mariah team
photographed the various types of base architecture represented. Because the base was scheduled to
close in September 1994 and was rapidly scaling down activities and personnel, the team had free
28
access and was able to photograph the buildings along the flight line, in and around the Bomber
Alert Facility, and in the weapons storage area.
Once the photography was completed, team members divided tasks to research and inventory the
contents of the offices mentioned above. Real Estate Office Property Change Lists, Inventory
Codes, and cards were used to determine the location, current use, date of construction, and
building materials of the facilities on base. The Drafting Office in the Civil Engineering Office
provided disks containing C-Tabs depicting base layout, building numbers, runways, and roads.
The Civil Engineering Office hanging map file collection was inventoried, and an attempt was
made to acquire base maps by decade to show base expansion. However, many maps had been
destroyed by water damage, and the team was only able to obtain current maps and maps
representing the 1950s and 1960. Due to the upcoming closure date, the Wing Historian had
already sent the Wing's history collection to Maxwell AFB to be stored in the USAF archives. The
collection included Wing histories, a base newspaper collection, and photographs. The Public
Affairs Officer shared an office with the Wing Historian and, with most materials packed for
storage and moving, could provide no additional information to the Mariah team. Mr. Nason, the
base Community Planner, provided the team with additional planning documents and research
material.
Although the various research materials at Loring AFB were limited by the base's imminent
closure, those available were used by the Mariah field team to select and study four resources for
documentation and evaluation.
Documentation of these resources also included additional
photography and completion of a Property Management form designed specifically for this
project.
29
5.0 RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY RESULTS
During the reconnaissance inventory of Loring AFB, 188 resources were inventoried. Appendix A
lists the inventoried resources and Appendix B shows their location on the base. Photographs of
inventoried resources are presented in Appendix C.
30
6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS
Four resources were evaluated at Loring AFB, all of them falling under the DoD category of real
property. Each resource is discussed below in terms of its history, integrity, and importance. The
narratives are organized by USAF property type group and subgroup. The prioritization of the
evaluated resources is presented in Table 6.1, organized by property type group and subgroup, and
in Table 6.2, organized in order of priority. The detailed documentation for each of the evaluated
resources is presented in Appendix D. Due to the nature of the base and its resources, and the
missions associated with these resources, access to some of the evaluated buildings could not be
secured. In those instances, documentation describing any changes to the buildings was consulted
to provide insight into the integrity of the buildings' interiors.
6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS
None were evaluated at Loring AFB.
6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS
6.2.1 Alert Facilities
6.2.1.1 Bomber Alert Facility (Resource No. 9125, Real Property No. 8970)
This building, uniquely constructed to function as a B-52 Bomber Alert Facility, is located east of,
but adjacent to, the southern end of the runway. Completed in 1960, the facility integrated spaces
for living, working, and recreation for SAC personnel on active alert status. In 1967, Project One
Roof relocated all operational and maintenance alert force activities back into Real Property No.
6000 which had housed the alert force between 1958 and 1960. The Bomber Alert Facility was
again utilized as an alert facility after a major renovation in 1983 and until the end of the Cold War.
32
The building's function as a Bomber Alert Facility is demonstrated by its architectural features:
nearly windowless, semi-subterranean, and covered ramped entries for rapid egress.
The exterior of the facility retains its integrity and conveys the association and feeling of the
facility's relationship to ground alert during the Cold War. The field team was unable to gain access
into the building, thus the integrity of the interior of the facility could not be visually assessed.
However, due to the building's initial construction as an alert facility, and its use as such during the
last Phase of the Cold War, the integrity is determined to be intact.
The Bomber Alert Facility is extremely important to Loring AFB's Cold War context and to Cold
War history at the national level. Known as the "Molehole," this building represents the alert
posture promulgated by SAC as part of the United States deterrence strategy and exemplifies the
concept of deterrence and the need to respond immediately to any Soviet attack threat. This facility
was constructed and operated in direct response to NSC-68's concept of deterrence through a
survivable force and to Killian Report recommendations for the dispersion of bombers across the
country (Lewis et al. 1995). The B-52 bomber force was an integral part of the DoD defense triad
and was relied on as the United State's primary manned nuclear bomber for over 30 years. This
facility served this purpose during Phases II, III, and IV of the Cold War era, and meets NRHP
criteria (a) and (c).
6.2.2 Maintenance Docks/Hangars
6.2.2.1 Large Aircraft Maintenance Dock (Resource No. 9003, Real Property No. 8250)
Called the "Arch Hangar," this large aircraft maintenance hangar was constructed in 1952, and at
the time of its completion, the building comprised the largest monolithic roof structure in the
United States with the exception of a similar hangar built at Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota. The
facility was variously used as a field maintenance hangar, a SRAM support facility, and a
33
non-destructive inspection lab. This building is located west of the southern end of the runway
along the parking apron.
The building is constructed of brick and reinforced concrete. The primary structural system is
reinforced concrete arches with a clear span of 340 ft (104 m). The arches are buttressed by 14 ft x
20 in (4 m x 51 cm) concrete structures at the base of each arch. The arches define nine bays and
support a concrete roof. This construction provided massive, unimpeded open space sufficient to
house two B-36 bombers at once. The building has an uncomplicated grace that arises from its
concrete arches, rounded massing, and clean lines. This reinforced concrete arch construction is
unique to two bases, Loring AFB and Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota, where a similar structure was
built.
Although offices have been constructed in the interior, they have not compromised the overall
integrity of the building, and the exterior has been modified little. The interior space can still be
perceived from the central entrance. Thus, the integrity of the building is intact.
The structure was built to provide protection and maintenance for two B-36 bombers at once, at a
time when the B-36 was the backbone of the SAC strategic force. These bombers were integral to
the base mission from 1953 until 1956, when the 42nd BMW changed to B-52s. The B-36 was
critical to Phases I and II of the Cold War era, in that it was the world's largest bomber and the only
bomber at that time that could reach the Soviet Union (Knaack 1988). This capability answered
directly to the National Security Council's 1949 declaration that deterrence would be the national
military strategy (McDougall 1985). The B-36 has a large bomb and fuel capacity, which allow it
to reach its target, drop its bomb load, and return to its home base.
When the B-36 was
operationalized, the B-29 and B-50 lost their heavy bomber status and were reclassified as medium
bombers, while the B-36 was classified a heavy bomber (Polmar and Laur 1990). The B-36's
wingspan is 230 ft (70 m) and its length is 160 ft (49 m); the hangar can fit two of these aircraft
placed nose to nose. The arched reinforced concrete construction, large span, and use for the B-36
34
give this structure its exceptional Cold War significance. This building fulfilled its primary role
during Phase II of the Cold War era, and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
6.2.2.2 Large Aircraft Maintenance Dock (Resource No. 9102, Real Property No. 8280)
Real Property No. 8280 is a maintenance hangar located north of the Arch Hangar on the western
side of the runway. Completed in 1955, the building was one of the first double cantilever
structures built in the United States, hence its name, "DC Hangar."
The building is exceptionally significant for its architecture because it represents a revolutionary
engineering design that allowed enough space for five B-36 aircraft. It was one of the first double
cantilever hangars built for the Air Force and, because of the northern Maine environment, required
special construction techniques. The building is characterized by the double cantilever design,
massive open space, large sliding doors, and tremendous steel trusses that support the roof.
Although the building was modified slightly in 1957 to accommodate the B-52, it retains its
exterior and interior integrity.
It is significant to the base's history because it was designed and built in response to the need for
increased maintenance space as Loring AFB acquired more aircraft, and as transient aircraft traffic
increased due to the base's strategic location and its importance as the northernmost base in the
continental United States. It was originally constructed for the B-36, which at the time was the
backbone of SAC's deterrent force. This building was extant during Phases II through IV of the
Cold War era, and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
35
6.2.3 Weapons Storage
6.2.3.1 Segregated Storage Igloo (Real Property No. 260, Resource No. 9146)
Located in the middle of East Loring's weapons storage area, Real Property No. 260 was
constructed in 1952 specifically to store nuclear components for the assembly of nuclear weapons.
The facility was used for this function until approximately 1964. The facility's early Cold War date
of construction, associated security measures (concrete blockhouses with gunsights and an
observation tower), and its architectural design make it unique among USAF property types. The
structure is characterized by massive, 10 ft (3 m) thick reinforced concrete walls and four interior
vaults with steel doors, all part of the nuclear blast-proof construction. The exterior wall design
includes imitation windows that are actually solid concrete. The primary goal of this design was
security. The design gave the structure the appearance of a staff building if photographed or viewed
from a distance.
The integrity of both the exterior and interior is currently intact. However, the facility is now
abandoned and starting to deteriorate. The resulting threat to this particular structure is high and its
integrity could be compromised.
This facility is extremely important because it is part of the first operational atomic weapons storage
site constructed under the control of SAC in response to the onset of the Cold War. During its
operation, it was one of only two fully capable SAC conventional weapons storage facilities in the
continental United States. The security measures associated with the building, along with the
nuclear blast-proof construction, illustrate the importance of survivability to the country's strategy
of strategic deterrence. As such, it played a significant role in the waging of the Cold War and
represents the significant warfighting capability of the USAF. The facility storage area was the
closest to the Soviet Union within the continental United States, therefore its setting at Loring AFB
also emphasizes the concept of strategic location. It fulfilled this function during Phase II of the
Cold War era, and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES
6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES
6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES
36
37
7.0 UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES
The purpose of the reconnaissance inventory was to provide initial information on the kinds of Cold
War resources extant on Loring AFB. During the fieldwork at the base, the field team could not
inventory all the resources available to them due to time limitations. As a result, some resources
were noted as existing but were not inventoried. Nevertheless, these resources may contain
potentially significant information pertaining to the base's Cold War context in general or to
specific properties or activities at Loring AFB. These resources should be investigated further for a
more comprehensive analysis.
A Master Plan dating to 1957 was found at the Community Planner's office. Bound in a large, blue
binder, this collection of original engineering drawings also contains aerial photographs.
The Wing History Office contained a few miscellaneous historic items, including two folders of
photographs, five boxes of slides, and a bound history titled The Loring Episode (Stevens and
Tyson 1980). One folder consists entirely of facility construction photographs, the other contains a
mixture of construction, commander, and personnel photographs. The subject material of the slides
consists mostly of personnel and some property. These items from the Wing History office are to
be sent to ACC. Any duplicates of property photographs will be donated to the Limestone
Historical Society (SSgt JoAnne Scibetta-Sargent, personal communication, July 7, 1994).
The USAF Historical Research Agency at Maxwell AFB, Alabama, is the repository for all Air
Force historical documents. A computerized search for materials related to Loring AFB revealed
approximately 155 citations. Most of these are unit histories and special collections. The vast
majority of these documents are available on microfilm. Future studies of Cold War history at
Loring AFB should allot time to researching these documents.
38
Finally, as part of the inventory process, various people at the base were contacted to help identify
resources important to the base's Cold War history. A list of these contacts, plus a list of informal
interviews conducted by the field team at the base, are presented in Appendix E.
39
8.0 FUTURE THREATS TO RESOURCES
There is no historic preservation plan for Loring AFB. Following closure in September 1994, the
base will become the Defense Finance and Accounting Center. As yet, nothing definite has been
decided for facilities not connected to the latter function (Spurge Nason, personal communication,
July 18, 1994). Properties evaluated for this project are perceived as having a moderate to high
level of threat to their interior and exterior integrity because of the impending closure. All have
been abandoned and utilities have been shut off. Minimum maintenance to sustain the exterior of
these buildings and provide weather proofing is planned for Real Property Nos. 8250, 8280, and
8970. No plans as yet have been made for Real Property No. 260.
40
9.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
Cultural resources are defined as physical manifestations of past human activity, occupation, or use.
This definition includes historic sites and objects. According to the NHPA, a historic property is a
cultural resource that either is listed on the NRHP or has been evaluated and determined eligible for
listing. For example, a Cold War maintenance hangar at Loring AFB is a cultural resource, but it
may or may not be a historic property according to NHPA terminology. A determination of
eligibility is a decision of whether a resource meets certain requirements. If the resource meets the
requirements, it is eligible for nomination to the NRHP.
A comprehensive national evaluation will be completed at the conclusion of the individual base
inventories. This evaluation will provide comprehensive management recommendations for the
resources recommended in the base reports as eligible, potentially eligible, or eligible in the future.
In the comprehensive evaluation, selected eligible resources will be recommended for actual
nomination to the NRHP.
9.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY
9.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility
Under the NHPA, cultural resources must meet certain requirements to be eligible for nomination
to the NRHP, and these requirements apply to Cold War resources. First, a resource must be
determined to be important within its historic context. It must also meet at least one of the NRHP
criteria of importance, as described in Section 4.2.2.2. The eligibility of a resource for inclusion in
the NRHP also lies in the resource's age. Generally, a resource must be at least 50 years old to be
considered eligible. However, if a resource is found to be of exceptional importance within its
historic context and in regard to the NRHP criteria, then the 50 year threshold is waived. This is
especially important for this study, as the resources that were evaluated achieved importance during
the Cold War era, thus are currently less than 50 years old. Finally, resources must possess integrity
41
of at least two of the following: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association, as appropriate.
Recommendations in this report regarding NRHP eligibility are preliminary. It is the responsibility
of the federal agency to make the determination of eligibility in consultation with the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO). If they cannot agree on a determination, a formal determination of
eligibility is then required from the Keeper of the NRHP, who acts on behalf of the Secretary of the
Interior in these matters. For this current study at Loring AFB, the Command Cultural Resources
Manager for ACC is the responsible party acting in the role of the federal agency. It is through the
Command Cultural Resources Manager, in consultation with the base commander, the respective
SHPO, and USAF Headquarters, that a determination of eligibility will be made for the evaluated
resources. Processing of NRHP nominations is conducted through the chain of command, from the
base through the major command to the Air Force Federal Preservation Officer, with the final
decision made by the Keeper of the NRHP.
As stated above, if a resource is determined to be eligible for nomination to the NRHP, or is listed
on the NRHP, the resource is considered as a historic property. Resources that have not been
completely evaluated for NRHP eligibility, and thus cannot be subject to a determination of
eligibility, are considered to be potentially eligible resources. This includes resources that are
unidentified or unknown. Because of this potential, these resources must be treated as though they
are eligible and managed accordingly until complete evaluation and determination of eligibility can
be made. In general, resources are considered as eligible, and treated as such, until determined
otherwise. Within the scope of the current Cold War study, only those resources that have
importance within the Cold War context have been evaluated for their eligibility. This means that
most of the resources on Loring AFB have not been evaluated, and thus must be considered and
treated as eligible until an evaluation and determination of eligibility are made.
Once a historic property has been listed on the NRHP, its determination of eligibility is basically
final, although there are processes for removing properties from the list. In some cases, historic
properties, though evaluated and determined eligible, are not nominated to the list.
42
These
properties, though not on the list, are treated the same as those properties listed. However, a
determination of eligibility of an unlisted historic property is not the final determination for that
resource. As time passes, a resource previously determined ineligible may become eligible when
re-evaluated, or a historic property may lose a pre-determined eligibility. Therefore, it is necessary
to re-evaluate unlisted historic properties periodically.
9.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility
Under NHPA, federal agencies have responsibilities toward the management of historic properties,
both those that have been identified and those that are unknown. There are many provisions in this
law which must be adhered to by federal agencies. Two sections of the NHPA apply directly to
resource protection, Section 110 and Section 106.
Section 110 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to assume responsibility for the preservation of
historic properties that are owned or controlled by the agency. The first step to this responsibility is
to identify, inventory, evaluate, and nominate all resources under the agency's ownership or control
that appear to qualify for listing on the NRHP. The current study is a means to meeting this step.
The agency must ensure that any resource that might qualify for listing is not inadvertently
transferred, sold, demolished, substantially altered, or allowed to deteriorate significantly. If it is
deemed necessary to proceed with a project that will adversely affect a historic property, the agency
must document the property for future use and reference, and deposit such records in a designated
repository.
Section 106 outlines a review process whereby the effect of a proposed project on historic
properties is considered prior to proceeding with that project. The review process is warranted for
all federal undertakings (federally conducted, licensed, permitted, or assisted actions), and is
intended to help balance agency goals and preservation goals, and to lead to creative conflict
resolution rather than to block or inhibit proposed undertakings. Thus it is a process that is
43
designed to take place during the planning stages of a project when changes can be made to achieve
this balance. Entities involved in the review process can include the agency, the SHPO of the
respective State, and the ACHP.
The principal steps in the Section 106 process include:

1) Identification of all historic properties (both listed and eligible for listing to the NRHP) that
may be affected by the proposed project; if no such historic properties are identified, and the
SHPO agrees with the findings, the project proceeds; if historic properties are identified the
process continues to Step 2.
2) Determination of the effect the proposed project may have on the identified historic
properties; if there will be no effect and the SHPO concurs, the project proceeds; if there
will be no adverse effect and the SHPO and ACHP agree, the project proceeds; if there will
be an adverse effect the process continues to Step 3.
3) Consultation among the agency, SHPO, and ACHP to attempt to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate the adverse effect; this step either results in the development of a Memorandum of
Agreement, in which case the process continues to Step 4, or in no agreement, which means
consultation is terminated.
4) ACHP comments on the project; the agency will either proceed with the project
implementing the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement, or will consider the ACHP's
comments and proceed with the project anyway, or will cancel the project.
Under Section 106, federal agencies undertaking a project having an effect on a listed or eligible
historic property must provide the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment. Having complied
with this procedural requirement, the agency may adopt any course of action it believes is
appropriate. While the ACHP comments must be taken into account and integrated into the
decision-making process, project decisions rest with the agency implementing the undertaking.
44
9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations for the evaluated resources at Loring AFB are presented below. Table 9.1
summarizes these recommendations.
More than one recommendation may apply to a given
resource. Terminology used in the recommendations is defined as follows:

No Further Work - This is recommended if the resource does not retain integrity and does
not require protection.
Stewardship - This treatment is recommended if the resource is important and some active
role should be taken in the management of the property. This is different from
preservation in that the resource requires general maintenance, but does not need
specified repairs or specialized storage.
National Register of Historic Places Listing - This is recommended if the resource
appears to be eligible for NRHP listing. These assessments will be reconsidered at the
national level.
Further Documentation - This is recommended if there is any further work to be
accomplished for the resource. This may be recommended when archival research
should be completed to document a Cold War relationship, inventory of documents is
needed, Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation is desirable, or
the integrity needs to be assessed.
Preservation/Conservation/Repair - This is recommended if the resource is considered
important and requires maintenance or repair to avoid loss or further deterioration.
This is also recommended when specialized storage conditions are required to
maintain the resource.
9.2.1 Bomber Alert Facility (Resource No. 9125, Real Property No. 8970)
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War
contexts during Phases II, III, and IV. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) based on its role in
sustaining a survivable force to meet the needs of deterrence and on its structural components
which are unique to this building type and identify it as an example of Cold War military
architecture. The integrity of the building is intact based upon partial visual inspection and use of
the building for this purpose during the last phase of the Cold War. Therefore, this building is
46
recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Recommendations include stewardship to maintain the

integrity of the building and its features, and further documentation to nominate this resource to the
NRHP.
9.2.2 Large Aircraft Maintenance Dock (Resource No. 9003, Real Property No. 8250)
contexts during Phase II. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) based on its role in maintaining the B36 force and on its structural components which are unique to this building type and identify it as an
example of Cold War military architecture. The integrity of the building is intact as only minimal
modifications have been made to the interior. Therefore, this building is recommended as eligible
to the NRHP. Recommendations include stewardship to maintain the integrity of the building and
its features, and further documentation to nominate this resource to the NRHP.
9.2.3 Large Aircraft Maintenance Dock (Resource No. 9102, Real Property No. 8280)
contexts during Phase II. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) based on its role in maintaining the B36 force and on its structural components which are unique to this building type and identify it as an
example of Cold War military architecture. The integrity of the building is intact as only minimal
modifications have been made. Therefore, this building is recommended as eligible to the NRHP.
Recommendations include stewardship to maintain the integrity of the building and its features, and
further documentation to nominate this resource to the NRHP.
9.2.4 Segregated Storage Igloo (Resource No. 9146, Real Property No. 260)
contexts during Phase II. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) based on its role in sustaining a
survivable force to meet the needs of deterrence and on its structural components which are unique
47
to this building type and identify it as an example of Cold War military architecture. The integrity
of the facility is intact based upon direct observation. Therefore, this building is recommended as
eligible to the NRHP. Recommendations include stewardship to maintain the integrity of the
building and its features, and further documentation to nominate this resource to the NRHP.
9.3 BASE CLOSURE
Because the base is scheduled for closure, and only minimum maintenance and weather proofing is
planned for facilities 8250, 8280, and 8970, the threat of impact to the integrity of these facilities is
great. Facility 260 is already beginning to deteriorate and no plans have been made for its
maintenance, thus its integrity is currently being adversely affected. It is recommended that
stewardship of all four of these buildings be undertaken immediately and that determinations of
eligibility be formalized quickly to prevent any further loss of integrity to these buildings which are
recommended as eligible to the NRHP.
48
10.0 REFERENCES CITED
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

1991 Balancing Historic Preservation Needs with the Operation of Highly Technical or
Scientific Facilities. Report prepared for the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, and the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Washington, D.C.
Civil Engineering Office, Loring Air Force Base
1966 42nd Civil Engineering Information Brochure, Loring Air Force Base, Maine. On file,
Real Estate Office, Loring Air Force Base, Maine.
1991 Executive Summary Brochure, Facility Improvement Program, Loring Air Force Base,
Maine. On file, Civil Engineering Squadron, 42 CES/DEVD, Loring Air Force Base,
Maine.
Department of Defense
1972 Installation Survey Report, Loring Air Force Base and Caswell Air Force Station,
Limestone, Maine. On file, Real Estate Office, Loring Air Force Base, Maine.
1993 Coming in from the Cold: Military Heritage in the Cold War. Report to the United States
Congress by the Legacy Resource Management Program, Washington, D.C.
Goldberg, A.
1957 A History of the United States Air Force, 1907-1957. D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc.,
Princeton, New Jersey.
Knaack, M. S.
1988 Encyclopedia of U.S. Air Force Aircraft and Missile Systems, Vol. II: Post World War II
Bombers 1945-1973. Office of Air Force History, Washington, D.C.
Lewis, K. and H. C. Higgins
1994 Cold War Properties Inventory Field Guide. MAI Project 735-15. Mariah Associates, Inc.,
Albuquerque.
Lewis, K., K. J. Roxlau, L. E. Rhodes, P. Boyer, and J. S. Murphey
1995 A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture, Volume I: Historic
Context and Methodology for Assessment. Prepared for United States Army Corps of
Engineers, Fort Worth District. Contributions by P. R. Green, J. A. Lowe, R. B. Roxlau,
and D. P. Staley. MAI Project 735-15. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque.
49
Loring Air Force Base

1961 Abbreviated Master Plan, Loring Air Force Base, Limestone, Maine. On file, Real Estate
Office, Loring Air Force Base, Maine.
1987 Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ), Loring Air Force Base: A Report to the
Governments and Citizens of the Loring Air Force Base Environs. On file, Real Estate
1989 Real Property Study, Annual Review, Loring Air Force Base, Maine. On file, Real Estate
1990 Economic Resource Impact Statement, Fiscal Year 1990, Loring Air Force Base, Maine.
On file, Real Estate Office, Loring Air Force Base, Maine.
McDougall, W. A.
1985 The Heavens and the Earth: A Political History of the Space Age. Basic Books, Inc., New
York.
Mueller, R.
1989 Air Force Bases: Active Air Force Bases Within the United States of America on
17 September 1982, Vol. 1. Office of History, United States Air Force, Washington, D.C.
Nason, S.
1988 Commanders Executive Summary Brochure, Loring Air Force Base, Maine. On file, Real
Estate Office, Loring Air Force Base, Maine.
National Park Service
1990 Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties That Have Achieved Significance
within the Last Fifty Years. National Register Bulletin 22. National Register Branch,
National Park Service, Washington, D.C.
1991 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (revised). National Register
Bulletin 15. National Register Branch, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.
Pickart, M.M., and T.C. Wessel
1994 Draft Architectural and Historic Evaluation, Loring Air Force Base, Aroostook County,
Maine. Archaeological and Historical Consultants, Inc., Centre Hall, Pennsylvania; The
Earth Technology Corporation, Colton, California.
Polmar, N., and T. M. Laur, Eds.
1990 Strategic Air Command: People, Aircraft, and Missiles. Second edition. The Nautical and
Aviation Publishing Company of America, Baltimore, Maryland.
50
Stevens, W.E. SSgt, and AIC P.G. Tyson

1980 The Loring Episode. On file, Wing History Office, Loring Air Force Base, Maine.
1993 Interim Guidance: Treatment of the Cold War Historic Properties for U.S. Air Force
Installations. Report prepared by Dr. Paul Green, United States Air Force, Washington,
D.C.
APPENDIX A:
RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY
APPENDIX B:
BASE LAYOUT MAPS SHOWING INVENTORIED RESOURCES
APPENDIX C:
PHOTOGRAPHS OF INVENTORIED RESOURCES
APPENDIX D:
DATA BASE DOCUMENTATION FOR EVALUATED RESOURCES
EVALUATED RESOURCES AT LORING AFB
Resource Number: 9003

Property Description: The "Arch Hangar" listed as Aircraft Corrosion
Control on AF Real Property Inventory
Associated Property: 9082
Non-Inventoried Association:
Sub-installation:
Address:
Base Map Date: 10/30/92
Base Map Building Number: 8250
Operational Support & Installations:
Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Maintenance Docks/Hangars
Training Facilities:
Material Development Facilities:
Intelligence:
Property Type: Large Aircraft Maintenance Dock
Statement of Significance: This hangar is significant in terms of political
policy and military strategy in that it represents a
central hangar on one of the first bases designed
specifically for the Air Force and SAC. It is also
significant for its architectural style and the
engineering effort expended in its construction. The
concrete superstructure is supported by massive
poured concrete arches and created space for two B-36
bombers.
Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition:
3
Theme Relationship:
3
Temporal Phase Relationship:
4
Level of Importance:
3
Percent Historic Fabric:
4
Severity of Threats:
2
Total Score for Priority Matrix:
19
Comments on Threats: Subsequent to base closure, plans call for
maintenance sufficient enough to retain structural
integrity and weather tightness. All utilities will
be shut off.
No Further Work:
No
Stewardship:
Yes
National Register Listing:
Yes
Further Documentation:
Yes
Preservation/Conservation/Repair:
No
Comments on Resource Management: Exceptionally significant for its architecture.
Importance: Exceptional
Eligibility: Eligible
Height:
Square Footage:
Original Planned Duration:
Existing Use:
Other Use/Dates:
90
126303
Permanent
Abandoned
Organization Maintenance Hangar, Field Maintenance
Hangar, SRAM Support Facility, Air Conditioning Plant
General Purpose Shop, Non-destructive Inspection Lab
Comments on Use: Contains two stories of occupiable space.
Primary Building Materials: Poured Concrete, Brick, and Concrete Block
Character Defining Features: Monolithic concrete arches with 340 ft span; enormous
unimpeded open interior space.

Property Description: DC (Double Cantilever) Hangar
Associated Property:
Sub-installation:
Address:
Base Map Date: 10/30/92
Base Map Building Number: 8280
Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Maintenance Docks/Hangars
Intelligence:
Property Type: Large Aircraft Maintenance Dock
Statement of Significance: This hangar is significant in that it is one of the
earliest hangars on an Air Force base designed for
the Air Force and the Strategic Air Command. This
hangar was designed and built in response to the Air
Forces need for larger maintenance space for their
ever increasing aircraft. It is also architecturally
significant in that it represents revolutionary
engineering design that allowed the storage of five
B-36 aircraft. It was one of the first double
cantilever hangars constructed for the Air Force and,
because of the Maine environment, required special
building techniques in its manufacture.
3
Theme Relationship:
3
3
4
4
3
20
Comments on Threats: Maintenance will be restricted to structural
integrity and weather tightness. All utilities are
discontinued.
No Further Work:
No
Stewardship:
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Comments on Resource Management: Efforts should be made to document this building
before it begins to deteriorate.
Height:
Square Footage:
Existing Use:
Other Use/Dates:
Comments on Use:
Primary Building Materials:
Character Defining Features:
66
194243
Permanent
Abandoned
Modified in 1957 for B-52 use.
Concrete Block, Corregated Metal
Double Cantilever design, massive open space, large
sliding doors, tremendous metal trusses.

Property Description:
Sub-installation:
Address:
Base Map Date:
Base Map Building Number:
Alert Facility - Molehole

9126, 9127, 9172, 9186
10/30/92
8970

Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Alert Facilities
Intelligence:
Property Type: Bomber Alert Facility
Statement of Significance: This building represents the Alert posture taken by
the US as part of the deterence strategy. The
building possesses feeling and association and
demonstrates those relationships with the
architectural features such as being nearly
windowless, semisubterranean, and the ramped entries
for rapid egress. More importantly, this building is
significant because of its disuse between
approximately 1967 and 1986. The windowless
atmosphere and remoteness of the facility was cause
for severely reduced crew morale. Command decided
that building 6000 could function as a sufficient
alert facility and had greater access to normal base
facilities.
4
Theme Relationship:
4
3
4
4
2
21
Comments on Threats: Structural Integrity and weatherproofing only.
No Further Work:
No
Stewardship:
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Comments on Resource Management: Giventhe uniqueness of this Molehole, ie the fact
that this specially designed building was not used,
this example should be considered for National
Register Listing.
Height:
Square Footage:
Existing Use:
Other Use/Dates:
Comments on Use:
Primary Building Materials:
20
73871
Permanent
Abandoned
Abandoned between 1967 and 1983; "pickled in 1976"
Poured Concrete

Property Description:
Sub-installation:
Address:
Base Map Date:
Base Map Building Number:
Storage Igloo
9147, 9145, 9150, 9143, 9152, 9141
9142, 9148, 9149, 9144
East Loring Ammunition Storage
10/30/92
260

Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Storage
Intelligence:
Property Type: Segregated Storage Igloo
Statement of Significance: This facility was utilized for the storage of nuclear
components for the assembly of nuclear weapons. The
early date of construction during the Cold War, the
security measures associated with the structure, and
the architectural style of the building to store
nuclear weapons components make this structure unique
among USAF property types.
Theme Relationship:
Comments on Threats:
4
4
4
3
4
4
23
No Further Work:
No
Stewardship:
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Comments on Resource Management: This facilty is not in use and is gradually
deterioating in condition. The base is sheduled to
close soon and efforts should be made to preserve
this important example of Cold War cultural resource
Height:
Square Footage:
Existing Use:
Other Use/Dates:
20
2250
Permanent
This structure has not been in use for 3 decades
The structure was utilized for the storage of nuclear
weapons components between 1952 and approximatey
1964
Primary Building Materials: Poured Concrete
Character Defining Features: This structure is characterized by its massive, ten
foot thick reinforced concrete walls and four
interior vaults and heavy steel doors. It possesses
imitation window designs which are actually the
concrete walls; this design is for security to give
the structure the appearance of a staff building if
photographed from a distance
APPENDIX E:
EXTANT SOURCES OF INFORMATION
E-1
BASE CONTACTS
The following people were contacted during the base visit by the field team to help identify Cold
War material culture extant on Loring AFB, and to provide research materials for this study:
Spurge Nason
Community Planner/Base Conversion Officer
Box 523
Limestone, ME 84750
(207) 328-7075
SSgt Clayton Peters
Auto CAD
42nd CES/CEES
Building 7300
Loring AFB, ME 04751-5000
(207) 999-2408
SSgt JoAnne Scibetta-Sargent
Wing Historian
42nd BW/HO
Building 5000
(207) 999-2547
SSgt Boston
Commander of Security Police
42nd MSSQ/SPS
(207) 999-7297
E-2
INFORMAL INTERVIEWS
The following people were informally interviewed by the Mariah field team during the base visit.
They were identified as people possessing extensive knowledge of Loring AFB history and Cold
War context.
Spurge Nason, Community Planner/Base Conversion Officer, July 18, 1994

SSgt Joanne Scibetta-Sargent, Wing Historian, July 19, 1994

Loring AFB Cold War Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Loring AFB Cold War Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A SYSTEMIC STUDY OF AIR COMBAT COMMAND

COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE

VOLUME II-16: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR

Mariah Associates, Inc.

United States Air Force

Volume II-16: Loring Air Force Base

Volume II-16: Loring Air Force Base

Air Combat Command

Volume II-16: Loring Air Force Base

Volume II-16: Loring Air Force Base

Volume II-16: Loring Air Force Base

3.0 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 13

Volume II-16: Loring Air Force Base

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Volume II-16: Loring Air Force Base

Location of Loring Air Force Base............................................................................ 5

Loring Air Force Base Layout ................................................................................... 7

Standard Strategic Air Command Base Layout ........................................................ 8

Loring Air Force Base Land Use Diagram................................................................ 10

Standard Strategic Air Command Base Land Use Diagram ..................................... 11

Loring Air Force Base, 1947-1953 ............................................................................ 19

Loring Air Force Base, 1953-1961 ............................................................................ 21

Evaluated Resource Prioritization by Air Force Group and Subgroup .................... 31

Evaluated Resource Prioritization by Priority Rank ................................................. 31

Recommendations for Evaluated Resources ............................................................. 45

Volume II-16: Loring Air Force Base

Phase I - July 1945 to January 1953

Phase II - January 1953 to November 1963

Volume II-16: Loring Air Force Base

Phase III - November 1963 to January 1981

Phase IV - January 1981 to November 1989

Section 110 requires federal agencies to

Volume II-16: Loring Air Force Base

2.0 BASE DESCRIPTION

2.1 CURRENT BASE MISSION

2.2 GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION

However, while forest still predominates, considerable agriculture is

Volume II-16: Loring Air Force Base

2.3 CURRENT BASE LAYOUT

2.4 BASE LAND USE

The following is a list of standard SAC land use categories:

Volume II-16: Loring Air Force Base

Volume II-16: Loring Air Force Base

Volume II-16: Loring Air Force Base

3.0 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

3.1 BASE HISTORY AND COLD WAR CONTEXT

Volume II-16: Loring Air Force Base

Volume II-16: Loring Air Force Base

Significant advancements by the Soviet Union in the development of intercontinental ballistic

Volume II-16: Loring Air Force Base

The 42nd Airborne Missile

Volume II-16: Loring Air Force Base

3.2 BASE DEVELOPMENT

Maps depicting this early

Volume II-16: Loring Air Force Base

Other construction completed by 1952 included a base hospital, motor pool,

Volume II-16: Loring Air Force Base

Volume II-16: Loring Air Force Base

Volume II-16: Loring Air Force Base

4.2 EVALUATION OF IMPORTANT RESOURCES

Resource selection procedures are detailed in the field guide

4.2.2 Evaluation of Importance

4.2.2.1 Cold War Context