Air Combat Command Cold War Inventory

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AIR COMBAT COMMAND
and the Legacy of the Cold War: A Systematic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture
INTRODUCTION TO THE REPORT SERIES ON CD-ROM Overview This compact disk (CD) contains the results of a study of material culture at 27 United States Air Force (USAF) Air Force bases (AFB) located throughout the contiguous United States and Panama. The study was designed to evaluate historic properties (real property, personal property, records, documents, and sites) that date to the Cold War era (1946-1989). The study was undertaken in compliance with Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 which requires federal agencies to identify properties under their control which may be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Being less than 50 years of age, the properties in the present study may be considered for nomination to the NRHP only if they are shown to be exceptionally significant; this study develops a methodology to assess such significance within the historic context of the Cold War. The bases included in the study are those which were under the operational authority of the Air Combat Command (ACC) in late 1993. ACC is the successor to the Strategic Air Command, Tactical Air Command, and other major commands that played key roles in the Cold War. The 27 bases and their associated Air Force Ranges (AFR) are:
Barksdale AFB, Louisiana Beale AFB, California Cannon AFB, New Mexico Castle AFB, California Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona Dyess AFB, Texas Ellsworth AFB and Badlands AFR, South Dakota Fairchild AFB, Washington Griffiss AFB, New York Holloman AFB and Melrose AFR, New Mexico Homestead AFB, Florida Howard AFB and Balboa AFR, Panama Sawyer AFB, Michigan Langley AFB, Virginia Little Rock AFB, Arkansas Loring AFB, Maine MacDill AFB and Avon Park AFR, Florida McConnell AFB, Kansas Minot AFB, North Dakota Moody AFB and Grand Bay AFR, Georgia Mountain Home AFB and Saylor Creek AFR, Idaho Nellis AFB, Nevada and Cuddeback AFR, California Offutt AFB, Nebraska Pope AFB, North Carolina Seymour Johnson AFB and Dare County AFR, North Carolina Shaw AFB and Poinsett AFR, South Carolina Whiteman AFB, Missouri
The results of this study were originally intended to be presented in a series of 29 hardcopy documents of limited distribution. The series was to include one introductory report containing an historic context and a methodology, 27 individual reports with results from each of the ACC bases, and one summary
page 1
A Systematic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture Introduction to the Report Series on Compact Disk
report presenting conclusions. To facilitate wider distribution, each of these 29 reports has now been converted to electronic format and has been included in this CD. Each of the 29 documents is presented in Portable Document Format (PDF) and may be accessed using the Adobe Acrobat Reader (AcroRead), which is included on this CD. Once AcroRead is running, you may retrieve any of the 29 documents by using the File option on the AcroRead menu bar or by clicking on the file name or file icon. Any document page may be magnified or reduced by using the magnify icon, or by choosing an option under the View utility. The documents may be searched for key words using the Find utility and any page or range of pages may be printed. Further guidance to using AcroRead may be found in the programs README.WRI file. Organization of the Report Series The first document in the series is the Historic Context and Methodology for Assessment. This report begins with a discussion of the dramatic effect the Cold War had on the individual American psyche and on society and the culture as a whole. The historic context focuses on developments in United States government policy and military strategy during the Cold War era, the evolution of the Air Force, and, finally, the development of USAF material culture within the context of the various missions of the Cold War era. Four themes are developed - (1) national policy and military strategy, (2) technology, (3) military architecture and engineering, and (4) United States society and culture. This discussion provides a basis against which to evaluate the significance of ACC Cold War material culture and its role in the development of the Cold War and its ideologies. The methodology offers a strategy for evaluating the significance of ACC properties based on NRHP criteria and methods to determine which properties possess exceptional significance. The methodology includes the establishment of temporal parameters, identification of primary ACC property types, prioritization of ACC cultural resources, a comparative analysis of individual ACC installations, and NRHP eligibility requirements. The next 27 documents present the results at each of the ACC bases. During the on-site physical inspections, each property was classified according to five Cold War property types - (1) operational and support installations, (2) combat weapons and support systems, (3) training facilities, (4) materiel development facilities, and (5) intelligence facilities. Each property was also ranked for six criteria: (1) directness of relationship to the Cold War; (2) contextual theme; (3) temporal phase within the Cold War; (4) importance; (5) integrity; and (6) current threats. For each installation, the resulting data were structured in a priority matrix. The report structure is the same for each installation and includes a description of the base, an overview of its history and military mission, study results, evaluation of the inventoried historic properties, and a photographic appendix. Finally, the 29th document contains the Summary Report and Final Programmatic Recommendations. This document examines patterns in base layout and historic land use, describes the resources selected for evaluation, and summarizes the findings for each installation. The priority ranking system is discussed along with the results. Finally, a programmatic approach to management and treatment of the evaluated resources is provided.
page 2
A Systematic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture Introduction to the Report Series on Compact Disk
Study Background The end of the Cold War in 1989 brought with it a restructuring of the Department of Defense. The ACC came into existence on June 1, 1992, incorporating assets from the Strategic Air Command (SAC), Tactical Air Command (TAC), and Military Airlift Command (MAC). During the Cold War, SAC and TAC had the primary responsibility of enforcing United States policies around the world through the deployment of air power, especially to contain and deter communism. Air Defense Command (ADC; renamed Aerospace Defense Command in 1968) and SAC had the primary responsibility for deterrence and air defense of the continental United States; TAC supported this mission. The bulk of the USAF ACC real property holdings are related to SAC, ADC, and TAC activities. Although the USAF missile program was transferred to the United States Space Command, under the operational authority of the North American Aerospace Defense Command in July 1993, the missile fields remain under the administration of ACC through the individual bases. In the late summer of 1992, Vandenberg AFB, then a part of ACC, began a program to modify some of its missile systems. The base consulted with the State Historic Preservation Office in California to determine whether any effects to historic properties from the Cold War era were involved. In the course of resolving this action, the matter of Cold War era historic properties came to the attention of Mr. Gary Vest, then Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health (SAF/MIQ). On October 9, 1992, Mr. Vest asked the USAF Civil Engineer to coordinate with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to develop a policy regarding Cold War resources and scientific and technical equipment. SAF/MIQ also directed USAF bases to consult with SHPOs under Section 106 of the NHPA until a coordinated policy could be fully implemented. After consulting with numerous agencies, the Air Force issued interim guidance for the treatment of Cold War historic properties in June 1993. Immediately thereafter, ACC embarked on a command-wide baseline assessment of its potential Cold War historic resources. Acknowledgments The study was funded by ACC with general oversight provided by Dr. Paul Green, HQ ACC, Langley, Virginia. Additional limited funding for selected study components was provided by the Department of Defense Legacy Program. The study was conducted by TRC Mariah Associates Inc. under contract DACA63-92-D-0011, Delivery Order 15, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District. The Corps Technical Representative was Joseph Murphey. The project was managed by Dr. Nicholas Trierweiler, and the cultural resource specialists who conducted the study included Katherine Roxlau, Karen Lewis, James Lowe, Patience Patterson, Blake Roxlau, David Staley, Lori Rhodes, John Evaskovich, Jason Marmor, and Toni Goar. The CD cover was adapted from a poster created by Mina Yamashita and conversion of the hardcopy reports to CD was accomplished by Cochran Software Solutions.
page 3
A SYSTEMIC STUDY OF AIR COMBAT COMMAND COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE
VOLUME II-1: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE AT BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE
Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command Langley Air Force Base, Virginia
Prepared by James A. Lowe John A. Evaskovich 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
July 1997
United States Air Force Air Combat Command
Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Mariah Associates, Inc. conducted a cultural resource inventory at Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, between November 8 and 11, 1994, to identify extant Cold War resources important to the base, its history, and Cold War mission as part of the Air Combat Command Cold War study for the ongoing Department of Defense Legacy Program. Environmental scientists James Lowe and John Evaskovich comprised the field team and were welcomed to the base by Robert Haddix, Cultural Resource Manager, from the Environmental Office. Following a discussion concerning the objectives and needs for completing the base inventory, Mr. Haddix arranged for an escort to accompany the field team on an orientation tour of the base.
A variety of information repositories were inventoried on base: the Wing History Office, Public Affairs Office, Civil Engineering Office and Drafting Department, Real Estate Office, Environmental Office, and the Eighth Air Force Museum. Informal interviews were conducted with personnel long affiliated with the base to better understand the relationship of specific base properties to the Cold War era. A photographic reconnaissance of the base was conducted to document Cold War resources as well as representative architecture on the base.
Five resources were selected for documentation and evaluation due to their importance within the base Cold War context. Two Bomber Alert Facilities and a Segregated Storage Igloo represent the U.S. Air Force alert posture and deterrence capabilities indicative of the Cold War era. Recommendations for all three of these resources include National Register of Historic Places eligibility, stewardship, and further documentation. Two Documentary Collections illustrate the development of the base during the Cold War, describe historical base events, and provide information on specific base properties. Recommendations for these resources include further documentation, stewardship, and conservation.
ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACC ACHP AEC AFB AGE ALCM AMMS AMS AREFS BMG BMS BMW BW DoD FMS FTD GHQ HABS ICBM MAC Mariah MMS NCO NHPA NPS NRHP OCONUS OMS PACCS PME SAC SACTC SALT SDI SHPO SRAM START SW TAC USAF
Air Combat Command Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Atomic Energy Commission Air Force Base Air Ground Equipment Air Launched Cruise Missile Airborne Missile Maintenance Squadron Avionics Maintenance Squadron Air Refueling Squadron Bombardment Group Bombardment Squadron Bombardment Wing Bomb Wing Department of Defense Field Maintenance Squadron Field Training Detachment General Headquarters Historic American Buildings Survey Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Military Airlift Command Mariah Associates, Inc. Munitions Maintenance Squadron Noncommissioned Officer National Historic Preservation Act National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Off the Continental United States Organizational Maintenance Squadron Post Attack Command and Control System Precision Measurement Equipment Strategic Air Command Southeast Air Corps Training Center Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty Strategic Defense Initiative State Historic Preservation Officer Short Range Attack Missile Strategic Arms Reduction Talks Strategic Wing Tactical Air Command United States Air Force
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 Soviet Union to one each. 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 longrange nuclear missiles, as well as 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. 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. 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.
iv
GLOSSARY (Continued)
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 weapon 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 8
3.0 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ................................................................................................. 13 3.1 BASE HISTORY AND COLD WAR CONTEXT ......................................................... 13 3.2 BASE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................ 20 4.0 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 4.1 INVENTORY .................................................................................................................. 4.2 EVALUATION OF IMPORTANT RESOURCES......................................................... 4.2.1 Documentation ....................................................................................................... 4.2.2 Evaluation of Importance ....................................................................................... 4.2.2.1 Cold War Context ......................................................................................... 4.2.2.2 NRHP Criteria ............................................................................................... 4.2.2.3 Exceptional Importance ................................................................................. 4.2.3 Evaluation of Integrity............................................................................................ 4.2.4 Priority Matrix ........................................................................................................ 4.2.5 Resource Organization ........................................................................................... 4.3 BASE SPECIFIC METHODS ........................................................................................ 27 27 28 28 28 28 29 30 30 31 32 32
5.0 RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY RESULTS ................................................................ 34 6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS ................................................................................................... 6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS .................................................... 6.1.1 Documentation ....................................................................................................... 6.1.1.1 Documentary Collection................................................................................ 6.1.1.2 Documentary Collection................................................................................ 6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS .................................................... 6.2.1 Alert Facilities ........................................................................................................ 35 35 35 35 37 38 38
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.2.1.1 Bomber Alert Facility.................................................................................... 6.2.1.2 Bomber Alert Facility.................................................................................... 6.2.2 Weapons Storage .................................................................................................... 6.2.2.1 Segregated Storage Igloo ............................................................................... 6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES ................................................................ 6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES ................................................................................................ 6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES....................................................................................... 38 39 40 40 41 41 41
7.0 UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 42 8.0 FUTURE THREATS TO RESOURCES .............................................................................. 43 9.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 9.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY ...................................................................................................... 9.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility............................................... 9.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility ........................................................................... 9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 9.2.1 Documentary Collection......................................................................................... 9.2.2 Documentary Collection......................................................................................... 9.2.3 Bomber Alert Facility............................................................................................. 9.2.4 Bomber Alert Facility............................................................................................. 9.2.5 Segregated Storage Igloo ........................................................................................ 44 44 44 46 47 49 49 50 50 50
10.0 REFERENCES CITED ....................................................................................................... 52 APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D: APPENDIX E: RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY BASE LAYOUT MAPS SHOWING INVENTORIED RESOURCES PHOTOGRAPHS OF INVENTORIED RESOURCES DATA BASE DOCUMENTATION FOR EVALUATED RESOURCES EXTANT SOURCES OF INFORMATION
vii
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Bases Selected for the Air Combat Command Cold War Study .......................... 2 Location of Barksdale Air Force Base ................................................................. 5 Barksdale Air Force Base Layout ......................................................................... 7 Standard Strategic Air Command Base Layout .................................................... 9 Barksdale Air Force Base Land Use Diagram ...................................................... 11 Standard Strategic Air Command Base Land Use Diagram................................. 12 Barksdale Air Force Base, 1940 - 1950................................................................ 21 Barksdale Air Force Base, 1950 - 1960................................................................ 22 Barksdale Air Force Base, 1960 - 1980................................................................ 24 Barksdale Air Force Base, 1980 - Present ............................................................ 25
LIST OF TABLES
Table 6.1
Evaluated Resource Prioritization by Air Force Group and Subgroup .............................................................................................................. 35 Evaluated Resource Prioritization by Priority Rank ............................................ 35 Recommendations for Evaluated Resources ........................................................ 47
Table 6.2 Table 9.1
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 Barksdale Air Force Base (AFB). Barksdale 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
The 2nd Bomb Wing (BW) is the host unit at Barksdale AFB. Its mission is to "maintain combat readiness to conduct long-range, heavy bombardment on a global scale" (Environmental Office 1994:8). To maintain this capability, the 2nd BW controls two flying squadrons of B-52H Stratofortress aircraft, the 20th and 596th Bomb Squadrons. The 2nd BW also maintained air refueling capability with the KC-135 Stratotanker and the KC-10 Extender until March 1994, when some of the tankers were transferred to other ACC bases as part of an Air Force realignment, and the remaining tankers were reassigned to the 458th Operations Group at Barksdale AFB under Air Mobility Command. Following the loss of the air refueling mission, the 2nd BW assumed responsibility for training all B-52 aircrews in the Air Force (Environmental Office 1994:8; Public Affairs Office 1994a:2; 1994b:2). Headquarters Eighth Air Force is also located at Barksdale AFB, consisting of active air force, air national guard, and air force reserve units. One of three numbered air forces in ACC, its mission is to function "as a total force war fighting headquarters employing decisive global air power for U.S. Atlantic Command and U.S. Strategic Command" (Public Affairs Office 1994c:1).
2.2 GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION
Barksdale AFB is located in northwest Louisiana adjacent to Bossier City, northeast of the Red River, and 2 mi (3.2 km) northeast of the city of Shreveport (Figure 2.1). The base is centered in an economic area known as the "Ark-La-Tex," named for its proximity to southwest Arkansas and northeast Texas (Department of Defense [DoD] 1971:5; Environmental Office 1994:7; United States Air Force [USAF] 1984:5). The base consists of approximately 22,000 acres (8,903 ha) or 34 mi (88 km ) of government owned land and easements.
2 2
The base is located within the floodplain of the Red River Alluvial Valley which is part of the central Gulf Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The region is characterized by a gently sloping and lightly dissected plain situated between the Appalachian and Ouachita mountains and the Gulf of Mexico. The topography is virtually level, with elevations on base ranging from 155 to 165 ft (47 to 50 m) above mean sea level (Fenneman 1938:115-117; USAF 1989:1). Prime farmland exists in the region surrounding the base. Traditionally a cotton producing region, primary products also include beef cattle, corn, grain, feed crops, soybeans, and timber harvesting in the woodland areas (Civil Engineering Office 1989:3-15; DoD 1971:5; USAF 1984:5).
2.3 CURRENT BASE LAYOUT
Barksdale AFB is composed of three sections: the main base area, Barksdale East, and the East Reservation (Figure 2.2). The East Reservation, which itself comprises approximately
17,900 acres, is mostly woodland with little development. It contains approximately 1,000 acres of wetlands (Civil Engineering Office 1989:1-11,2-5,3-15; DoD 1971:20-21). A family housing area, originally built for personnel assigned to the classified weapons storage area, is located in the middle of the East Reservation beside a lake developed for recreational use.
2 2
The main base and Barksdale East, which total 8 mi (20 km ), contain the bulk of base development. The runway and associated parking apron are oriented northwest to southeast and act as a barrier between these two sections. Development in the main base is situated along the entire parking apron and extends southwest, forming the shape of a crude triangle with the main gate at its apex. The main road on base, Barksdale Boulevard, runs from this gate to the parking apron, bisecting the main base development into northern and southern portions.
Barksdale East, located on the opposite side of the runway between the runway and the East Reservation, contains development in its northern half. A large weapons storage area and a group of administration and support facilities comprise this development.
InsertFigu2.
The main base and flight line layout follows that depicted for a standard SAC base (Figure 2.3). Development is located along the flight line on one side, with a bomber alert apron extending off one end of the runway. However, the presence of the rest of the base does not follow the standard layout. The location of developments, namely the housing, recreation, and weapons storage areas, in these areas also does not follow the standard layout.
2.4 BASE LAND USE
The following is a list of standard SAC land use categories: Alert Facility - provides 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. Weapon 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
10 10
provide buffers for base facilities, safety clearances, secure areas, utility easements, and environmentally sensitive areas. At Barksdale AFB, most of the East Reservation and
approximately half of Barksdale East consist of open space. The main base has open space only at each end of the runway.
On the main base, mission areas line the flight line (Figure 2.4). Headquarters are located within the mission area and directly next to it. Next to the mission area are community, unaccompanied housing, and industrial areas. Next is a mix of former housing areas, family housing areas, and unaccompanied housing, with community areas interspersed throughout. Farthest from the flight line and at the apex of the triangle is a large recreational area and the main gate. The alert facility and apron are located at the northern end of the flight line.
On Barksdale East, most of the development is for weapon and warhead storage. A small area of buildings originally built for administration of the weapons storage area is now used for ACC's Non-commissioned Officer (NCO) Academy. This area is now divided into base support
facilities, unaccompanied housing, and community areas for the academy.
In comparing Barksdale AFB land use with the standard SAC pattern of land use (Figure 2.5), one can see both similarities and differences. Like the standard, Barksdale AFB's mission area is along the flight line, community and unaccompanied housing are next to the mission area, some of the headquarters buildings are within a community area, family housing and community areas are together farthest from the flight line, and the alert area is found at one end of the runway. Differences in Barksdale AFB's land use include the presence of headquarters buildings in the mission area, the close proximity of the family housing areas to the mission area, and the location of the weapons storage area on the opposite side of the runway along with base support, unaccompanied housing, and community areas.
13 13
3.0 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
3.1 BASE HISTORY AND COLD WAR CONTEXT
The Air Corps Act of 1926 authorized the expansion of U.S. military air power capabilities while at the same time creating the Air Corps from the former Air Service. New airfields were needed to meet the proposed expansion of the 3rd Attack Wing along the southern border of the United States. In addition, 20,000 acres (8,094 ha) of land were required to support a bombing and gunnery range. Following several years of competition between communities to acquire a military base, Shreveport, Louisiana, was chosen as one of the locations for a new airfield (Army Corps of Engineers 1994:8-9; Dewitt 1932:17; Wing History Office 1967:11; 1978:10-12).
A large cotton plantation was chosen as the site for the new airfield, and, on December 4, 1928, Shreveport was chosen as the site for the new home of the 3rd Attack Wing. The city of Shreveport donated the land to the federal government following a successful bond issue to purchase the property. The Secretary of War formally accepted the property in May 1929, and the airfield was officially established on November 18, 1930. Construction of the airfield began in January 1931 when 1,400 acres (567 ha) of cottonland were plowed under and graded. Construction of the airfield continued through 1932 to ready the airfield for flying activities. The 20th Pursuit Group, a unit of the 3rd Attack Wing, arrived in October 1932 as the base's first operational unit under the Fourth Corps (Mueller 1989:15,18; Public Affairs Office 1993:3; Wing History Office 1978:12-14).
Barksdale Field was dedicated on February 2, 1933, as the largest airfield in the world. The airfield was named in honor of Lt. Eugene H. Barksdale, a native of Mississippi. Barksdale enlisted in the Signal Corps in 1917, and, after completion of flight training, he was commissioned and assigned as a pilot to the Royal Air Force in England during World War I. Lt. Barksdale was killed on August 11, 1926, when his attempt to parachute to safety from an
14 14
observation plane failed (Mueller 1989:15; Public Affairs Office 1994a:1; Wing History Office 1978:14-19; n.d.:1,4).
Barksdale Field expanded rapidly with the arrival of the 3rd Attack Wing and its 3rd Attack Group in February 1935. In March, General Headquarters (GHQ) Air Force was created and assigned to Barksdale Field, and the 3rd Attack Wing was redesignated the 3rd Wing. The airfield served as a training base for combat groups and air service units between 1935 and the beginning of World War II in 1939 (Army Corps of Engineers 1994:15; Mueller 1989:15; Wing History Office 1978:19; n.d.:5).
While the war in Europe escalated, the 3rd Wing was reassigned to Savannah, Georgia, in October 1940. At the same time, Barksdale Field was assigned a new mission. The Southeast Air Corps Training Center (SACTC), with four specialized flying schools, was established at Barksdale Field to train pilots and bombardment crews for the war effort. The vast East
Reservation was utilized for bombing and gunnery practice and chemical warfare training.
The command changed at Barksdale Field from SACTC to Air Force Combat Command in December 1941, and again in February 1942 with the arrival of Third Air Force which remained in control of the base until June 1945. During these command changes, the mission at Barksdale Field remained one of training aircrews for the war effort. However, the role as a flight training base was changed to that of an Operational Training Unit base following the entry of the United States into World War II, with the airfield used in training bombardment units for combat. The mission was altered again in August 1942, when Barksdale Field became a Replacement Training Unit base for B-26 bomber crews, including French B-26 crews. To accommodate increased training activities, expansion at Barksdale Field continued throughout the remainder of World War II (Civil Engineering Office 1989:2-4; Mueller 1989:18; Wing History Office 1978:27-30; n.d.:8-17,25).
15 15
Following the end of the war, Barksdale Field, briefly under the command of the Continental Air Forces from June to October 1945, came under the jurisdiction of Army Air Force Training Command in November 1945. This new command brought the Army Air Force Pilot Instructor School to the field, with other specialized school programs to follow. Following the 1947 National Security Act, which created the Air Force as a separate branch of the U.S. military, the base was renamed Barksdale AFB on January 13, 1948 (Lewis et al. 1995). The 47th
Bombardment Group (BMG) transferred to Barksdale AFB in November 1948. In 1949, the group converted to the B-45 Tornado, making the 47th BMG the first jet bomber unit in the Air Force (Army Corps of Engineers 1994:22; Mueller 1989:18; Wing History Office 1978:33; n.d.:26-29).
The year 1949 was important for Barksdale AFB as reorganization within the Air Force ensured that Barksdale AFB would play a prominent role in the defense posture of the Air Force in the decades to come. The 47th BMG was deactivated at the end of October 1949. On November 1, SAC assumed command of the base and Headquarters Second Air Force was assigned to SAC and to Barksdale AFB that same day. Since its inception in 1946, SAC's mission centered around the development of the airborne capability to sustain massive long-range striking power. The primary mission of Second Air Force was reconnaissance, "the Eyes of the Air Force." Together, SAC and Second Air Force, utilizing aerial refueling and vital intelligence information respectively, fashioned a global deterrent force. The 301st Bombardment Wing (BMW) was transferred to Barksdale AFB on November 8, and its arrival signified that the base would play a significant role in the nation's deterrent capability (Army Corps of Engineers 1994:22; Public Affairs Office 1994a:2; Wing History Office 1978:34-35,40).
Expansion of SAC proceeded apace, with the Korean conflict acting as the catalyst.
On
April 1, 1950, the existing three numbered air forces were reorganized, and all SAC bases in the central United States came under the operational control of Second Air Force at Barksdale AFB; Second Air Force now controlled bombardment, refueling, fighter, and strategic reconnaissance units. At the same time, the arrival at Barksdale AFB of the 376th BMW in February 1951
16 16
contributed significantly to the base's warfare capabilities (Army Corps of Engineers 1994:26-27; Wing History Office 1978:40; n.d.:29).
The early years of the Cold War were marked by nuclear weapons research and development and the early arms race (Lewis et al. 1995). Barksdale AFB joined the nuclear age with the
development of Bossier Base in 1951. Created as a separate entity within the Barksdale AFB reservation, and located east of the runway area, Bossier Base was a weapons storage area designed and built to stockpile nuclear weapon components for the Defense Atomic Support Agency under the auspices of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). It was one of 13 original areas built to store and maintain the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile in operational readiness. The Air Force re-acquired responsibility for Bossier Base in 1962 and incorporated it into Barksdale AFB in 1970. It is currently known as Barksdale East (Civil Engineering Office 1989:2-4; Sandia National Laboratories 1994:2; Wing History Office 1978:45). Bossier Base was also one of three locations that tested the weapons' reliability in extreme environments under the Natural Environmental Test Program between 1952 and 1960. Considered a tropical
environment, weapons systems at Bossier Base were intentionally left outside to determine the effects of exposure to the environment (Sandia National Laboratories 1994:6).
Technology and organization progressed during the 1950s to promote a more effective SAC deterrent at Barksdale AFB. Both the 301st and the 376th BMWs at Barksdale were fully operational with the B-47 Stratojet by 1954. They were assisted in their mission of deterrence by the 301st and 376th Air Refueling Squadrons (AREFS). Barksdale AFB received its first B-52 in 1958, replacing the B-47, and the KC-135 replaced the propeller driven KC-97. The introduction of the B-52 and KC-135 was the catalyst for the reorganization of the Second Air Force on March 1, 1958. The 4238th Strategic Wing (SW) became the host unit when it was designated and organized at Barksdale AFB in April 1958, and, in August, the 436th Bombardment Squadron (BMS) was assigned to the base. The 376th and 301st AREFS provided the 4238th SW with two combat-ready tanker squadrons (Wing History Office 1967:13; 1978:40-42; n.d.:30-31,34). The primary mission of the 4238th was to conduct strategic bombardment
17 17
operations on a global scale. This included, but was not necessarily limited to, "the maintenance of proficiency of strategic crews and units to successfully deliver atomic and other weapons as directed by prescribed tactics and procedures in the event that Emergency War Orders were placed into effect" (Wing History Office 1959:1-2).
The decade of the 1960s ushered in a more volatile geopolitical climate while research and development technology in the United States continued to make advancements in weapons capability. The alert program at Barksdale AFB was improved with the 1960 completion of a hardened alert facility and alert apron for the bomber crews. In 1961, Second Air Force became an increasingly diversified command when the first squadron of Atlas intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) became operational (Army Corps of Engineers 1994:28-29; Wing History Office 1978:44; n.d.:35). Barksdale AFB also completed facilities in 1961 to accommodate the Hound Dog missile for use by the B-52, and, on November 1, the 4238th Airborne Missile Maintenance Squadron (AMMS) was activated at the base (Wing History Office n.d.:36,38).
Shortly thereafter, in 1961, President Kennedy developed the Post Attack Command Control System (PACCS), nicknamed "Looking Glass," to augment the airborne command system. This expanded system added three auxiliary airborne command posts to the existing system, one of which was made operational at Barksdale AFB in April 1961 utilizing a modified KC-135 (Lewis et al. 1995; SAC 1991:11,15; Wing History Office 1978:44; n.d.:37; Young 1963:6).
This timely addition to the Air Force command and control system occurred just prior to the Cuban Crisis, one of the most potentially volatile Cold War events (Lewis et al. 1995). During the crisis, units at Barksdale AFB were on stand-by alert status, and "from October 24, through November, Barksdale's B-52s and KC-135s were on continual alert" (Army Corps of Engineers 1994:28; Wing History Office 1978:44; n.d.:38). In addition, U-2 reconnaissance flights during the crisis helped to keep the Kennedy administration abreast of the day to day situation. Although operational reconnaissance units were never assigned to Barksdale AFB, U-2 aircraft were housed and maintained at hangars on the flight line at Barksdale AFB when mission
18 18
operations were imperative. Such was the case during the Cuban Crisis (Wing History Office 1978:44; personal communication, Hubert Watley, November 10, 1994).
Barksdale AFB experienced a major realignment in the spring of 1963. In keeping with the Air Force tradition to perpetuate those units that had illustrious histories, the 4238th Strategic Wing was inactivated on April 1, 1963, and, in its place, the 2nd BMW was activated as the host unit. It absorbed the equipment and personnel of the 4238th on the same day (Army Corps of Engineers 1994:30; Wing History Office 1978:44; n.d.:38).
The primary mission of the 2nd BMW was to train for and maintain long-range bombardment and air refueling capabilities on a global scale. During 1963, the 2nd BMW participated in SAC's daily airborne alert sorties, nicknamed Chrome Dome. This airborne alert could last up to 45 days before being relieved by other SAC units. Each sortie lasted approximately 24 hours. "Throughout approximately 20 hours of the sortie, the B-52 was expected to be in an effective position to carry out, if directed, a retaliatory strike mission against its assigned Soviet targets" (Young 1963:1-3). The 2nd BMW simultaneously maintained ground alert forces. Between six and eight B-52s and KC-135s were on alert with aircraft in readiness. During this time frame, the B-52s utilized the AGM-28 Hound Dog and Quail missiles among its available weapons systems (Young 1963:6-8; personal communication, Ted Bair, November 10, 1994). Barksdale AFB and the 2nd BMW maintained this mission during the late 1960s and into the early 1970s (Mueller 1989:18).
Although U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War started in 1961, aircraft from Barksdale AFB were not involved in the aerial bombardment campaigns until 1972, when B-52 aircraft and crews from the 2nd BMW joined other Second Air Force wings in the bombing of North Vietnam. SAC involvement in the air war in Southeast Asia ended in 1973, and all of the B-52s from the 2nd BMW at Barksdale AFB were returned by October 1973 (Wing History Office 1978:44-46).
19 19
The end of the Vietnam conflict had a direct impact on the base. Barksdale AFB underwent another realignment at the end of 1974. Although still assigned as a SAC base, Second Air Force was inactivated on January 1, 1975, and Headquarters Eighth Air Force moved from Anderson AFB, Guam, to Barksdale AFB. With this change, the 301st and 376th BMWs and the 301st and 376th AREFS were deactivated. The 2nd BMW, however, remained as the base host unit and acquired the personnel and equipment of the deactivated units (Mueller 1989:22-23; Public Affairs Office 1994c:2; Wing History Office 1978:46; ).
The weapon systems for the B-52 at Barksdale AFB were updated in the 1970s and again in the 1980s. In 1974, following the construction of storage igloos and missile assembly buildings at the weapons storage area for the storage of the new Short Range Attack Missile (SRAM), Hound Dog missiles were phased out and replaced by this new missile system. Further expansion of the weapon storage area was underway in the spring of 1984 for facilities to accommodate the Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM), which is currently maintained in the B-52 arsenal at Barksdale AFB (Abbott and Wallace 1984:101; Mueller 1989:18).
Barksdale AFB continued to maintain its alert bomber and tanker status throughout the Cold War decade of the 1980s. In 1981, the base received its first KC-10 tankers. One year before the fall of the Berlin Wall and the beginning of the end of the Cold War, the mission of the 2nd BMW, the largest bombardment wing in SAC, was to maintain "a state of readiness to carry out strategic bombardment operations on a global scale" (Public Affairs Office 1988:11). The wing now had 65 aircraft, almost twice the number of planes as the average bombardment wing (Public Affairs Office 1994a). In 1991, the wing was redesignated the 2nd Wing to reflect the dual mission of bombardment and refueling.
With the relaxation of U.S. and Soviet relations following the end of the Cold War, two U.S. B-52s and a KC-10 flew a goodwill mission to the Soviet Union to help commemorate the Soviet's 50th anniversary of long-range aviation in March 1992 (Public Affairs Office 1994a:2).
20 20
The mission was part of a reciprocal visit. The first Soviet bombers to ever land in the United States then came to Barksdale AFB in May 1992.
In June 1992, SAC was inactivated, and ACC took command of Barksdale AFB and the 2nd Wing. In 1993, the wing was redesignated the 2nd BW, and the KC-135s, KC-10s, and the refueling mission were transferred to Air Mobility Command's 458th Operations Group at Barksdale AFB. This ended 46 years of air refueling operations for the wing, but not for the base. To replace this lost mission, all Air Force training for the B-52 was transferred to the 2nd BW from a closing base in 1994.
3.2 BASE DEVELOPMENT
Buildings and structures extant on Barksdale AFB represent three periods of major expansion: the first occurred during the Great Depression in the early 1930s, the second during World War II, and the third during the mid-1950s.
Building construction of original facilities at Barksdale Field fell into two general classifications: the Air Corp Program and the Army Housing Program, and nearly all of the original construction was permanent. Construction of Barksdale Field began in 1931, and the initial base construction was completed by 1933. The field consisted of the airfield, hangars, paved aprons, headquarters, wing operations, warehouses, officer's and NCO housing, a guard house, fire station, quartermaster utilities warehouse, post exchange, hospital, church, and gymnasium. Associated walks, roads, and utilities were constructed in conjunction with the overall construction. By the end of 1938, additional hangars, officer and NCO housing quarters, and recreational facilities were completed (Army Corps of Engineers 1994:11-12; Dewitt 1932:17,48; Mueller 1989:18).
Increased activities associated with the SACTC during the early years of World War II precipitated the construction of additional temporary billeting facilities, a runway apron, improvements to the air field, additional housing, and buildings for dining, weapons storage,
21 21
administration, and training and recreation facilities (Figure 3.1) (Wing History Office 1978:30; Army Corps of Engineers 1994:16-17).
The early years of the Cold War witnessed the 1951 construction of Bossier Base to store part of the nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons components (Figure 3.2). Due to the increased
activities on the main base with the arrival of SAC in 1949 and the personnel assigned to Bossier Base, a major dormitory project was completed on the main base in 1951 and 1953. In addition, Wherry Housing units were built in 1952 in the vacant areas of both the officer's and NCO housing areas in the main cantonment area. It was not until 1959-1960 that Capehart housing was built 8 mi (13 km) east of the main base in the East Reservation to house the personnel assigned to Bossier Base (Civil Engineering Office 1989:2-4,2-5; Mueller 1989:18).
The SAC alert program acquired the B-52 in 1955-1956. In preparation for the arrival of the B-52 at Barksdale AFB, a new hangar was constructed in 1955. The B-52 arrived in August 1958, and a new runway was completed the following year. To augment the alert program at Barksdale, a hardened alert facility and alert apron were constructed in 1960. A second base chapel was also completed in 1960 (Mueller 1989:18; Wing History Office 1978:42-44).
Barksdale AFB changed little during the 1960s and 1970s, although there were some ongoing modifications (Figure 3.3). A new base hospital was completed in 1971, a new control tower was commissioned in 1972, and storage igloos and missile assembly buildings were completed during 1973-1974 to accommodate the arrival of the SRAM. A corrosion control facility was built in 1979.
The largest addition to the base during the last decade of the Cold War was the 105 acre (42.5 ha) addition to the weapons storage area to facilitate the acquisition of the ALCM in 1984 (Figure 3.4). One of the facilities was an Integrated Maintenance Facility for joint-use with the existing SRAM system (Mueller 1989:18). The most notable construction project on base in recent years occurred following the end of the Cold War. The removal of the Wherry housing
26 26
units constructed in 1952 began in 1990 and was completed in three phases by 1992. The areas cleared of the Wherry Housing are proposed to be utilized for new parks, street realignments, and new building sites (Civil Engineering Office 1989:3-41).
27 27
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the reconnaissance inventory of Barksdale 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 black-and-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.
28 28
4.2 EVALUATION OF IMPORTANT RESOURCES
As part of the reconnaissance inventory of Barksdale 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 The
designed to standardize the procedures used in the field (Lewis and Higgins 1994).
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 Barksdale 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
29 29
historical perspective due 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;
30 30
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
31 31
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 of the resource. The fifth is the percentage of remaining historic fabric, or
32 32
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 Barksdale AFB, the Mariah field team met with Robert Haddix, Cultural Resource Manager, of the Environmental Office. He arranged an orientation tour of the base for the Mariah team. During the tour, the field team became familiar with the base layout and identified certain buildings for evaluation and documentation. This objective completed, the team began their information search on base.
The Wing History Office supplied wing histories that augmented base historical information provided by the Public Affairs Office. These histories were examined to determine the various missions at Barksdale AFB and to link the base to significant events that occurred during the Cold War era. The Wing History Office also had in its possession a bound base newspaper collection dating from 1945 to the present and a photograph collection. Architectural drawing files were inventoried in the Drafting Department of the Civil Engineering Office. Drafting also provided base layout maps on computer discs, current hard copies of base layout maps, and decade maps useful for depicting base development over the Cold War years. Property Cards
33 33
from the Real Estate Office established information pertinent to the resources chosen to be documented and evaluated for their Cold War significance.
The Civil Engineering and Environmental Offices provided the field team with various installation reports, comprehensive base plans, and historic preservation forms, etc., which were valuable from a historical perspective. The team also visited the Eighth Air Force Museum at Barksdale AFB to determine if there were any significant Cold War artifacts and collections and to better understand the history of the base.
A photographic reconnaissance was conducted to document important Cold War resources and representative architecture on base. Several informal interviews were conducted with personnel long affiliated with the base to better understand the relationship of specific base resources to the Cold War era. Finally, resources were selected for documentation and evaluation based on their Cold War importance. These resources were more fully documented using a lap-top computer database to store information about the resources.
34 34
5.0 RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY RESULTS
During the reconnaissance inventory of Barksdale AFB, 117 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.
35 35
6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS
Five resources were evaluated at Barksdale AFB, three of them falling under the DoD category of real property and two under records/documents. 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
6.1.1 Documentation
6.1.1.1 Documentary Collection (Resource No. 26117, Located in Real Property No. 3433)
This collection, located in the Drafting Department of Civil Engineering, consists of architectural drawings and aerial photographs housed in 17 flat file cabinets. There is no index to the files; however, a cursory inventory by the field team revealed their contents. The drawings represent most buildings extant on base as well as utilities, landscapes, runways, topography, and base master plans. The drawings include mylar, linen, sepia, vellum, bond, onionskin, and blue line reproductions. Drawings relating to some of the weapons storage facilities are extant, as well as historic World War II drawings dating to the early 1940s. There are no original drawings for the buildings that are part of the NRHP district, only mylar copies. Drawings relating to Bossier Base are limited; these drawings were classified at one time and many drawings relating to Bossier Base were selectively destroyed. Also in the files are approximately 100 base aerial
37 37
photographs dating from the 1930s to the present. Many of the photographs in this collection are undated.
The collection as a whole is in good condition. However, it is stored in a relatively unsecured area and is utilized on a continuous basis by base engineers. In addition, many drawings that date to the early 1940s and World War II are in fragile condition.
This collection of wing histories, photographs, and base newspapers is located in the Wing History Office at Wing Headquarters. The wing histories document the 2nd BMW from 1948 to 1993. Because these histories deal with the 2nd BMW at Barksdale AFB since 1963, these volumes could provide valuable insight into the activities conducted at the base in general and specific facilities in particular during the last two temporal phases of the Cold War era. In addition to the wing histories, there is a folder of approximately 150 historic photographs and negatives. Topics in the photographs consist mostly of base construction activities and the disposal of temporary buildings, thus some of the buildings in the photographs are no longer extant. These photographs document the construction techniques used throughout the years of base development and illustrate changes in the base during the Cold War era. The base
newspaper collection is complete from 1948 to the present, spanning all four temporal periods of the Cold War era, and could provide additional insight into personnel and activities at Barksdale AFB. The newspapers are bound into individual volumes. Those newspapers spanning 1978 to the present are stored in the Public Affairs Office.
The collection is stored in a secure area within the Wing History Office and is generally in good condition. Copies of the wing histories are also on file at the Air Force Historical Research Center at Maxwell AFB, Alabama.
38 38
6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS
6.2.1 Alert Facilities
6.2.1.1 Bomber Alert Facility (Resource No. 26001, Real Property No. 6067)
2
The Bomber Alert Facility is a permanent, 18,083 ft facility constructed in 1960 primarily of reinforced concrete. Located at the northern end of the flight line and immediately southeast of the alert apron, it is a two story building and is characterized most by the ramped entrances found on all four sides of its exterior and a sloped earthen berm which extends up the four sides of the building and covers the first story. It was designed to house crews standing alert duty and to facilitate rapid egress from the building to B-52 aircraft parked on the adjacent alert apron during a national emergency situation or operational readiness inspection. This facility was the original crew readiness building constructed for SAC bomber alert crews stationed at Barksdale AFB. In 1968, a concern was raised that the alert apron's launch ramp, which joins the apron to the main runway, could be easily destroyed, thus disabling the aircraft still on the apron. A new facility was built along the main flight line in response to this concern, and was used for alert crews from 1968 to the mid-1980s. At this time, the reduced security of the new facility and its aircraft was determined to be a greater threat, and alert crews moved back to this original Bomber Alert Facility. In 1991, when all air crews were taken off of alert status, the facility was no longer in use. However, the National Airborne Operations Command, formerly the National Emergency Airborne Command Post, utilizes the facility on a periodic basis, and it is also used as visiting officer's quarters.
This facility maintains its exterior architectural integrity. Minimal interior modifications have been made due to moisture damage. The associated facilities (security tower, fence, check
house, and alert apron) are also intact. Thus the integrity of this facility is determined to be intact.
39 39
The Bomber Alert Facility is exceptionally important to Barksdale AFB's Cold War context and to Cold War history at the national level. It 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 the Killian Report, meeting the needs of deterrence through a survivable force and the dispersion of bombers across the country (Lewis et al. 1995). The B-52 force was an integral part of the defense triad and was relied upon as the United States' primary manned nuclear bomber force for over 30 years. This facility was used for this purpose during Phases II through IV, and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
2
This Bomber Alert Facility is a permanent, 22,913 ft facility built in 1968.
Its primary
construction materials are not known because the property card does not furnish the information. Due to the fact that it was constructed to replace the other alert facility, the foundation and walls are likely constructed of reinforced concrete. Located at the northern end of the main flight line, this alert facility is not typical. It is a one story building, has no earthen berm, and has no rapid egress tunnels or ramps. This became the Bomber Alert Facility when the original alert facility was determined to be vulnerable to attack. However, in the mid-1980s, this facility was
determined to be a bigger risk as the crews and B-52 aircraft were located in an unsecured area, and the alert functions reverted back to the original facility. This facility is currently used for Squadron Operations.
The exterior of this facility maintains intact integrity. Access to the interior of the building was not secured by the field team; however, due to the use of this building for offices, it is likely that only minor renovations have occurred. Thus interior integrity is also determined to be intact.
The Bomber Alert Facility is exceptionally important to Barksdale AFB's Cold War context and to Cold War history at the national level. It exemplifies the concept of deterrence and the need to respond immediately to any Soviet attack threat. This facility was constructed and operated to
40 40
meet the needs of deterrence through a survivable force and the dispersion of bombers across the country (Lewis et al. 1995). The B-52 force was an integral part of the defense triad and was relied upon as the United States' primary manned nuclear bomber force for over 30 years. This facility was used for this purpose during Phases III and IV, and meets NRHP criterion (a).
6.2.2 Weapons Storage
6.2.2.1 Segregated Storage Igloo (Resource No. 26005, Real Property No. 7378)
2
This storage igloo is a permanent, 2,352 ft building constructed in 1951 entirely of reinforced concrete, and is approximately three stories in height. Located east of the main base within the confines of the Barksdale East (old Bossier Base) weapons storage area, it is one of three extant "A" structures built as weapons storage facilities in the Barksdale East compound. This structure is architecturally significant because of its massive, ten foot thick reinforced concrete walls, the false fenestration on its exterior facade, and the steel, bank vault type doors that seal the four storage rooms within the structure. This structure was utilized between 1951 and 1962 by the Defense Atomic Support Agency under the auspices of the AEC to store nuclear weapons components. The structure has not been used since 1962 and is currently empty.
The integrity of this structure is intact, both on the exterior and interior. There are currently no plans in effect that would endanger this important Cold War resource, and, due to the nature of its construction, the threat to this resource is low. The security facilities associated with this structure, such as the observation tower and the concrete "pillboxes" with gunsights, are also intact.
This structure is exceptionally important for the role it played during the early years of the Cold War and the arms race with the Soviet Union. It was one of only 13 operational storage sites in the nation maintained by the AEC. During its operation, it played a significant part in the waging of the Cold War and represents the significant warfighting capability of the USAF. Its
41 41
construction illustrates the importance of security and survivability during the Cold War. The date of construction early in the Cold War, the security facilities associated with the structure, and the architectural style designed to store nuclear weapons components make this structure unique among USAF properties. This structure was used in this capacity during Phases I and II of the Cold War, and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES
None were evaluated at Barksdale AFB.
6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES
6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES
42 42
7.0 UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES
The purpose of the reconnaissance inventory was to provide initial information on the kinds of Cold War resources extant on Barksdale 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 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 Barksdale AFB. These resources should be investigated further for a more
comprehensive analysis of base Cold War context.
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 Barksdale AFB revealed approximately 75 citations. Most of these are unit histories and special collections. More specific topics include the histories of base realignment due to acquisition of the B-52 and the Atlas ICBM. The vast majority of these documents are available on microfilm. Future studies of Cold War history at Barksdale AFB should allot time to researching these documents.
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.
43 43
8.0 FUTURE THREATS TO RESOURCES
Sandia National Laboratories recently completed field research for an environmental restoration study of the weapons storage area at Barksdale East as part of an Environmental Assessment. The results of the field research are currently pending; however, the recommendations will not effect the Segregated Storage Igloo evaluated by the Mariah field team (personal communication, Hubert Watley, December 8, 1994).
A Barksdale AFB historic district containing 264 buildings was nominated to and accepted by the NRHP in 1992. The majority of these properties are associated with the original base
construction period, 1931 to 1935; the other buildings date from 1941. None of the buildings evaluated by the current study are included within this historic district.
A cultural resource survey was conducted by South Carolina Institute of Archaeology at Barksdale AFB a few weeks before the Mariah field team visited the base. Approximately 12 historic sites and four archaeological sites were identified, but none initially appeared to be significant. The draft report for this survey was due January 1, 1995 (personal communication, Robert Haddix, November 8, 1994).
44 44
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 Barksdale 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.
45 45
Finally, resources must possess integrity 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 Barksdale 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 Barksdale 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
46 46
properties, though evaluated and determined eligible, are not nominated to the list. 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. necessary to re-evaluate unlisted historic properties periodically. Therefore, it is
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
47 47
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.
9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations for the evaluated resources at Barksdale 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:
49 49
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 Documentary Collection (Resource No. 26117, Located in Real Property No. 3433)
This collection of architectural drawings and aerial photographs is in good condition. However, the collection is subject to continual use by the base engineers, and some of the earlier drawings are in fragile condition. It is recommended that this collection be inventoried and copied. It is further recommended that the base retain the copies for its use, and that the originals be sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
This collection of wing histories, photographs, and base newspapers is generally in good condition. Copies of the wing histories are presently on file at the Air Force Historical Research Center in Maxwell AFB, Alabama. It is recommended that the photographs and base newspapers
50 50
be inventoried and copied. It is further recommended that the copies go to the base for its use, with the originals going to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation. Stewardship is recommended for the wing histories.
9.2.3 Bomber Alert Facility (Resource No. 26001, Real Property No. 6067)
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II through IV. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) based upon 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 and its features is intact based upon observation. Therefore, this building is recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Recommendations include stewardship to maintain integrity of the building and features and further documentation for nomination of this resource to the NRHP.
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases III and IV. It meets NRHP criterion (a) based upon its role in sustaining a survivable force to meet the needs of deterrence. The integrity of the building is determined to be intact based upon partial observation and a lack of documented major renovations. Therefore, this building is recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Recommendations include stewardship to maintain integrity of the building, and further documentation for nomination of this resource to the NRHP.
9.2.5 Segregated Storage Igloo (Resource No. 26005, Real Property No. 7378)
This structure is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases I and II. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) based upon its role in storage
51 51
and survivability of the nation's nuclear weapon supply, 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 and its features is intact based upon observation. Therefore, this building is recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Recommendations include stewardship to maintain integrity of the building and its features and further documentation for nomination of this resource to the NRHP.
52 52
10.0 REFERENCES CITED
Abbott, D.G. TSgt, and SSgt M.J. Wallace 1984 History of the 2nd Bombardment Wing, April-June 1984. On file, Wing History Office, Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana. 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. Army Corps of Engineers 1994 Historic District Overview and Maintenance Plan, Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana (Draft). On file, Environmental Office, Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Engineering Research Laboratories. Civil Engineering Office 1989 Barksdale Air Force Base Comprehensive Plan: Shreveport-Bossier City, Louisiana. On file, Civil Engineering Office, Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana. Department of Defense 1971 Executive Order 11508 Installation Survey Report, Barksdale Air Force Base, Bossier Parish, Louisiana. Office, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Installations and Logistics. On file, Air Force Historical Research Center, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. 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. Dewitt, J. L. Maj. Gen. 1932 Air Corps Construction. Air Service News, vol. 1, no. 1. On file, Wing History Office, Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana. Environmental Office 1994 Environmental Compliance Assessment and Management Program (ECAMP) Environmental Findings Final Report, Barksdale AFB, Louisiana. On file, Environmental Office, Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana. Fenneman, N. M. 1938 Physiography of Eastern United States. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York and London.
53 53
Lewis, Karen and Howard 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. S. 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. Mueller, R. 1989 Air Force Bases: Active Air Force Bases Within the United States of America on 17 September 1982. Vol. 1. Office of Air Force History, United States Air Force, Washington, D.C. 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. Public Affairs Office 1988 Barksdale Air Force Base. Base guide and telephone directory. On file, Public Affairs Office, Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana. 1993 Barksdale Air Force Base. Base guide and telephone directory. On file, Public Affairs Office, Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana. 1994a Barksdale Air Force Base History. Fact Sheet on file, Public Affairs Office, Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana. 1994b 2nd Bomb Wing. Fact Sheet on file, Public Affairs Office, Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana. 1994c Eighth Air Force. Fact Sheet on file, Public Affairs Office, Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana. Sandia National Laboratories 1994 Bossier Base (Barksdale Air Force Base), Louisiana: Former Special Weapon Storage Area, Trip Report, September 22, 1994. On file, Environmental Office, Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana.
54 54
Strategic Air Command 1991 Peace . . . is our Profession: Alert Operations and the Strategic Air Command, 1957-1991. Office of the Historian, Headquarters Strategic Air Command, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. United States Air Force 1984 Installation Survey Report, Barksdale Air Force Base, Bossier City, Louisiana. On file, Air Force Historical Research Center, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. 1989 A Cultural Resources Survey and Assessment of Proposed Peacekeeper Rail Garrison Facilities, Barksdale Air Force Base, Bossier Parish, Louisiana. Heartfield, Price, and Greene, Inc.: Monroe, Louisiana. On file, Environmental Office, Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana. 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. Wing History Office 1959 History of the 4238th Strategic Wing (Heavy), 1-31 August, 1959. On file, Wing History Office, Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana. 1967 Barksdale Air Force Base. On file, Wing History Office, Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana. 1978 Barksdale AFB, LA.: Forty-fifth Anniversary Review, 1933-1978. On file, Wing History Office, Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana. n.d. Early History of Barksdale Field. On file, Wing History Office, Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana. Young, J.A. SSgt 1963 History of the 2nd Bombardment Wing (Heavy) and Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, 1-30 November 1963. On file, Wing History Office, Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana.
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 BARKSDALE AFB
Resource Number: 26001

Property Description: Alert Facility used during the following two periods: 1960-1968, mid1980s-1991 Associated Property: 26022, 26025, 26036, 26042, 26116 Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: 7667 Lindbergh Road, West Base Map Date: 11/1/92 Base Map Building Number: 6067 Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Alert Facilities Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence Property Type: Bomber Alert Facility Statement of Significance: This property was directly related to the Cold War effort. It served as a component of first line, rapid response nuclear delivery system (one arm of the nuclear triad deterrent). This resource is also significant for its architectural design elements that allowed for the rapid egress of aircrew personnel. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: 4 Theme Relationship: 4 Temporal Phase Relationship: 3 Level of Importance: 4 Percent Historic Fabric: 4 Severity of Threats: 1 Total Score for Priority Matrix: 20 Comments on Threats: This facility has been recently remodeled and is used for NAOC crews as well as VIP quarters. Nevertheless, the resource maintains most of its original fabric. The related facilities (tower, apron, security elements) are also intact. No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: NRHP eligible now. This resource, including the associated facilities, should be maintained in their present condition. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility Eligible
20 ' 18083 Permanent NAOC and VIP quarters Alert facility. Abandoned from 1968-1980s. Resource 26001 was the original alert facility built at BAFB. In 1968 a new facility was built on the flightline when a concern was voiced about the potential disabling of the launch ramp between the alert apron and the runway. These activities were probably the result of SAC directives. Primary Building Materials: Concrete Masonry Unit Character Defining Features: Earth bermed lower story with rapid egress ramps.
Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use: Other Use/Dates: Comments on Use:

Property Description: Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: Base Map Building Number: Squadron Operations (Alert Facility 1968-mid1980s) 26022, 26042, 26116 none 525 Lindbergh Road, West 11/1/92 6225
Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Alert Facilities Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence Property Type: Bomber Alert Facility Statement of Significance: This property was directly related to the Cold War effort. It served as a component of first line, rapid response nuclear delivery system (one arm of the nuclear triad deterrent). Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: 4 Theme Relationship: 4 Temporal Phase Relationship: 2 Level of Importance: 4 Percent Historic Fabric: 2 Severity of Threats: 2 Total Score for Priority Matrix: 18 Comments on Threats: This facility is currently used as a squadron ops building and has probably had interior remodeling (i.e., removal of crew quarter partitions). The resource was NOT inspected on the inside. No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: NRHP eligible now. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility Eligible Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use: Other Use/Dates: Comments on Use: 10 22913 Permanent Squadron Operations Used as alert crew quarters 1968-l980s. Used as a replacement for the original alert facility (resource 26001) during the period 1968-1980s when the original alert apron was considered vulnerable. When the reduced security of resource 26002 (aircraft parked on the flightline) was considered a greater threat to the alert mission, the aircraft and crews were moved back to the original facility.
These activities may have been a result of SAC directives. Primary Building Materials: Concrete Masonry Unit Character Defining Features: none

Property Description: A structure (nuclear component storage) Associated Property: 26003, 26004, 26032, and 26033 Non-Inventoried Association: Weapon storage igloos, security facilities, weapon assembly facilities, and Bossier Base administration facilities. Sub-installation: Former Bossier Base Address: Base Map Date: 11/1/92 Base Map Building Number: 7378 Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Storage Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence Property Type: Segregated Storage Igloo Statement of Significance: This resource embodies Cold War significance as an integral part of the storage and maintenance of AEC nuclear weapons components. The resource is also architecturally significant for the following: high degree of threat surviviability with 10 foot concrete walls; high level of security with steel vault doors; and deception with false fenestration (windows). In addition, there are two other "A" structures identical in appearance and function to 26005. The integrity of 26003 has been minimally compromised and 26004 is currently used for storage of sensitive material. These resources are considered less significant due to their reduced integrity. Finally, resources 7312 and 7332 ("A-plant" and "B-plant") are related facilites where weapons were tested and assembled before they were returned to the storage facility. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: 4 Theme Relationship: 2 Temporal Phase Relationship: 4 Level of Importance: 4 Percent Historic Fabric: 4 Severity of Threats: 2 Total Score for Priority Matrix: 20 Comments on Threats: This resource is highly representative of the early Cold War period. No immediate threats to the building were identified; however, they are subject to benign neglect. No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: NRHP eligible now.
Importance: Exceptional Eligibility Eligible Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use: Other Use/Dates: Comments on Use: Primary Building Materials: Character Defining Features: 30' 2352 Permanent none AEC nuclear weapons storage. The building is currently abandoned. Poured Concrete 10' thick concrete walls, false windows, and four vaults with steel vault doors.

Property Description: Architectural drawing files contained within 17 flat storage cabinets located in a storeroom in the drafting department. One of these is located in the drafting room. A small roll file contains about 10 drawing sets. Included are drawings dating from the 1940's to present. Media represented are vellum, mylar, onionskin, linen, bond, and fabric. Types of drawings include master base plans (C-Tabs, land use and planning), landscapes, buildings (initial construction, modification, renovation, and repair), runways and taxiways, topography, utilities, and other miscellaneous constructed facilities. One drawer contained as many as 100 base aerial photos dating from 1930s to present. Many of these photos were undated. No original plans from the historic district, only mylar copies. Also included were limited plans for Bossier Base, although some of the Bossier Base plans were selectively destroyed. Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: 334 Davis Ave. Barksdale AFB Base Map Date: 9/1/93 Base Map Building Number: inside 3433 Operational Support & Installations: Documentation Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence Property Type: Documentary Collection Statement of Significance: These drawings are a record of construction and renovations completed for all buildings on base, past and present. They also can provide further information for future evaluations of extant buildings and structures on Barksdale AFB and Bossier Base. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: 3 Theme Relationship: 2 Temporal Phase Relationship: 4 Level of Importance: 2 Percent Historic Fabric: 4 Severity of Threats: 1 Total Score for Priority Matrix: 16 Comments on Threats: Apparently a number of drawings concerning Bossier Base were destroyed. However, drawings concerning a number of Bossier Base buildings and facilities are filed. These include the security perimeter, the storage igloos, and the A and B plants. Only a few drawings of the A Structures were located. Numerous plans from the WWII period are contained in the drawing files. Although not of the Cold War period,
these are historical resources. No original plans for any of the historic district buildings are located in the drawing files. These may be curated in an offsite location. No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: No Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: Yes Comments on Resource Management: This resource is in generally good condition. Some of the WWII period drawings are in fair condition and should be curated. No index exists for these drawing files. Object Condition: Record/Document Category: Year of Document: Period of Association: Comments on Condition: In Storage/Benign Neglect Architectural Drawing various Spans all four temporal periods of the Cold War. This resource is in generally good condition. Drawings from the WWII period are in fair condition and should be curated.

Property Description: 2nd Bombardment Wing histories; 150 photographs and negatives, and a base newspaper collection that is continuous from 1948 to the present. Newspapers from 1978 to the present are stored at the Pulbic Affairs Office. Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: 245 Davis Ave. East Barksdale AFB, LA Base Map Date: Base Map Building Number: inside 5541 Operational Support & Installations: Documentation Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Documentary Collection Statement of Significance: The history collection details the activities of the 2nd Bombardment Wing at Barksdale AFB. Further research into the various volumes that span 1948-1993 could provide additional insight into the activities conducted at the base in general and specific facilities in particular during the Cold War era since 1963, when the 2nd came to Barksdale. Newspapers record events happening at the base during the Cold War. The photographs record specific buildings, some of which are no longer extent. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: No Further Work: Stewardship: National Register Listing: Further Documentation: Preservation/Conservation/Repair: Comments on Resource Management: Object Condition: Record/Document Category: Year of Document: Period of Association: No Yes No Yes Yes 3 4 4 1 4 1 17
In Storage/Benign Neglect Photograph, reports, newspapers various All four temporal phases.
APPENDIX E EXTANT SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base BASE CONTACTS
E-1
The following people were contacted during the base visit by the field team to help identify Cold War material culture extant on Barksdale AFB, and to provide research materials for this study:
Theodore D. Bair Deputy Base Civil Engineer 2 CES/DCE 334 Davis Avenue West, Suite 200 Barksdale AFB, Louisiana 71110-2078 (318) 456-4857 MSgt William I. Chivalette Wing Historian 8 AF/HO 245 Davis Avenue East, Room 29 Barksdale AFB, Louisiana 71110-2278 (318) 456-4219 Murry Ford Engineering Assistant 2 CES/CEEE 334 Davis Avenue West Barksdale AFB, Louisiana 71110-2078 (318) 456-4342 Robert Haddix Historic Preservation Architect 2 CES/CEV 334 Davis Avenue West Barksdale AFB, Louisiana 71110-2078 (318) 456-5262 SSgt Brian A. Mauhar CAD Specialist 2 CES/CEEE 334 Davis Avenue West Barksdale AFB, Louisiana 71110-2078 (318) 456-6811
Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base Wade Meyers Historian 2 WG/HOM 841 Fairchild Avenue, Suite 103 Barksdale AFB, Louisiana 71110-2278 (318) 456-5504 Forrest Miller Civil Engineering Planner 2 CES 334 Davis Avenue West Barksdale AFB, Louisiana 71110-2078 (318) 456-3169 Russell Ray Real Property Officer 2 CES/CERR 334 Davis Avenue West Barksdale AFB, Louisiana 71110-2078 (318) 456-5297 H. D. "Buck" Rigg Eighth Air Force Museum Curator 2 WG/HOM 841 Fairchild Avenue, Suite 103 Barksdale AFB, Louisiana 71110-2278 (318) 456-5504 Rebecca Sterba Real Property Office 2 CES/CERR 334 Davis Avenue West Barksdale AFB, Louisiana 71110-2078 (318) 456-5297 Hubert Watley Installation Restoration Manager 2 CES/CEV 334 Davis Avenue West Barksdale AFB, Louisiana 71110-2078 (318) 456-5262
E-2
Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base INFORMAL INTERVIEWS
E-3
The following people were informally interviewed by the Mariah field team during the base visit. They were identified as people possessing extensive knowledge of Barksdale AFB history and Cold War context.
Theodore D. Bair, Deputy Base Civil Engineer, November 10, 1994 Robert Haddix, Cultural Resource Manager, November 8 and December 8, 1994 Forrest Miller, Civil Engineering Planner, November 10, 1994 H. D. "Buck" Rigg, Eighth Air Force Museum Curator, November 9, 1994 Hubert Watley, Installation Restoration Manager, November 8 and 10, and December 8, 1994
VOLUME II-2: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE AT BEALE AIR FORCE BASE
Prepared by Karen Lewis R. Blake Roxlau Katherine J. Roxlau
October 1997
Volume II-2: Beale Air Force Base
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Beale Air Force Base was inventoried for Cold War resources by Karen Lewis and R. Blake Roxlau of Mariah Associates, Inc., between August 29 and September 3, 1994, as part of the Air Combat Command Cold War Study under the Department of Defense Legacy Program. Information was gathered at the base from the Wing Historian and the Drawing Room staff, and at the Civil Engineering, Real Property, and Public Affairs Offices. On-site inspections were also conducted. During this research and inventory, resources were identified and then photographed.
Four resources were further documented and evaluated as important to the Cold War during the course of the survey, including a collection of Architectural Drawing Files, a Bomber Alert Facility, a Semi-Automatic Ground Environment Facility, and the PAVE PAWS Facility. The resources documented correspond to Phases II through IV (1953-1989) of the Cold War as described in the historic context and methodology document written for this project (Lewis et al. 1995). To differing degrees, they reflect the role that Beale Air Force Base played in the Cold War.
Recommendations for the Architectural Drawing Files include inventory, stewardship, and conservation in a permanent curatorial facility. The Semi-Automatic Ground Environment Facility and the Bomber Alert Facility are both recommended as ineligible to the National Register of Historic Places due to the buildings' lack of integrity. The PAVE PAWS Facility is recommended as eligible to the National Register, with stewardship and further documentation also recommended.
ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACC ACHP ADC AFB AFR AFS AGE AMMS AMS AREFS AREFW BMS BMW BW CAC CES DoD FMS FTD HABS ICBM MAC Mariah MMS NCA NCO NHPA NORAD NPS NRHP NSC OCONUS OMS PAVE PAWS PME POW RAPCON RW SAC SAGE SALT
Air Combat Command Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Air Defense Command Air Force Base Air Force Range Air Force Station Air Ground Equipment Airborne Missile Maintenance Squadron Avionics Maintenance Squadron Air Refueling Squadron Air Refueling Wing Bombardment Squadron Bombardment Wing Bomb Wing Continental Air Command Civil Engineering Squadron Department of Defense Field Maintenance Squadron Field Training Detachment Historic American Buildings Survey Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Military Airlift Command Mariah Associates, Inc. Munitions Maintenance Squadron National Command Authority Non-Commissioned Officer National Historic Preservation Act North American Aerospace Defense National Park Service National Register of Historic Places National Security Council Off the Continental United States Organizational Maintenance Squadron Position Acquisition Vehicle Entry Phased Array Warning System Precision Measurement Equipment Prisoner of War Radar Approach Control Center Reconnaissance Wing Strategic Air Command Semi Automatic Ground Environment Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty
iii
LIST OF ACRONYMS (Continued)
SATCAT SAW SCARWAF SDI SHPO SLBM SMS SRS SRTS SRW START SW TAC USAF
Satellite Catalog Strategic Aerospace Wing Special Category Army with Air Force Strategic Defense Initiative State Historic Preservation Office Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile Strategic Missile Squadron Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron Strategic Reconnaissance Training Squadron Strategic Reconnaissance Wing Strategic Arms Reduction Talks Strategic Wing Tactical Air Command United States Air Force
iv
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. 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. Gaither Report - a report concerning the development of the Cold War produced by the Gaither Committee in 1957. It predicted an increase in the arms race and continued escalation of the Cold War. It recommended a drastic increase in military spending and initiation of a multibillion-dollar civil defense system. It also echoed the Killian Report in recommending the dispersal of the bomber force to increase survivability. 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.
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 deterioration 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.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page MANAGEMENT SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... i LIST OF ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................................... ii GLOSSARY ....................................................................................................................................... iv 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 4 9
3.0 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 13 3.1 BASE HISTORY AND COLD WAR CONTEXT.............................................................. 13 3.2 BASE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................... 19 4.0 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 24 4.1 INVENTORY ........................................................................................................................ 24 4.2 EVALUATION OF IMPORTANT RESOURCES ............................................................. 25 4.2.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 25 4.2.2 Evaluation of Importance ............................................................................................. 25 4.2.2.1 Cold War Context ............................................................................................... 25 4.2.2.2 NRHP Criteria..................................................................................................... 26 4.2.2.3 Exceptional Importance ...................................................................................... 27 4.2.3 Evaluation of Integrity.................................................................................................. 27 4.2.4 Priority Matrix .............................................................................................................. 28 4.2.5 Resource Organization ................................................................................................. 29 4.3 BASE SPECIFIC METHODS .............................................................................................. 29 5.0 RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY RESULTS ..................................................................... 31 6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS......................................................................................................... 32 6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS ........................................................ 32 6.1.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 32 6.1.1.1 Architectural Drawing Files ............................................................................... 32 6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS ......................................................... 34 6.2.1 Alert Facilities .............................................................................................................. 34 6.2.1.1 Bomber Alert Facility ......................................................................................... 34
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.2.2 Communications .......................................................................................................... 35 6.2.2.1 SAGE Facility ..................................................................................................... 35 6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES ..................................................................... 36 6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES...................................................................................................... 36 6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES ............................................................................................ 36 6.5.1 Radar Sites.................................................................................................................... 36 6.5.1.1 PAVE PAWS Facility......................................................................................... 36 7.0 UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 39 8.0 FUTURE THREATS TO RESOURCES ................................................................................... 40 9.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 41 9.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY ............................................................................................................ 41 9.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility.................................................... 41 9.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility ................................................................................ 43 9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 44 9.2.1 Architectural Drawing Files ......................................................................................... 46 9.2.2 Bomber Alert Facility................................................................................................... 46 9.2.3 SAGE Facility .............................................................................................................. 47 9.2.4 PAVE PAWS Facility.................................................................................................. 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
viii
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Bases Selected for the Air Combat Command Cold War Study .............................. 2 Location of Beale Air Force Base ............................................................................. 5 Beale Air Force Base Layout ..................................................................................... 6 Standard Strategic Air Command Base Layout ........................................................ 7 Beale Air Force Base Land Use Diagram ................................................................. 10 Strategic Air Command Base Land Use Diagram .................................................... 11 Beale Air Force Base, 1940 ....................................................................................... 20 Beale Air Force Base, 1950-1970 ............................................................................. 21 Beale Air Force Base, 1970-1990 ............................................................................. 23 LIST OF TABLES
Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 9.1
Evaluated Resource Prioritization by Air Force Group and Subgroup .................... 33 Evaluated Resource Prioritization by Priority Rank ................................................. 33 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 Alamogordo, 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.
This report is a reconnaissance inventory of Cold War related resources on Beale Air Force Base (AFB). Beale 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.
Beale AFB currently consists of the 9th Reconnaissance Wing (RW) which is the base host. The 9th RW commands four groups on base. One is the 9th Operations Group, which includes the 1st and 99th Reconnaissance Squadrons, the 9th Intelligence Support Squadron, and the 9th Operational Support Squadron. The second one is 9th Logistics Group, which commands the 9th Logistical Support Squadron, 9th Maintenance Squadron, 9th Transportation Squadron, and the 9th Supply Squadron. The third is the 9th Support Squadron, which consists of the 9th Civil
Engineering Squadron (CES), 9th Security Police Squadron, and other support units. The fourth is the 9th Medical Group (Beale AFB 1993). The mission of the 9th RW is to operate the U-2R reconnaissance aircraft to gather worldwide intelligence information. The wing's motto is "Semper Paratus, Always Ready" (Beale AFB 1993).
Beale AFB is located approximately 13 mi (21 km) east of Marysville and Yuba City, California (Figure 2.1). These cities have a population of 50,000 and are economically reliant on
agriculture, retail, and recreation industries. The base is 22,944 acres (9,285 ha) in area and is located on the eastern edge of the mostly flat, arid Sacramento Valley, near the foothills of the Sierra Nevada mountains. Elevations in the valley range from 80 to 580 ft (24 to 177 m) above mean sea level.
The layout of the buildings and facilities at Beale AFB (Figure 2.2) is different from that of the standard SAC plan (Figure 2.3) in that there are three separate areas of development that are
divided by expanses of open space. The three areas of the base are the flight line, cantonment, and family housing areas.
The flight line is at the western edge of the developed base, with most buildings and facilities located to the east of the runway. The base runway and aprons are oriented north/south. The buildings in the flight line area are generally mission and support facilities.
Community and administrative buildings are located in the cantonment area, which was originally part of the developed area of Camp Beale and lies further east of the flight line. The facilities in this area include the former Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) building, the Wing and Group Headquarters, support squadrons such as Civil Engineering, and community buildings such as the commissary and exchange. Other types of development include a mobile home park, unaccompanied housing, and the golf course.
Family housing is in a hilly area east of the cantonment area and is the farthest developed area from the flight line. The hospital, officer's temporary quarters, youth center (the former Officer's Club), and the combined Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) and Officer's Club are community facilities located to the north of this housing area. Also included in this area are two schools and a church. The housing area winds among the hills and includes Capehart Housing for all ranks. The commander's housing area is separate, is located between the family housing and the community facilities, and forms a circle around a park.
Separate from these three developed areas is the radar facility, located north of family housing and northeast of the cantonment area in an otherwise empty area. The facility is protected by an alarmed fence and guarded entrance check house. The facility's location aids in protection of the secret missions associated with the structure and provides safety zones for microwave radiation produced by its sensors.
2.4 BASE LAND USE
The following is a list of standard SAC land use categories: Alert Facilities - 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. Weapon 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.
Figure 2.4 is a diagrammatic land use plan of Beale AFB and Figure 2.5 is a diagrammatic land use plan of a standard SAC base. Beale AFB's land use pattern is very similar to that of a standard SAC base. In both plans, most of the buildings are located on one side of the flight line.
12
Headquarters are located near the middle of the base, away from the flight line. Community, base support, unaccompanied housing, and some recreation areas are centrally located on both plans and provide a buffer between mission areas and housing areas, which are located at a distance from the flight line area. Recreational areas are also situated in and around the housing areas.
The main difference between the Beale AFB and the standard SAC base diagram is the large open space between each of the three main areas of the base. The space in between these areas is rolling grass hills, which are quite dry in the summer months and pose a potential fire hazard. Many firebreaks throughout the base protect the different areas and keep the spread of fire to a minimum.
Another difference between the two diagrams is the placement of Beale AFB's weapon and warhead storage area on the same side of the flight line as the mission area. In the standard diagram, the storage area placement is on the undeveloped side of the flight line, probably as a safety measure. However, due to the large amount of space available on Beale AFB, the storage area is still a long distance from the developed areas of the base and thus retains this measure of safety.
13
Beale AFB is named for Edward Fitzgerald Beale (1822-1893), who was a western explorer, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Brigadier General, Surveyor General of California and Nevada, and a prominent California landowner (Mueller 1989). The site of the present base was first established in 1849 as Camp Far West to keep the peace for settlers during the California Gold Rush. The original camp has been nearly obliterated (Krahulec and Goddard 1980).
The site began its modern military existence as the U.S. Army's Camp Beale in 1942. With the United States' entry into World War II in 1941, many new locations were needed for military operations. Leading citizens in the nearby city of Marysville had been trying for some time to attract a military installation to the area. Approximately 86,000 acres were acquired from over 150 owners through the right of eminent domain for the purpose of establishing Camp Beale (Bal 1979).
Construction on the camp began in 1942, and troops and equipment arrived soon after. The 13th Armored Division trained at the camp and was followed by the 81st and 96th Infantry Divisions. The camp also served as a personnel replacement depot, induction center, a west coast separation center, and hospital (Krahulec and Goddard 1980). Camp Beale was also utilized as a German prisoner-of-war (POW) camp during and shortly following World War II. The self-contained, fenced camp held approximately 1,000 prisoners, while five smaller camps administered from Beale and located in surrounding communities held an additional 1,000 prisoners each (Krahulec and Goddard 1980). The POWs were tasked to do a variety of jobs at the camp as well as agricultural labor in the community. The Germans were reportedly treated very well to ensure that the Nazi government would have no reason to retaliate against American prisoners (Bal 1979; Krahulec and Goddard 1980). Although many of the buildings associated with Camp Beale have
14
since been removed or demolished, numerous building foundations can still be observed at the site. Two concrete solitary confinement cellblocks are all that remain of the POW camp.
In 1947, Camp Beale was declared a surplus property. However, in 1948, it was renamed Beale Air Force Range (AFR), to be used by the newly established Air Force as a bombing range for planes based at Mather AFB near Sacramento (Bal 1979). In 1951, command of Beale AFR was
transferred to Continental Air Command (CAC), and the range functioned as a training base for Special Category Army with Air Force (SCARWAF) personnel. This group was comprised of Army personnel assigned to the new Air Force as a transitional work force (Bal 1979; Krahulec and Goddard 1980). The camp continued to function as a bombing range and was renamed Beale AFB in 1951.
Beale was considered as a possible location for the Air Force Academy in 1949. Although it was not chosen, the prospect resulted in a renewed interest among community members to maintain the base. The SCARWAF personnel were seen as only temporary residents, thus a more permanent tenant was actively sought. The local promotion of the base went so far as to produce a large document detailing the advantages of Beale AFB (Bal 1979).
At the same time that Beale AFB area residents were requesting a permanent installation at the base, the Soviet Union's development of the Bear and Bison bombers was igniting fears of a "bomber gap" between the United States and the Soviet Union (Goldberg 1957). This resulted in a call for the production of more U.S. long-range bombers. In 1957, the Gaither Report claimed the Soviet Union could possess a first-strike capability against the United States as early as 1959 and recommended that bombers be dispersed to numerous bases to help ensure that a substantial portion of the strategic bomber and tanker force would survive a Soviet first strike (Lewis et al. 1995).
Beale AFB had been assigned to SAC in August of 1956 and now was to serve as a dispersal base for bombers and tankers. The 4126th Strategic Wing (SW) was activated, and construction
15
of a new runway and all necessary support facilities was undertaken between 1956 and 1959 (Krahulec and Goddard 1980). The 4126th SW would consist of the 903rd Air Refueling Squadron (AREFS) and the 31st Bombardment Squadron (BMS) (Bal 1979). KC-135
Stratotanker refueling planes began arriving at Beale AFB in July of 1959, and the wing was declared combat ready in November 1959. In 1960, 12 B-52 Stratofortress bombers were delivered for operation by the 31st BMS. As part of the SAC B-52 dispersal plan, the 14th Air Division was assigned to Beale AFB in January of 1960 (Krahulec and Goddard 1980). The 4126th SW was then redesignated the 456th SW.
Beale AFB assumed an early warning role in 1959 as part of a major effort to protect against possible enemy bomber attack. The original realization of a bomber threat was based on the 1953 detonation of a Soviet hydrogen device and the subsequent Killian Report, which was presented to the National Security Council (NSC) in March of 1954 (Lewis et al. 1995). The report noted that in spite of the U.S. advantage in nuclear strike capability, the nation was vulnerable to surprise attack as a result of poor air defense, lack of early warning systems, and an increasingly large Soviet longrange bomber force.
To remedy the situation, a defense network including a variety of early warning devices, fighter interceptors, and the SAGE system was to be established along the northern and coastal borders of the United States. The SAGE buildings, one of which was to be located at Beale AFB, were controlled by Air Defense Command (ADC). Construction of a SAGE building at Beale AFB was begun in 1959. The building contained two large computers; radar, communication, and electronic equipment; and command and control rooms. The computers calculated the elevation, speed, and distance of incoming targets using data from various radar systems, and then figured the most efficient intercept route and relayed that information to the fighter interceptors based in its sector. The Beale AFB SAGE building was responsible for the San Francisco Air Defense Sector and was active between 1959 and 1962 (Bal 1979; Lewis et al. 1995).
16
In 1954, the Killian Report recommended that highest priority be given to the development of the United States Air Force's (USAF's) missile program (Lewis et al. 1995). In response, President Eisenhower called for the deployment of Atlas and Titan I missiles at 16 SAC bases. Beale AFB was chosen for installation of three Titan missile sites, each with three missile silos.
Construction of the sites began in 1959 at three separate locations near Beale AFB. The missiles were placed under the command of the 851st Strategic Missile Squadron (SMS) of the 456th SW at Beale AFB. With the addition of missiles, the 14th Air Division became the 14th Aerospace Division and the 456th SW became the 456th Strategic Aerospace Wing (SAW). Construction involved the installation of an underground, concrete, dome-shaped power plant and support facilities, as well as a network of connecting tunnels. The Air Force accepted the missile
complexes in 1962. The Titan missiles were stationed at Beale AFB for only a short time, and were deactivated in April of 1965 to make way for the more advanced Titan II and Minuteman missiles being stationed at other bases (Krahulec and Goddard 1980). The 851st SMS was also deactivated at this time.
The SR-71 Blackbird reconnaissance plane, perhaps the most widely recognized plane in Air Force history, was assigned to Beale AFB in 1964. The futuristic looking aircraft was designed to be a highly survivable surveillance aircraft that could photograph a wide territory in a short span of time. Its Mach 3 speed and extremely high flying elevation virtually ensured that it could not be hit by enemy missiles.
The 4200th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing (SRW) was activated at Beale AFB in January 1965 and became the base host, and the SR-71s were delivered a year later. The 4200th SRW was redesignated the 9th SRW in June of 1966 in order to honor a distinguished unit (Krahulec and Goddard 1980). The 1st Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron (SRS) was designated as the wing's flying squadron. Over the years, the SR-71 set several speed and distance records.
17
The base now had two wings, the 9th SRW and the 456th SAW. In 1970, the 456th SAW acquired the 9th AREFS, giving it two tanker squadrons. In 1972, with the removal of the missile mission from the base, the 14th Aerospace Division returned to the name 14th Air Division and the 456th SAW became the 456th Bombardment Wing (BMW). Also, the 31st BMS was renumbered the 744th. In 1975, the 456th BMW took on the role as base host. Later that year, the wing was deactivated and renamed the 17th BMW (Beale AFB 1993). At this time, the 744th BMS was renumbered the 34th.
In 1976, the U-2 reconnaissance plane was transferred from Davis-Monthan AFB in Arizona to Beale AFB and its 9th SRW in order to streamline USAF reconnaissance efforts by having both aircraft, SR-71 and U-2, stationed at the same base. The 99th SRS was assigned to the U-2. That same year, Beale AFB's B-52 fleet and the 34th BMS were relocated to other SAC installations, removing the bomber mission from the base. In accordance with this change, the 17th BMW was deactivated, and its tanker squadrons, the recently acquired 9th AREFS and the 903rd, which were renumbered the 350th and 349th respectively, were transferred to the newly established 100th AREFW on the base. The 100th AREFW assumed base host responsibilities. With the bomber mission gone, the tanker fleet was maintained in support of reconnaissance aircraft only.
Beale AFB was again chosen for an early warning role when, in 1975, it was announced that a Precision Acquisition Vehicle Entry Phased Array Warning System (PAVE PAWS) would be installed. This powerful radar system was intended to track incoming submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) and give immediate warning to the National Command Authority (NCA). It was also planned to be used for the tracking of satellites and space debris. The Beale AFB PAVE PAWS is responsible for tracking all incoming objects over the Pacific Ocean. Three other PAVE PAWS facilities, located in Texas, Georgia, and Massachusetts, are responsible for monitoring the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean (USAF n.d.).
18
The PAVE PAWS facility became operational in 1979 in spite of community fears and protests about possible negative health effects of microwave radiation that reportedly would be produced by the facility (Krahulec and Goddard 1980). The facility was originally operated by Aerospace Defense Command, was turned over to SAC soon after completion, and finally was transferred to Space Command in 1982 (USAF n.d.). PAVE PAWS at Beale AFB is operated by the 7th Space Warning Squadron of the 21st Space Wing. The structure is triangular in shape and consists of two large arrays of radar transmitters and receivers that act as one unit to produce a powerful electronic beam (USAF 1992, n.d.).
The decade of the 1980s was a busy time for the base. In August 1981, Beale AFB received the TR-1 reconnaissance aircraft. At this same time, the 4029th Strategic Reconnaissance Training Squadron (SRTS) was activated at the base under the 9th SRW, with responsibility to train all U-2 and TR-1 pilots. Two years later, the 4029th SRTS also took over training for the SR-71. Also in 1983, the tanker squadrons maintained for refueling of the SR-71s, the 349th and the 350th, were placed under the command of the 9th SRW. The 100th AREFW was subsequently deactivated. In 1986, the 4029th SRTS was deactivated and replaced by the 5th SRTS.
In 1990, the SR-71 aircraft was retired due to Congressional budget cuts and the high cost of the plane, and the 9th SRW transferred base host responsibilities to the 14th Air Division. In 1991, the 14th Air Division was deactivated, and the Second Air Force was reactivated at Beale AFB for the USAF's reconnaissance headquarters. With this change, the 9th SRW once again assumed base host responsibilities.
In June 1992, Beale AFB became a member of ACC. With this change, the 9th SRW was renamed the 9th Wing (Beale AFB 1993). The 349th AREFS was deactivated, and in 1993, the 350th AREFS was transferred to Air Mobility Command but remained at the base. In July 1993, the Second Air Force was deactivated, and Beale AFB was moved under the 12th Air Force. Later that same year, the 9th Wing was once again renamed, this time to 9th RW.
19
Beale AFB has had a lengthy history in comparison to many AFBs, as well as numerous missions. This has resulted in several construction episodes that have influenced the
development of the base.
The Army Corps of Engineers and contractors immediately began construction of base facilities when the installation was acquired in 1942. Over 7,000 workmen worked to build all the necessary structures for Camp Beale. Barracks, administrative buildings, warehouses, mess halls, chapels, streets, and training areas were all constructed (Figure 3.1). Barracks were completed by
September 1942, when the first troops of the 13th Armored Division arrived.
During World War II, the camp housed over 60,000 personnel and had 10 chapels, five theaters, and 175 mess halls (Krahulec and Goddard 1980). When the camp was deactivated in 1947, over 70 percent of the structures were sold and removed or demolished (Bal 1979). Foundations near the present cantonment and other remnants around the base are all that remain of Beale's World War II mission (Krahulec and Goddard 1980) (Figure 3.2).
When SCARWAF personnel were assigned to Beale AFB in 1951, new buildings had to be constructed to house men and operational activities. Most of the building construction and
rehabilitation was of a general nature in that the buildings could serve any number of functions once completed. Many of the facilities of the period were planned as semi-permanent structures, with a few temporary and permanent buildings (Figure 3.2) (Krahulec and Goddard 1980).
SCARWAF personnel were withdrawn in 1956 and later that year it was announced that SAC would take over the base for use by bombers and tankers. The buildings used by SCARWAF were boarded up, and SAC began construction of many new structures to meet the needs of its mission (Figure 3.2). Between 1956 and 1959, construction was undertaken on new housing areas, officer and NCO clubs, a hospital, and a new runway. Ground was broken for the new runway in 1957,
22
and it was completed in August of 1958. Hangars and maintenance shops were constructed for the KC-135 tankers and B-52 bombers (Krahulec and Goddard 1980).
In January of 1962, construction began on nine missile silos at three Titan I missile sites near Beale AFB. The entire complex was underground and required a huge amount of earth moving. The silos were 155 ft deep covered by two 125 ton concrete leaf doors. Two large concrete domes housed the power plant and control facilities, and the entire complex was connected by a series of tunnels (United States Army Corps of Engineers 1962).
Further development at the base included the construction of hangars for the SR-71 and support buildings, including a physiological support building necessary for pilot preparation for the physically demanding SR-71 mission. Hangars were constructed for the U-2 aircraft, which
transferred to Beale AFB in 1976. PAVE PAWS was a major construction effort in the late 1970s (Krahulec and Goddard 1980) (Figure 3.3).
24
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the reconnaissance inventory of Beale AFB was developed to help ACC meet 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 Department of Defense (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).
25
As part of the reconnaissance inventory of Beale 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 The
4.2.1 Documentation
The evaluated resources at Beale 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.
26
27
28
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.
29
Mr. John Thompson, a natural resource specialist with the Civil Engineering Environmental Office, met with the Mariah field team upon its arrival at Beale AFB and introduced the team to the individuals who would provide the information required to complete the field work. These people included Drawing Room staff, CAD operators, and Real Property Office staff. The Mariah team met briefly with the Wing Historian, Dr. Coy Cross. The historian provided a history of the base and arranged a meeting with Mr. Fred Carmody, a long-time Lockheed employee assigned to both the SR-71 and U-2 programs at Beale AFB. The team was in contact with Mr. Thompson on a daily basis.
The fieldwork began with an orientation tour of the base provided by Mr. Thompson. Access to the flight line proved problematic since an escort was required. While waiting for flight line access, the survey and inventory of buildings off the flight line was completed. A flight line escort was arranged by the 9th Reconnaissance Wing Executive Officer Captain Risse, and the team was escorted by Security Police Technical Sergeant Thibadeaux during inventory of flight line buildings. Certain buildings were selected for evaluation based on their importance to Beale AFB's
30
Cold War history. These buildings were documented, photographed, and researched in the Real Property Office.
31
During the reconnaissance inventory of Beale AFB, 115 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.
32
Four resources were evaluated at Beale AFB, three of them falling under the DoD category of real property and one under records/documents. 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.
6.1.1 Documentation
6.1.1.1 Architectural Drawing Files (Resource No. 17116, Located in Real Property No. 2535)
Beale AFB drawing files include two rows of 10 ft tall flat files of architectural drawings. The files contain numerous historical maps, original base master layouts, and construction and utility project drawings of Beale AFB and related facilities. The maps are of paper, linen, mylar, vellum, and blue line reproductions. The flat files contain valuable information about historic structures on base and the development of the installation throughout the Cold War. The
majority of drawings are in good condition, but are threatened by frequent handling and removal from drawers.
34
The Bomber Alert Facility, constructed of reinforced concrete, functioned as a self-contained community for B-52 bomber crews who were required to live at the facility for seven day periods and respond to any drill or war situation at a moment's notice. This facility, built in 1959, was used for alert duty until 1976, when it was decommissioned. Bedrooms, dining rooms, a
recreation room, and a briefing room were all located in the building. A distinctive feature remaining at the facility is an earthen berm surrounding the building. The alert building was a secure facility and is surrounded by a chain link and barbed wire fence complete with a security control entry building. A security police tower is located on the adjacent bomber alert apron. An associated building still located outside the alert security perimeter was used for marital and family activities.
The building was initially remodeled for office space after being decommissioned from alert functions. In November 1995, despite a recommendation that this building was eligible for listing on the NRHP, a complete renovation project was initiated which removed any remnants of kitchens, dining rooms, and dormitories. The large ramp tunnels which allowed for rapid egress from the building to the planes were filled in with concrete block. Because of the amount of renovation conducted on this building, the building no longer retains its integrity.
The Bomber Alert Facility is highly significant to Beale AFB and the Cold War nationally. It 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, the concept of deterrence by intimidation, and the dispersion of bombers across the country as recommended in the Killian Report (Lewis et al. 1995) The B-52 force was an integral part of the DoD defense triad
35
and was relied on as the United States' primary manned nuclear bomber for over 30 years. This facility was used for this purpose during Phases II and III and meets NRHP criterion (a).
6.2.2 Communications
6.2.2.1 SAGE Facility (Resource No. 17002, Real Property No. 2145)
This building was originally designed to house the SAGE system, an early warning system that detected incoming enemy bombers and controlled interceptor fighters. Built in 1959, this building served its SAGE mission until early 1962, when it began use as a photo lab. The building currently houses a photo reconnaissance laboratory and offices for various base units, including the 9th RW support squadrons.
The building's integrity was evaluated based on the presence of features which convey the facility's importance to the Cold War. Specific SAGE features that are still intact include its windowless, reinforced concrete construction. However, the exterior has been modified to reduce its stark appearance, such as the addition of a sloping roof, a canopy, and a new facade on the front of the building. The basement of the building originally housed two large computers, mechanical equipment, and a large, well-stocked, fallout shelter. The computers have since been removed, but 4 to 6 inch diameter holes through the concrete ceiling show where the computer cables and conduits penetrated into the rest of the building. Currently, this basement contains full-room air handling units. The upper floors originally contained offices, weapons control system rooms, and support facilities for SAGE. These areas are now used for a photo
reconnaissance laboratory and offices for various base units. Thus, the appearance of the exterior and the entire interior of the building have been renovated, resulting in a lack of integrity for the building.
36
This building was constructed as part of the early warning radar system that was called for in the Killian Report (Lewis et al. 1995). It was another link in the NORAD system, which disseminated information between Beale AFB and SAC. The building's design and features exhibit the
importance of nuclear survivable systems to the overall deterrence role of SAC. The exceptionally important function of the building conveys the United States' fear of surprise nuclear bomber attack by the Soviet Union and reflects the desire to gain early warning and successful interception of such an attack. This building served this function during Phase II of the Cold War and meets NRHP criterion (a).
None were evaluated at Beale AFB.
None were evaluated at Beale AFB.
6.5.1 Radar Sites
6.5.1.1 PAVE PAWS Facility (Resource No. 17059, Real Property No. 5760)
This facility, known as PAVE PAWS, is one of four units located in the United States. PAVE PAWS units are also located at El Dorado Air Force Station (AFS) in Texas, Robbins AFB in Georgia, and Cape Cod AFS in Massachusetts. Each unit is part of a national system under Aerospace Defense Command designed to provide early warning detection and tracking of both SLBMs and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), as well as tracking of satellites.
37
PAVE PAWS is a phased array technology that can track multiple targets moving at high speeds, and has a longer range than conventional radar systems and uses less power. A conventional radar system can take several seconds to mechanically move and track an object, while the PAVE PAWS system can do the same immediately through transmission sequence and phasing of the antenna elements. These antenna elements allow the system to perform simultaneous surveillance missions including detection, characterization, and warning of missile attack, as well as tracking 7,000 items in orbit around the earth. Satellites and space trash are some of the items that are tracked through the radar area for the Beale AFB PAVE PAWS unit and then passed for tracking to the next unit. The information gained from this tracking goes into the satellite catalog (SATCAT), which allows the Space Surveillance Center to track orbiting material and aids in developing the United Nations Registry Report.
The unit at Beale AFB was accepted by Aerospace Defense Command in 1979 and shortly after was transferred to the 14th Air Division of SAC. In 1983, the site was transferred to Space Command. Currently the site is being run by the 7th Space Warning Squadron and Raytheon, which works under contract to the Air Force. When Raytheon becomes the prime operator of the site, approximately 30 Air Force staff will be involved.
This PAVE PAWS facility is a steel frame structure that is almost triangular in plan. The antennae are located on two of the elevations in a 102 ft (31 m) diameter octagon. The antenna walls are tilted back at a 20 angle. Each array contains approximately 1,800 active antenna elements and has room for more. If additional antennae were installed, the array would cover a greater distance. Each of the 1,792 antennae transmits the same amount of power as three 100 watt light bulbs. As the signal from each travels outward, it is reinforced by other signals and develops into a high power beam.
Both the exterior and interior of the building was examined by the field team, and the integrity of each was determined to be intact. This was not surprising as the building has had and continues to have only one function, PAVE PAWS.
38
The primary mission of the PAVE PAWS unit is the detection, warning, and characterization of a missile attack. The system tracks high speed objects and determines whether they are incoming ballistic missiles. High priority data, such as incoming information, is transferred to the Worldwide Military Command and Control System, which then transfers the information to the National Military Command Center in Washington, D.C., North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD) Command in Colorado Springs, and SAC Command Post at Offutt AFB, Nebraska. This ballistic missile tracking mission gives PAVE PAWS its exceptional Cold War significance. The site manager for PAVE PAWS during the 1970s, Jerry Coffey, said the following about the PAVE PAWS system: It's a deterrent. For Russia to be able to overpower the United States, they have to catch us by surprise and would have to hit our Triad. They would have to launch a sufficient number of warheads to slam the doors shut on the silos, catch the birds on the ground and the subs in the pen. If PAVE PAWS is sitting here watching, and they know we are here watching, it's just like having a real bad dog in your front yard. When a guy comes up to your gate, he'll probably turn around and go home before he goes through the gate [Bal 1979]. SACs primary mission was deterrence (Lewis et al. 1995) and during the Cold War the goal of PAVE PAWS was to deter nuclear attack through the demonstrated capability of knowing exactly how and when a strike was occurring. An informed command structure would be prepared to react. PAVE PAWS epitomizes the concepts of survivability and deterrence. The facility was built and made operational during Phase III of the Cold War, and continued in operation during Phase IV. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
39
The purpose of the reconnaissance inventory was to provide initial information on the kinds of Cold War resources extant on Beale 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 Beale AFB. These resources should be investigated further for a more comprehensive analyses.
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 Beale AFB revealed approximately 80 citations. Most of these are unit histories and special collections. More specific topics include the histories of base realignment due to acquisition of the B-52, the Titan I missile, SAGE, PAVE PAWS, and reconnaissance aircraft. The vast majority of these documents are available on microfilm. Future studies of Cold War history at Beale AFB should allot time to researching these documents.
40
There are no known projects planned at Beale AFB that may impact the resources noted as important in this report.
41
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 Beale 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.
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
42
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 Beale 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 Beale AFB have not been evaluated, and thus must be considered and treated as eligible until an evaluation and determination of eligibility are made.
43
properties, though evaluated and determined eligible, are not nominated to the list.
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.
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.
44
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.
Recommendations for the evaluated resources at Beale 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:
46
9.2.1 Architectural Drawing Files (Resource No. 17116, Located in Real Property No. 2535)
The majority of the drawing files are in good condition; however, they are threatened by frequent or occasional handling and removal from the drawers. It is recommended that the files be inventoried, with the originals going to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II and III. It meets NRHP criterion (a) based on its role in sustaining a survivable force to meet the needs of deterrence. However, the integrity of the building has been impacted due to extensive renovations, which were conducted after the building was recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Due to these renovations and the resulting lack of
47
recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Due to these renovations and the resulting lack of integrity for the building, this building is now recommended as not eligible for listing on the NRHP.
9.2.3 SAGE Facility (Resource No. 17002, Real Property No. 2145)
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phase II. It meets NRHP criterion (a) based on its role in early warning and response. However, the building no longer retains integrity due to extensive renovations and additions. Therefore, the building is recommended as not eligible for listing on the NRHP.
9.2.4 PAVE PAWS Facility (Resource No. 17059, Real Property No. 5760)
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases III through IV. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) based on its role in early detection and warning, 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 since 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.
48
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. Bal, P. 1979 Pebbles in the Stream. Marysville, California. Beale Air Force Base 1993 Beale Air Force Base. Marcoa Publishing, Inc. San Diego, California. Department of Defense 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. (ed.) 1957 A History of the United States Air Force, 1907-1957. D. Van Nostrand, Princeton, New Jersey. Krahulec, SSgt J. L., and SSgt S. D. Goddard 1980 History of Beale Air Force Base. California.
United States Air Force, Beale Air Force Base,
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. 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.
49
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. United States Air Force 1992 Fact Sheet, PAVE PAWS. 7th Space Warning Squadron, Beale Air Force Base, California. 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. n.d. History of the 7th Space Warning Squadron. 7th Space Warning Squadron, Beale Air Force Base, California. United States Army Corp of Engineers 1962 History of Corps of Engineers Activities at Beale AFB. Report prepared by Lt. Col. Joseph H. Sheppard, United States Army Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Construction Office, Beale Area, California.
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
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 Beale AFB, and to provide research materials for this study:
John Thompson Natural Resource Specialist 9th CES/CERR 6451 B Street Beale AFB, California 95903-1708 (916) 634-2665 Coy F. Cross II, Ph.D. Wing Historian 9th RW/ History Office 19501 Edison Street, Suite 300 Beale AFB, California 95903-1221 (916) 634-9177 Dennis Bruner Community Planner 9th CES/ Drawing Room 6451 B Street Beale AFB, California 95903-1708 (916) 634-2699 Fred M. Carmody Field Operations Manager Lockheed Corporation (916) 788-0281 Jane Cook Real Property Officer 9th CES/CERR 6451 B Street Beale AFB, California 95903-1708 (916) 634-2670
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 Beale AFB history and Cold War context:
Coy F. Cross II, Ph.D., Wing Historian, 9th RW, August 29 - September 2, 1994
Fred M. Carmody, Field Operations Manager, Lockheed Corporation, September 1, 1994
VOLUME II-3: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE AT CANNON AIR FORCE BASE
Prepared by Lori E. Rhodes Karen Lewis Katherine J. Roxlau
June 1997
Volume II-3: Cannon Air Force Base
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Cannon Air Force Base was inventoried by Karen Lewis and Lori E. Rhodes of Mariah Associates, Inc., between April 12 and 15, 1994 as part of the Air Combat Command Cold War study for the ongoing Department of Defense Legacy Program. Information was gathered at the base from the Wing Historian, the Drawing Room staff, and at the Civil Engineering, Real Property, and Public Affairs offices. On-site inspections were also conducted. During this research and inventory, resources were inventoried and photographed. A relatively small amount of material culture was identified as relating to the Cold War era and consequently to the scope of this study.
From the research and on-site inspection, three resources were evaluated as important to the base and national Cold War history. A photograph collection and two documentary collections
contain photographs, plans, maps, drawings, and literary resources that document the development of Cannon Air Force Base throughout the Cold War. Further documentation, stewardship, and conservation are recommended for all three resources.
ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACC ACHP AFB AGE amsl CRS DoD EMS F-BW FTD GSA HABS LOX MAC Mariah NATO NCO NHPA NPS NRHP OCONUS POL SAC SALT SDI SHPO START TAC TACAN TFW USAF WRSK
Air Combat Command Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Air Force Base Air Ground Equipment above mean sea level Component Repair Squadron Department of Defense Equipment Maintenance Squadron Fighter-Bomber Wing Field Training Detachment General Services Administration Historic American Buildings Survey Liquid Oxygen Military Airlift Command Mariah Associates, Inc. North Atlantic Treaty Organization Noncommissioned Officer National Historic Preservation Act National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Off the Continental United States Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Strategic Air Command Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty Strategic Defense Initiative State Historic Preservation Officer Strategic Arms Reduction Talks Tactical Air Command Tactical Air Navigation Station Tactical Fighter Wing United States Air Force War Readiness Spares Kit
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. 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. 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 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. 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.
iv
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. Super-Airdrome - A runway and landing field configuration, designed in 1942, equipped to handle blind landings and the larger aircraft which were coming into use. 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 4 9
5.0 RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY RESULTS ................................................................ 29 6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS ................................................................................................... 6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS .................................................... 6.1.1 Documentation ....................................................................................................... 6.1.1.1 Photograph Collection ................................................................................... 6.1.1.2 Documentary Collection................................................................................ 6.1.1.3 Documentary Collection................................................................................ 6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS .................................................... 6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES ................................................................ 30 30 30 30 30 32 33 33
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES ................................................................................................ 33 6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES....................................................................................... 33 7.0 UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 34 8.0 FUTURE THREATS TO RESOURCES .............................................................................. 35 9.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 9.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY ...................................................................................................... 9.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility............................................... 9.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility ........................................................................... 9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 9.2.1 Photographic Collection ......................................................................................... 9.2.2 Documentary Collection......................................................................................... 9.2.3 Documentary Collection......................................................................................... 36 36 36 38 39 41 41 42
10.0 REFERENCES CITED ....................................................................................................... 43 APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D: APPENDIX E: RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY BASE LAYOUT MAPS SHOWING INVENTORIED RESOURCES PHOTOGRAPHS OF INVENTORIED RESOURCES DATA BASE DOCUMENTATION FOR EVALUATED RESOURCES EXTANT SOURCES OF INFORMATION
vii
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Bases Selected for the Air Combat Command Cold War Study .......................... 2 Location of Cannon Air Force Base ..................................................................... 5 Cannon Air Force Base Layout ............................................................................ 6 Standard Tactical Air Command Base Layout .................................................... 8 Cannon Air Force Base Land Use Diagram ......................................................... 10 Standard Tactical Air Command Base Land Use Diagram .................................. 11 Cannon Air Force Base, 1940s ............................................................................. 16 Cannon Air Force Base, 1940s, Close-up of the Main Base Structures .............................................................................................................. 17 Cannon Air Force Base, 1950s ............................................................................. 18 Cannon Air Force Base, 1960s ............................................................................. 19 Cannon Air Force Base, 1970s ............................................................................. 20 LIST OF TABLES
Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Figure 3.5
Table 6.1
Evaluated Resource Prioritization by Air Force Group and Subgroup .............................................................................................................. 31 Evaluated Resource Prioritization by Priority Rank ............................................ 31 Resources Planned for Demolition ....................................................................... 35 Recommendations for Evaluated Resources ........................................................ 40
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is a reconnaissance inventory of Cold War related resources on Cannon Air Force Base (AFB). Cannon AFB, a former Tactical Air Command (TAC) 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.
Cannon AFB is currently the home of the 27th Tactical Fighter Wing (TFW), the only operational United States Air Force (USAF) unit flying the F-111 strike fighter and the EF-111A Raven electronic countermeasures aircraft. The primary mission of the 27th Wing is to develop and maintain an F-111 and EF-111A fighter wing capable of day, night, and all-weather combat operations for war fighting commanders worldwide at any time (USAF 1993a).
Cannon AFB is located on the high plains of extreme eastern New Mexico along U.S. Highway 60/84, 0.6 mi (0.96 km) west of Clovis (Figure 2.1). Melrose Bombing Range, which is
controlled by Cannon AFB, is located approximately 35 mi (56.3 km) west of the main base and is also accessed by Highway 60/84.
This portion of New Mexico lies in the Llano Estacado, a physiographic zone characterized by desert basin plains with grama grasslands. The terrain of Cannon AFB is relatively flat, with no major streams or landforms in the vicinity. Elevation averages approximately 4,295 ft (1,309 m) above mean sea level (amsl). Melrose Bombing Range exhibits generally the same topography, with the exception of a low mesa on the west side of the range.
Cannon AFB is generally bounded on the north by U.S. Highway 60/84, although a new housing section now extends north of this highway (Figure 2.2). Other boundaries abut farmland and are defined by the perimeter road. The main base building area occupies the northcentral portion of the overall base area. The primary runway is aligned slightly northeast-southwest. A secondary runway runs perpendicular to the primary one, intersecting it just southwest of the main base.
This alignment varies from the standard TAC base (Figure 2.3) where the secondary runway abuts the flightline and the primary runway is an offshoot, beginning at one end of the flightline then running at a tangent away from the main base. In the typical layout, an unused runway corresponds to the secondary runway alignment at Cannon AFB.
The remaining lands occupied by Cannon AFB are traversed by taxiways, an old runway, and secondary dirt roads, and include many clear zones where no development may occur. Ancillary facilities (sewage lagoons, landfill, fire training, kennels, small arms range) are located along the perimeter road and adjacent to these dirt roads. A secured munitions area is located just outside the perimeter road along the eastern edge of the base lands. The standard TAC base layout exhibits fewer ancillary buildings in these peripheral zones, perhaps because of the primary runway through these areas.
The current layout of the main base at Cannon AFB includes mission buildings which run parallel to the flightline and the primary runway. Maintenance docks are located directly on the apron. Support buildings, such as propulsion and avionics, are located adjacent to the mission area on the north and west side of Torch Boulevard. Despite the fact that the flightline is along the secondary runway in the standard layout, particular buildings, including the base operations and control tower, squad operations buildings, and fire station, are found in almost identical locations along the flightline in the standard layout and at Cannon AFB.
Community buildings interspersed with ball fields and other recreation areas cluster along the southwestern end of the mission area. The wing headquarters is nestled in this area. To the north is a section of older base storage buildings through which a now dismantled railroad spur once ran. This location of wing headquarters and base supply is almost identical to the standard plan, yet in the latter the railroad spur does not run through the supply area. Instead it is further away from the developed area, more accessible to the fuel storage and loading area.
Insert Figure 2.3.
The base hotel, officer's club, housing areas, and golf course are located on the periphery of the main base buildings, adjacent to the perimeter road. The main base entrance is flanked by the tank farm on the southeast and by the main base static display park on the northwest.
2.4 BASE LAND USE
The following is a list of standard TAC land use categories: Base Support Facilities - facilities that house administrative and maintenance functions Community - facilities such as shopping areas, medical, and family support Family Housing - accommodations for married personnel and families, including temporary housing Headquarters - building that houses administration for base wing Industrial - facilities for the storage of supplies and maintenance operations for base facilities and utility systems, and 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 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 between base facilities, safety clearances, secure areas, utility easements, and environmentally sensitive areas.
Figure 2.4 is a diagrammatic land use plan of Cannon AFB, and Figure 2.5 is a diagrammatic land use plan of a standard TAC base. Cannon AFB is basically laid out as a standard plan TAC base with mission and industrial areas close to the airfield and aprons. Recreational areas and family housing are concentrated near the entrance side of the base. The community area
separates the housing areas from the mission activities, a characteristic which is partially true for
12
the standard TAC base plan. The industrial area runs from the northeast corner of the apron away from the main mission area, but roughly parallel with the main runway. The primary differences between Cannon AFB and the standard plan are Cannon AFB's development of areas on the south side of the airfield and the installation of off-base, government funded lease housing.
Recreation areas at Cannon AFB are prevalent and located in association with various land use areas around the base, including within the community and unaccompanied housing areas, and divide the industrial area from mission, comprising almost the entire northeastern quadrant of the main base. The Headquarters building is located away from the mission area and is surrounded by community buildings. Unaccompanied housing is centrally located, within walking distance to community, recreation and mission buildings. Family housing is located farthest from the flightline and, as previously mentioned, continues on the opposite side of Highway 60/84. The main base entrance is on the south side of Highway 60/84, dividing recreation (golf course) from the industrial area. Some storage and special operations buildings are located on the south side of the airfield. There are new traffic check houses at the south and the west sides of the base. Newer industrial buildings at Cannon AFB are located at the extreme eastern end of the flightline.
13
Cannon AFB is on the original site of Portair Field, a 1920s civilian passenger facility. In the 1930s, the field was renamed Clovis Municipal Airport, and in 1942 the site was proposed as one of the three Super-Airdrome sites.
The base opened in September 1942 as Clovis Army Air Field. Strategic Air Command (SAC) took control of the field in March 1946. The 16th Bombardment Operational Wing was the first unit to occupy the field and used the facility to train aircrews for B-24, B-17, and B-29 bombers. The air field was then reassigned to the 15th Air Force with responsibilities to man, train, and equip tactical units (General Services Administration [GSA] 1972). In 1947 the field was inactivated, probably due to the general down-sizing trend of the military after World War II. While deactivated, the airfield was renamed Clovis AFB.
Air Training Command took control of the base in April 1950. Also in 1950, the National Security Council documented the need for a massive build-up of conventional military capabilities in National Security Council document No. 68. The invasion of South Korea by North Korea later that year supported the document. However, the administration in
Washington, D.C., at that time wanted to keep costs at a minimum, resulting in a preference for converting or modernizing existing bases rather than constructing new ones. In accordance with this preference, Clovis AFB was reassigned to the 140th Fighter-Bomber Wing (F-BW) of TAC in 1951. In 1952, 7,771 acres were leased near Melrose, New Mexico, to serve as a bombing range for the F-86 Sabre aircraft stationed at the base. Melrose Bombing Range was used during the Korean War by Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps units for bombing and gunnery practice.
During the early to mid-1950s, many different wings and squadrons occupied the base before being assigned to Korea or Europe. These included the 388th F-BW, trained for F-86s, which arrived in 1953 and then moved to Europe in 1954; the 37th F-BW, both activated and
14
inactivated in 1953; and the 50th F-BW, activated and converted from P-51 to F-86/F aircraft in 1953 before being moved to Germany the same year.
Activated at Clovis AFB in 1954, the 312th F-BW was associated with the base for significantly longer. Initially trained to maintain proficiency in fighter-bomber operations with conventional weapons, the 312th F-BW began training in 1955 to maintain combat proficiency with atomic weapons. The wing was rotated to France in 1957-1958 to provide TAC air strike forces for the Far East.
In 1957, the base was finally designated a permanent installation and named in honor of General John Kenneth Cannon. General Cannon was renowned for his tactical achievements during World War II, and was a former commander of the 12th Air Force and of TAC (Mueller 1989:58-59).
In 1957, the first F-100 Super Sabre was assigned to Cannon AFB as part of the 474th TFW, which maintained proficiency in tactical fighter operations and deployed components, aircraft, and crews on a global basis in support of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
In 1958, the 27th TFW was transferred to Cannon AFB from Bergstrom AFB in Texas, replacing the 312th F-BW. The 27th TFW deployed F-100s during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and other Cannon AFB units were deployed during the Vietnam War. The 474th TFW deployed three squadrons during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but the wing was transferred to Nellis AFB, Nevada, in 1968.
During the 1960s, Cannon AFB experienced a build-up of personnel and sophisticated weapons systems, which manifested itself in real property improvements. Between 1968 and 1989, 78,000 additional acres of land were purchased to expand Melrose Bombing Range.
15
In 1969 Cannon AFB became the second base to receive the F-111 strike fighter. The conversion to a full F-111 wing began with the delivery of 10 aircraft from Nellis AFB followed by training for maintenance and support staff.
Cannon AFB was reassigned to ACC in June 1992. The current mission of Cannon AFB is to organize, equip, train, and administer forces. The 27th TFW supplies combat-ready units to support worldwide general war commitments with either nuclear or conventional weapons. During the Cold War, the wing provided active air defense capable of engaging and destroying enemy air forces. Since the end of the Cold War, this capability has become a secondary part of its mission. Throughout its history, Cannon AFB has provided training for tactical aircrews and maintenance personnel (TSgt Timothy Drummond, personal communication, April 12, 1994).
The base layout and land use areas at Cannon AFB have not changed significantly since its original construction in the early 1940s (Figures 3.1 and 3.2). While the use has stayed the same, flightline structures have undergone changes to keep up with evolving aircraft and to implement changing missions. As a progression of base layouts illustrates (Figures 3.3 and 3.4), these changes culminated in a much more developed flightline in the 1970s (Figure 3.5). Housing has been expanded over Highway 60/84, which borders the main base on the north, and housing areas now exist in Clovis and Portales. Recently the base has received 161 million dollars for capitol improvements and plans to demolish or renovate most of the older base structures.
Major construction events at Cannon AFB include the addition of four hangars in 1943, the construction of concrete aprons for F-86Fs in 1953, a new runway that was built in 1961, and the completion of 250 family housing units in 1965-66. Additional events include the construction of an air-to-ground gunnery range in 1953, the addition of more housing in 1969 and 1974, and the building of a JP-4 jet fuel pipeline from Amarillo, Texas, in 1968.
21
In the mid-1950s, many buildings were rehabilitated, World War II structures were sold to the private sector, and new structures were built on base. Around 1954, seven new dormitories, three squadron operations buildings, an administration building, two warehouses, a cold storage plant, and other more minor facilities were constructed. In 1957, 362 new housing units were
constructed. During the Cuban Missile Crisis and Vietnam, seven new dormitories, two officer's quarters, two mess halls, three squadron operations buildings and a new division headquarters were constructed on base. These replaced portions of "Splinter Village," of which seventy-five buildings were sold to the public (GSA 1972). Though the records are unclear, the name may refer to wooden World War II structures.
Due to Cannon's build-up of personnel and sophisticated weapons systems during the 1960s, the base received real property improvements including 400 family housing units, 12 maintenance docks, a warehouse, an engine shop, an avionics shop, an automotive shop, an 88 bed hospital, and runway improvements.
Extra land for housing was purchased in 1971 (GSA 1972), and there is housing off-base in both Portales and Clovis. This housing was paid for by the government and is being leased for 20 years at the end of which ownership of the facilities will revert back to the original general contractor.
22
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the reconnaissance inventory of Cannon 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 Department of Defense (DoD) Legacy Program outlines three general categories under which Cold War resources may be included: real property, personal property, and
records/documents (USAF 1993b: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).
23
As part of the reconnaissance inventory of Cannon 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 The
4.2.1 Documentation
The evaluated resources at Cannon 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.
importance of resources within the Cold War era is hindered by two issues: (1) a lack of historical perspective due to the recent origin of the resources; and (2) an absence of data for
24
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).
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 1993b) 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; d) have yielded or be likely to yield information of importance to United States Cold War history.
25
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 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).
26
contextual importance 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.
27
The USAF Interim Guidance (USAF 1993b) 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.
The Mariah field team arrived at Cannon AFB on April 12 and met with point of contact TSgt Timothy Drummond, Wing Historian. The team discussed the Cold War project with TSgt Drummond and set an itinerary for the visit. TSgt Drummond escorted the team to the Public Affairs office where they briefly explained their project to Captain Mike Pearson, Public Affairs officer, and collected brochures describing the base. TSgt Drummond then introduced the team to Mr. Rick Crow, Natural/Cultural Resource Manager. The same day, Mr. Crow escorted the team on a base tour, which began at the Cultural Resource Management office, proceeded along the unsecured areas of the flightline and through the base, and included the perimeter road and adjacent areas. Mr. Crow then took the team to the Civil Engineering office (Richard Creery, Engineering Technician) and Real Property office (Helen Pate, Real Property Officer). These two offices were visited intermittently by the team between April 12th and 15th to investigate records and documents and to gather information from property cards and maps for the evaluated properties.
After obtaining the proper permits, TSgt Drummond escorted the team into the secured areas of the flightline on April 13th. Photographs were taken to document the range of flightline
resources. Photographs of examples of property types and important resources outside the flightline were taken without an escort for the remainder of the day. On April 14th, TSgt Drummond escorted the team to Melrose Bombing Range. The team visited the range control
28
tower and observed bombing practice flights. The control tower operator, Mr. Dave Miller of Westar Corporation, provided information regarding range activities. Some photographs were taken. Following the range visit, the team finished taking base photographs, unescorted. The base visit was completed on April 15th with an inventory of historic materials in TSgt Drummond's office.
29
During the reconnaissance inventory of Cannon AFB, 116 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
Three resources were evaluated at Cannon AFB, all of them falling under the DoD category of records/documents. 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.
6.1.1 Documentation
6.1.1.1 Photograph Collection (Resource No. 3114, Located in Real Property No. 352)
The Chief of Engineering Design, Mr. Harold Walker, has photographed numerous base buildings dating between the 1940s and 1990s as part of overall base documentation. Many of the older buildings have since been altered or destroyed. The photographs are stored in two boxes, each with approximately 50 photographs, in the Civil Engineering drawing room. The photographs provide valuable documentation of the base and are particularly important because Cannon AFB retains very few of its original buildings. The collection is in good condition, but the Civil Engineering building itself is slated for demolition and the collection could easily be lost or damaged during the transition to a new building.
This collection of engineering drawing files are located in the Base Engineer Administration building drawing room, which is secured. Resources in the collection include flat files of original historical maps, rolled original master plans and construction project maps, and flat files of architectural drawings.
32
One cabinet of flat files, containing 30 drawers, is filled with original maps including base layouts, utility plans, geographic maps, mylars, photos, and housing project plans. Some of the drawers are labeled as follows: Melrose, old photos, base history, geographic maps, Mercury, Gemini, MFH, and Chavez Manor (housing projects). These flat files generally are referred to as the "historic maps." Some of these maps have been torn.
A wooden cabinet containing over 50 rolled maps is on top of the historic flat files. They are primarily construction master plans, most on paper. The maps are stuck directly into wooden slats and are not in tubes.
Architectural drawings include flat files filled with dated plans, mylar and linen originals, blueprints of construction documents, and as-builts. Two cabinets, each with 44 drawers, are arranged by building number, and an additional 50 drawers in another cabinet are simply labeled "infrastructure." The drawings provide architectural data pertinent to individual buildings on the base that date to the Cold War.
These drawings and maps span the 1940s to 1990s, include all four Cold War phases, and provide information on individual buildings as well as base-wide development. This collection provides valuable of the base in its development throughout the Cold War, illustrating the effect of the Cold War on base expansion.
The 27th Fighter Wing historian maintains a historical collection in his office, located in the Wing Headquarters. Photographic resources include five volumes of photographs, one drawer of historical photographic archives, and slides in two boxes. Four cabinets contain periodic
histories, monographs, studies, and reports from 1951-1989. Three cabinets contain current and future history working files. The historian also has photographs of Melrose Bombing Range that he took, although these were not examined. Classified documents include two cabinets (four drawers each) of historical programs, periodic histories, monographs, reports, and working
33
materials. The resource is important due to its documentation of the base in its development throughout the Cold War era, showing the effect of the Cold War on the base and its mission as a part of TAC. The collection is being protected and is in good condition.
None were evaluated at Cannon AFB.
34
The purpose of the reconnaissance inventory was to provide initial information on the kinds of Cold War resources extant on Cannon 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 such as literature and objects 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 Cannon AFB. These resources should be investigated further for a more comprehensive analysis.
The USAF Historical Research Agency at Maxwell AFB, Alabama, is the repository for all Air Force historical documents. Future studies of Cold War history at Cannon AFB should allot time and energy to researching these documents.
36
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 Cannon 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.
37
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 Cannon 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
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 Cannon 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. These
38
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. necessary to re-evaluate unlisted historic properties periodically. Therefore, it is
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 designed to take place during the planning stages of a project when changes can be made to
39
achieve this balance. Entities involved in the review process can include the agency, the SHPO of the respective State, and the ACHP.
Recommendations for the evaluated resources at Cannon 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.
41
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 Photographic Collection (Resource No. 3114, Located in Real Property No. 352)
This collection of photographs of base buildings is valuable in that it documents buildings that have since been destroyed. The Civil Engineering Office, where the collection is stored, is slated for demolition and the photographs could easily become lost or damaged during the transition to a new building. It is recommended that the entire collection be inventoried. It is further recommended that the photographs be duplicated, that the duplicates be retained by the base for its use, and that the originals be sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
This collection contains original historic maps of base layout, original master pans and construction project maps, and architectural drawings, all providing information on the development of Cannon AFB during the Cold War. The storage of this collection has had an
42
impact on the condition of the maps and drawings, resulting in some of them being torn. It is recommended that copies be made of the collection and retained by the base for its use. It is further recommended that the original collection be sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
This collection consists of photographs and documents that are currently under restricted access and are in good condition. It is recommended that the entire collection be inventoried. It is further recommended that the photographs be copied, with the copies remaining at the base for its use and the originals being sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
43
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. Department of Defense 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. General Services Administration 1972 Executive Order 11508 Installation Survey. Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico. 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. Mueller, R. 1989 Air Force Bases: Active Air Force Bases Within the United States of America on September 1982. Office of Air Force History, United States Air Force, Washington, D.C. 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. United States Air Force 1993a United States Air Force Fact Sheet: Cannon Air Force Base. Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico. 1993b 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.
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 Cannon AFB, and to provide research materials for this study:
TSgt Timothy Drummond, Wing Historian Wing Historian's Office 27 FW/HO 100 S DL Ingram Blvd., Suite 202 Cannon AFB, New Mexico 88103-5214 (505) 784-2338 (505) 784-2460 Captain Mike Pearson, Public Affairs Officer Public Affairs Office 27 FW/PA 100 S DL Ingram Blvd., Suite 102 Cannon AFB, New Mexico 88103-5216 (505) 784-4131 Rick Crow, Manager Natural/Cultural Resources Office 27 CESS/CEV 111 Engineer's Way Cannon AFB, New Mexico 88103-5136 (505) 784-4348 Richard Creery, Engineering Technician Engineering Drawing Room 27 CES/CEER 111 Engineer's Way Cannon AFB, New Mexico 88103-5136 (505) 784-2116 Helen Pate, Officer Real Property Office 27 CER/CERR 111 Engineer's Way Cannon AFB, New Mexico 88103-5136 (505) 784-7628
E-2
Harold Walker, Chief Civil Engineering 27 CES/CEER 111 Engineer's Way Cannon AFB, New Mexico 88103-5136 (505) 784-2116
E-3
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 Cannon AFB history and Cold War context.
TSgt Timothy Drummond, Wing Historian, April 12 - 15, 1994 Rick Crow, Natural/Cultural Resources Manager, April 12, 1994
VOLUME II-4: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE AT CASTLE AIR FORCE BASE
July 1997
Volume II-4: Castle Air Force Base
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Castle Air Force Base was inventoried for Cold War resources between August 15 and 24, 1994 as part of the Air Combat Command Cold War study for the on-going Department of Defense Legacy Program. Information was obtained on base from the Real Property Office files, the Drawing Room, the Wing Historian, and Castle Air Museum.
An initial base reconnaissance was conducted with the Wing Historian, which provided a basic understanding of the base, its resources, and some of its history. This initial tour provided an overall perspective for the team's research. A tour of classified areas and resources on base was coordinated by the Wing Historian, and photographs of these resources and property types were taken by the team. On-site inspections and file research were also conducted.
From the research and inventory, three resources were determined to be important in their relationship to the base's Cold War mission and history: a Documentary Collection, the Bomber Alert Facility, and the Fighter Alert Facility. These resources were documented and evaluated for their importance to the training and alert missions of the base.
Recommendations for the Documentary Collection include further documentation, stewardship, and conservation. The two alert facilities are recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places, and further documentation and stewardship are also recommended for these resources.
ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AAF ACC ACHP ADC AFB AGE AMC AMMS AMS AREFS BMG BMS BMW DoD FIS FMS FTD HABS MAC Mariah MMS NCO NHPA NPS NRHP NSC OCONUS OMS PME RAPCON SAC SAGE SALT SDI SHPO START TAC USAF WRS
Army Air Field Air Combat Command Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Air Defense Command Air Force Base Air Ground Equipment Air Materiel Command Airborne Missile Maintenance Squadron Avionics Maintenance Squadron Air Refueling Squadron Bombardment Group Bombardment Squadron Bombardment Wing Department of Defense Fighter Interceptor Squadron Field Maintenance Squadron Field Training Detachment Historic American Buildings Survey Military Aircraft Command Mariah Associates, Inc. Munitions Maintenance Squadron Noncommissioned Officer National Historic Preservation Act National Park Service National Register of Historic Places National Security Council Off the Continental United States Organizational Maintenance Squadron Precision Measurement Equipment Radar Approach Control Center Strategic Air Command Semi-Automated Ground Environment Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty Strategic Defense Initiative State Historic Preservation Officer Strategic Arms Reduction Talks Tactical Air Command United States Air Force Weather Reconnaissance Squadron
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. 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. 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.
iv
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 4 8
3.0 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 12 3.1 BASE HISTORY AND COLD WAR CONTEXT.............................................................. 12 3.2 BASE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................... 15 4.0 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 20 4.1 INVENTORY ........................................................................................................................ 20 4.2 EVALUATION OF IMPORTANT RESOURCES ............................................................. 21 4.2.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 21 4.2.2 Evaluation of Importance ............................................................................................. 21 4.2.2.1 Cold War Context ............................................................................................... 21 4.2.2.2 NRHP Criteria..................................................................................................... 22 4.2.2.3 Exceptional Importance ...................................................................................... 23 4.2.3 Evaluation of Integrity.................................................................................................. 23 4.2.4 Priority Matrix .............................................................................................................. 24 4.2.5 Resource Organization ................................................................................................. 25 4.3 BASE SPECIFIC METHODS .............................................................................................. 25 5.0 RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY RESULTS ..................................................................... 26 6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS......................................................................................................... 27 6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS ........................................................ 27 6.1.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 27 6.1.1.1 Documentary Collection ..................................................................................... 27 6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS ......................................................... 29 6.2.1 Alert Facilities .............................................................................................................. 29 6.2.1.1 Bomber Alert Facility ......................................................................................... 29
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.2.1.2 Fighter Alert Facility........................................................................................... 30 6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES ..................................................................... 30 6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES...................................................................................................... 30 6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES ............................................................................................ 31 7.0 UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 32 8.0 FUTURE THREATS TO RESOURCES ................................................................................... 33 9.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 34 9.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY ............................................................................................................ 34 9.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility.................................................... 34 9.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility ................................................................................ 36 9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 37 9.2.1 Documentary Collection .............................................................................................. 39 9.2.2 Bomber Alert Facility................................................................................................... 39 9.2.3 Fighter Alert Facility .................................................................................................... 40 10.0 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................. 41 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 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Bases Selected for the Air Combat Command Cold War Study .............................. 2 Location of Castle Air Force Base ............................................................................ 5 Castle Air Force Base Layout .................................................................................... 6 Standard Strategic Air Command Base Layout ........................................................ 7 Castle Air Force Base Land Use Diagram ................................................................ 10 Standard Strategic Air Command Base Land Use Diagram ..................................... 11 Castle Air Force Base, 1940s .................................................................................... 16 Castle Air Force Base, 1950 to 1960 ......................................................................... 17 Castle Air Force Base, 1990 ...................................................................................... 19
LIST OF TABLES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
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 Castle Air Force Base (AFB). Castle 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.
Castle AFB is currently undergoing procedures to close the base in 1995. Prior to the initiation of closure, the 93rd Wing's primary mission was the development and maintenance of a combat ready force capable of long distance bombardment operations. The wing was also responsible for the training and re-qualification of all ACC B-52 Stratofortress aircrew members.
Castle AFB is located approximately 8 mi (13 km) north of Merced, California and about 110 mi (177 km) southeast of San Francisco (Figure 2.1). The land area of the base is 2,570 acres (1,040 ha), with 478 acres (193 ha) in easements. The land surrounding the base is used mainly for farming, grazing, and orchards.
Castle AFB is oriented along the northwest/southeast axis of the runway (Figure 2.2) and is similar to the standard SAC layout (Figure 2.3). The main gate is located farthest from the flight line at the center of the developed area of the base. The road from the gate runs northeasterly/southwesterly through the community area and leads to a ceremonial parade ground. Unaccompanied housing at the base consists of temporary lodging, visiting officer's quarters, and airmen's quarters and is found in three separate areas located from northwest to southeast respectively. The alert facility is located at the southeastern end of the runway and has a "christmas tree" alert apron next to it.
Differences between the Castle AFB layout and that of the standard SAC layout include the use of the same building for Wing Headquarters and the Command Post. Also, this building is located
closer to the flight line than the standard plan locates either of the facilities. Another difference is the location of housing and recreational areas off the base. The recreational area consists of a youth center and a park with facilities for barbecuing and picnics.
2.4 BASE LAND USE
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.
Figure 2.4 is a diagrammatic land use plan for Castle AFB, and Figure 2.5 is a diagrammatic land use plan of a standard SAC base. Castle AFB follows the standard plan in most ways. In both plans, the main base is on one side of the runway, with the mission area along the flight line and the weapon and warhead storage area on the other side of the runway. The base support, community, and unaccompanied housing areas are all located together next to the mission area. The industrial areas are located along the edges of the base, and family housing is located away from the mission and weapon storage areas. The alert facility is located at one end of the flight line, and the bulk of the base development has occurred at this same end.
Castle AFB land use differs from the standard SAC land use in that family housing is located off-base, and the Command Post is in the same building with the Wing Headquarters.
12
In 1940, the city council planners of Merced, California negotiated with the United States Army to establish a flying school near Merced. The city council purchased 900 (364 ha) acres of farmland and leased it to the Army for one dollar per year. In July of 1941, construction of the school began with a contract for housing and utility facilities (United States Air Force [(USAF)] 1965). In September of 1941, the adjunct general from Moffet Field in California officially established the school; however, troops and officers had to live in Merced until December, when construction was completed and housing was available (USAF 1965).
The 89th Bombardment Group (BMG) took control of Merced Army Flying School in December 1941. The first aircraft for the flying school were stored at the Merced Municipal Airport, as the runway was not yet complete. The day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, 34 BT-113A light trainers were transferred to the school (Castle AFB 1993), and the first training began at the school that month.
The training course was 10 weeks long, had 94 students, and consisted of basic single-engine flight training (Castle Air Museum Foundation n.d.). During 1942, Air Corps hangars, additional
gasoline storage, a 30% increase in housing, and lengthening of the field were completed. One year later, the name of the school was changed to the Merced Army Air Field (AAF), and it became part of the Western Flying Training Command. Training at the air field peaked in 1944, when each class trained 454 cadets and the base was operating five auxiliary fields at Potter, Howard, Ballico, Anthione, and Mariposa (Castle AFB 1993). In 1945, the personnel and aircraft from Merced AAF were transferred to Minter Field, and the air field became a processing center for troops on their way to combat zones (USAF 1965).
13
In 1946, the name of the air field was changed to Castle AAF to honor Brig. Gen. Frederick W. Castle, a fallen war hero. General Castle was killed in action during a bombing mission in Eaeenhousen, Germany. He was flying the B-17 while the crew fought 13 Messerschmitt fighters. When the plane ignited, the crew bailed out, but Castle was still in the aircraft when it exploded. Castle was known for his acceptance of difficult missions, his assistance in setting up the Eighth Air Force supply system in Europe, and his exceptional logistical skills (Castle AFB 1993).
In February of 1946, the 59th Weather Reconnaissance Squadron (WRS) was stationed at Castle AAF and conducted operations with B-29 bomber, B-17 bomber, and C-54 cargo aircraft. In April of the same year, SAC took control of the air field, assigned the 93rd BMG, and reassigned the 59th WRS to Travis AFB. During May of 1947, the 93rd BMG was expanded when new people and the B-29 Superfortress aircraft were assigned to Castle AAF. In July, SAC activated the 93rd Bombardment Wing (BMW) and began the reduction of the BMG. The 93rd BMG was finally deactivated in 1952, and the honors and entitlements were transferred to the 93rd BMW. In 1948, SAC redesignated the installation as Castle AFB (Castle AFB 1993).
In 1949, SAC assigned B-50 Stratofortress bombers to Castle AFB, and, from 1950 to 1952, the 93rd BMW flew training missions in England. In 1952, the 93rd BMW won the SAC
Bomb-Navigation Fairchild Trophy. This wing was selected for conversion to the B-52 bomber, and Castle AFB began the conversion to B-52 crew training for SAC. Runway extensions and facility expansions were planned in preparation for the new mission (USAF 1965). In 1954, also to prepare for the mission, the wing was provided with B-47 Stratojet bombers to give the unit initial experience with jet powered aircraft.
The first B-52 bomber delivered to any SAC unit arrived at Castle AFB on June 29, 1955. The conversion to the B-52 mission was completed at Castle AFB by March 1956, and the Castle AFB trainers began training outside units as well as crews based at Castle AFB (USAF 1965). Castle AFB received 45 B-52s, each costing ten million dollars. Although air crew training was
14
usually provided by Air Training Command, the cost of the aircraft led to the decision that these aircraft, owned by SAC, would have two functions, crew training and combat readiness.
In 1955, the 456th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS) was assigned to the base and the fighter-interceptor alert facility was completed. This squadron was a part of Air Defense Command (ADC) and as such was a tenant unit on the base. In 1956, the 456th FIS F-86 Sabre crews began alert duty. These fighter interceptors were established in response to the Soviet Union's
development of long-range bombing capabilities through the Tu-95 (Bear) and, to a lesser extent, the Myasishchev M-4 (Bison) aircraft. The Bear had a 10,000 mi (16,093 km) range and the Bison had a 5,000 mi (8046.5 km) range, each capable of reaching the continental United States (Yenne 1985). In 1958, the 456th FIS was converted to the F-102 Delta Dagger and, in 1959, they were converted to the F-106 Delta Dart.
In 1956, Castle AFB expanded its training facilities in preparation for receipt of the KC-135 Stratotanker, which was replacing the propeller-driven KC-97. The first KC-135 arrived at Castle AFB in 1957 and was assigned to the 93rd Air Refueling Squadron (AREFS). In 1956, with the help of the new refueling aircraft, two of the 93rd BMW's B-52s made non-stop flights around the perimeter of North America. This display of deterrence capability was referred to as Operation Quick Kick. In 1957, this was topped by Operation Power Flight in which three of Castle AFB's B52s circled the world in 45 hours and 19 minutes (USAF 1965). This was hailed as one of the greatest feats in modern aviation, because the flight time for circling the globe had been cut in half. The 93rd BMW had proven SAC's message of deterrence through their ability to fly long distances in a relatively short period of time. Each crew member was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross by General Curtis E. LeMay, who said the flight was a "demonstration of SAC's capabilities to strike any target on the face of the earth" (Yenne 1985).
The Bomber Alert Facility at Castle AFB was completed in 1960 at a cost of one million dollars (USAF n.d.), and SAC reached its goal of having one third of its assigned aircraft on continuous alert (USAF 1991). By 1961, the 330th Bombardment Squadron (BMS) was on continuous alert.
15
At this point, the base still had a dual role of combat readiness and crew training. The 330th BMS went off alert in 1963, and, in 1964, the 924th BMS went on alert.
The ADC's 456th FIS left Castle AFB in 1968, and, in 1973, Tactical Air Command's (TAC) 84th FIS moved to Castle AFB as a tenant unit. In 1981, the 318th FIS replaced the 84th (USAF 1986).
In 1991, the 93rd BMW was changed to the 93rd Wing to reflect the combined mission of the bomber and tanker. Sweeping reorganization occurred in 1992, with ACC replacing SAC, TAC, and Military Aircraft Command (MAC). ACC became responsible for Castle AFB and the 93rd Wing with it B-52 bomber mission, and Air Materiel Command (AMC) became responsible for both the tanker and training operations. In 1994, the B-52G was retired by congressional mandate, and the last one left Castle AFB for Davis-Monthan AFB in Arizona (Castle AFB 1994). Although the KC-135s and flight training currently remain at Castle AFB, the base is scheduled to close in 1995.
In 1941, Merced leased 900 acres (364 ha) to the Army for the development of Merced Army Flying School (Figure 3.1). Development of the base began with unaccompanied housing and utilities. In 1942, construction began on two Air Corps hangars, the addition of gasoline storage facilities, lengthening of the runways, and a 30% increase in housing. By 1943, the acreage had increased to 957 (387 ha) and the runway was 3,500 by 1,500 ft (1,066 by 457 m) with 2 inch plant mix on top of a 4 inch gravel base.
In 1952, SAC planned to make Castle AFB the primary training facility for B-52 bombers. Once the decision was made, the runway was updated to allow for the requirements of the B-52 (Figure 3.2). New facilities were constructed and the base spread along the new runway to provide support for the training and combat ready missions. In 1955, a Fighter Alert Facility was
18
constructed at the southeastern end of the runway and aprons. In 1960, a Bomber Alert Facility and "christmas tree" alert apron were constructed southeast of the Fighter Alert Facility.
Over the next 30 years, changes were made to the buildings on base to update them to meet the requirements of the mission, and more base support and community services buildings were added (Figure 3.3).
20
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the reconnaissance inventory of Castle 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
21
As part of the reconnaissance inventory of Castle 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 The
4.2.1 Documentation
The evaluated resources at Castle 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.
22
23
24
25
The Mariah field team, Karen Lewis and R. Blake Roxlau, conducted the inventory at Castle AFB from August 15 to 24, 1994. Upon arrival, the team met with the Wing Historian, SSgt William Redilla, to discuss research objectives and the requirements to complete the base inventory. After the meeting, SSgt Redilla gave the team a tour of the base, during which several resources important to the Cold War context were identified. After the tour, the field team was introduced to other base staff who would aid in the inventory, including the staff of the Civil Engineering Office, the Real Property Office, and the Drafting Office.
The team began the inventory with photographs of property types and an analysis of the Real Property Office cards and files. As the inventory progressed, SSgt Redilla was able to arrange access to the flight line, weapon and warhead storage area, and the flight simulator, all secured areas. Documentation of these areas was completed after the tour, and photographs were taken. The team conducted interviews with the Wing Historian, flight simulator contractor, and Castle Air Museum staff. Most of the written history information was gathered at the museum.
26
During the reconnaissance inventory of Castle AFB, 87 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.
27
Three resources were evaluated at Castle AFB, two of them falling under the DoD category of real property and one under records/documents. 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 one of the evaluated buildings could not be secured. In this instance, documentation
describing any changes to the building was consulted to provide insight into the integrity of the building's interior.
6.1.1 Documentation
This documentary collection is located in the Base Engineering building in six cabinets of flat files. The collection contains numerous historical maps, original base master layouts, large aerial photographs, and construction and utility project drawings, all of Castle AFB. The collection's maps and drawings include paper, linen, mylar, vellum, and blue line reproductions. The collection contains important information about historic structures on base and illustrates the development of the installation throughout the Cold War era. Portions of the collection pertain specifically to resources evaluated in this study. Most of the collection is in good condition, but is threatened by frequent handling and removal from the drawers. What will happen to the collection when the base is closed is unknown.
29
This alert facility was constructed in 1960 and was used for B-52 bomber alert. The facility was constructed of reinforced concrete and was a self-contained community for B-52 bomber crews. These crews were required to live at the facility for seven-day periods and respond to any drill or war situation at a moment's notice. Bedrooms, dining halls, a recreation room, and a briefing room were all located in the building. Distinctive external features of the facility include several ramp tunnels that lead out to the alert apron. The alert building is a secure facility surrounded by a chainlink and barbed wire fence with a security control entry building. A security police tower is located on the adjacent bomber alert apron. An associated building located outside the alert security perimeter was used for marital and family activities. The overall integrity of the facility and its features is intact. However, ephemeral items such as furniture, recreation items, and communications equipment have been removed.
The Bomber Alert Facility on Castle AFB is extremely important to the history of the base as well as Cold War history at the national level. Although it was not used continuously, this facility 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 the Killian Report, meeting the needs of deterrence through a survivable force and the dispersion of bombers across the country (Lewis et al. 1995). The B-52 force was an integral part of the SAC defense triad and was relied upon as the United States' primary manned nuclear bomb force for over 30 years. This facility was used for this purpose during Phase II of the Cold War, and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
30
6.2.1.2 Fighter Alert Facility (Resource No. 16059, Real Property No. 1560)
This Fighter Alert Facility was constructed in 1955 for use by fighter interceptor crews. The facility includes such character defining features as aircraft docks and crew living facilities. During the building's operation as a Fighter Alert Facility, the pilots were on a five minute alert. The pilots and the support staff were required to be in the building and ready to go with a moment's notice. The notification to fly, as well as where to go and how quickly to be there, came from the SemiAutomated Ground Environment (SAGE) building at Beale AFB, California.
The exterior integrity of the building is intact. Access to the interior of the facility was not secured by the field team; however, the real property card for the building indicates no major renovations or changes in use. Therefore, interior integrity is also intact.
This facility is extremely important not only to Castle AFB's history, but to Cold War history at the national level. The importance of this facility lies in its sole mission to thwart any surprise attack by the Soviet Union on the United States. This building conveys the United States' fear of a Soviet bomber attack from the north and the measures taken to insure that any such attack would be successfully intercepted. It is a direct result of Congressional approval in the 1950s for the construction of interceptor bases and the NSC-68 recommendations for a massive military build-up to counteract the increasing threat posed by the Soviet Union (Lewis et al. 1995).
None were evaluated at Castle AFB.
31
32
The purpose of the reconnaissance inventory was to provide initial information on the kinds of Cold War resources extant on Castle 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 Castle AFB. An example is the holdings of the Castle Air Museum. These resources should be investigated further for more comprehensive analyses.
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 Castle AFB revealed approximately 200 citations. Most of these are unit histories and special collections. More specific topics include the histories of base realignment due to acquisition of the B-52 and the fighter interceptor aircraft. The vast majority of these documents are available on microfilm. Future studies of Cold War history at Castle AFB should allot time to researching these documents.
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 and potential future contacts, are presented in Appendix E.
33
Castle AFB is closing, so all the buildings and structures within the facility will undergo adaptive reuse or be demolished. The evaluated resources on Castle AFB are at present minimally at risk; however, they should be documented as soon as possible. The fate of the documentary collection is unknown at this time.
34
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 Castle 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.
35
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 Castle 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 Castle AFB have not been evaluated, and thus must be considered and treated as eligible until an evaluation and determination of eligibility are made.
36
These
37
Recommendations for the evaluated resources at Castle AFB are presented below. Table 9.1 summarizes these recommendations. More than one recommendation may apply to a given
39
This collection of maps, drawings, and photographs is currently in good condition, but is threatened by frequent handling and removal from flat file drawers. It is also unknown what will happen to the collection when the base closes. It is recommended that the collection by inventoried and sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War 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 to this building type and identify it as an example of Cold War military architecture. The
40
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 visual inspection. 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 Fighter Alert Facility (Resource No. 16059, Real Property No. 1560)
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II through III. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) based on its mission to thwart any surprise attack by the Soviet Union 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 visual inspection and the lack of documented major renovations. 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.
41
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. Castle Air Force Base 1993 Team Castle. Prepared by the United States Air Force. Castle Air Force Base, California. 1994 93rd Bomb Wing and Castle Air Force Base Fact Sheet. Prepared by Public Affairs Office, Castle Air Force Base, California. Castle Air Museum Foundation n.d. Economic Impact and Feasibility Study: Castle Air Museum. Prepared by Zephyr Associates. Department of Defense 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. 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. 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.
42
United States Air Force 1965 A Brief History of the 93rd Bombardment Wing and Castle Air Force Base. Prepared by Maurice A. Miller, Jr., United States Air Force, Washington D.C. 1986 Installation Survey Report: Castle Air Force Base, Merced, California. Prepared by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Washington D. C. 1991 Alert Operations and the Strategic Air Command, 1957-1991. Prepared by the Office of the Historian, Headquarters, Strategic Air Command, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. 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. n.d. Informational brochure about Castle Air Force Base and its mission. Yenne, B. 1985 SAC: A Primer of Modern Strategic Airpower. Presidio Press, Novato, California.
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 Castle AFB, and to provide maps and other research materials for this study.
SSgt William Redilla Wing Historian 93rd History Office Castle AFB, California 95342 (209) 726-2991 Rosemary Parker Real Property Officer 93rd CES/CERR Castle AFB, California 95342 (209) 726-4750 H. L. Gilbert Civil Engineering Drawing Room 93rd CES/CCQ Castle AFB, California 95342 (209) 726-4816
E-2
INFORMAL INTERVIEWS
The following person was informally interviewed by the field team during the base visit. He was identified as someone possessing extensive knowledge of Castle AFB history and Cold War context.
SSgt William Redilla, 93rd Wing Historian, August 15-22, 1994
E-3
KNOWLEDGEABLE INDIVIDUALS
The following individuals were identified during the investigations as people with some knowledge of Castle AFB history during the Cold War. They were either unavailable during the investigation or possess much more information than could be documented during this preliminary reconnaissance. Edwin C. Range Works part-time for Museum (209) 722-7174 Richard A. Rodrigues Writing a history of Castle AFB (217) 328-4129 Pat McNally Merced Sun Star Daily Newspaper (209) 384-3881 Helen McCarthy Community Relations Officer (209) 726-4816
VOLUME II-5: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE AT DAVIS-MONTHAN AIR FORCE BASE
Prepared by Patience Elizabeth Patterson David P. Staley Katherine J. Roxlau
July 1997
Volume II-5: Davis-Monthan Air Force Base
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Davis-Monthan Air Force Base was inventoried by Patience E. Patterson and David P. Staley from November 1 to November 8, 1994 as part of the Air Combat Command Cold War study under the ongoing Department of Defense Legacy Program. Information was gathered at the base from the Real Property Office, Drafting Office, Environmental Office, Community Planning Office, Public Affairs Office, and History Office.
An initial reconnaissance of the base was accomplished with Mrs. Gwen Lisa, the Natural and Cultural Resource Officer for the base. This initial orientation enabled the team to become familiar with the base and to determine what property types were extant on base. It also allowed for the determination of specific resources which would likely be relevant to the Cold War study. Photographs were taken of resources that were representative of the different types and styles of facilities on the base.
From the information gathered and the on-site inspection, four buildings and two sources of documents were selected for further documentation and evaluated as important within the base's Cold War context. Two of these resources relate to Operations and Support Installations, three are Combat Weapons and Support Systems, and one is a Training Facility. Contextual Phases II through IV of the Cold War era, as described in the historic context and methodology document written for this study (Lewis et al. 1995), are represented.
One of the evaluated facilities is a missile installation that has been converted into a museum and is currently a National Historic Landmark. Continued stewardship is recommended for this facility. National Register of Historic Places eligibility, further documentation, and stewardship are recommended for the Bomber/Tanker Alert Facility, the Fighter Alert Facility, and the Ground Launched Cruise Missile Training Facility. Further documentation, stewardship, and conservation are recommended for the two Documentary Collections evaluated. There are also
ii
two resources that, although they were not evaluated, are recommended for further work due to their importance to the base's history outside of the Cold War context.
iii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AAF ACC ACHP ADC AFB AGE AMARC ANG AREFS ARS BMG BMW CAT CCTS CCTW CEBMCO CES CIS CRS DoD ECS EMS FAA FIG FIS FS FTD GLCM HABS ICBM INF LOX MAC Mariah NATO NCO NHPA NPS NRHP OCONUS POL
Army Air Force Air Combat Command Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Air Defense Command Air Force Base Air Ground Equipment Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center Air National Guard Air Refueling Squadron Air Rescue Squadron Bombardment Group Bombardment Wing Combat Arms Training Combat Crew Training School Combat Crew Training Wing Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Contracting Office Civil Engineering Squadron Commonwealth of Independent States Component Repair Squadron Department of Defense Electronic Combat Squadron Electronic Maintenance Squadron Federal Aviation Administration Fighter Interceptor Group Fighter Interceptor Squadron Fighter Squadron Field Training Detachment Ground Launched Cruise Missile Historic American Buildings Survey Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Liquid Oxygen Military Airlift Command Mariah Associates, Inc. North Atlantic Treaty Organization Noncommissioned Officer National Historic Preservation Act National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Off the Continental United States Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants
iv
SAC SALT SDI SHPO SMD SMS SMW SRW START SW TAC TACAN TEL TFW TMTS USAF WRSK
Strategic Air Command Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty Strategic Defense Initiative State Historic Preservation Office Strategic Missile Division Strategic Missile Squadron Strategic Missile Wing Strategic Reconnaissance Wing Strategic Arms Reduction Talks Strategic Wing Tactical Air Command Tactical Air Navigation Station Transporter-Erector Launchers Tactical Fighter Wing Tactical Missile Training Squadron United States Air Force War Readiness Spares Kit
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. 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. Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty - a treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union to eliminate intermediate-range and short-range nuclear missiles. This treaty permanently bans all United States and Soviet Union ground-launched missiles with a range of between 500 and 5,000 kilometers (300 - 3,400 miles). This treaty was ratified and went into effect on June 1, 1988 at the Moscow Summit. 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 longrange 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.
vi
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.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page MANAGEMENT SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... i LIST OF ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................................... iii GLOSSARY ....................................................................................................................................... v 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 5 5 8
3.0 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 14 3.1 BASE HISTORY AND COLD WAR CONTEXT.............................................................. 14 3.2 BASE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................... 25 4.0 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 31 4.1 INVENTORY ........................................................................................................................ 31 4.2 EVALUATION OF IMPORTANT RESOURCES ............................................................. 32 4.2.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 32 4.2.2 Evaluation of Importance ............................................................................................. 32 4.2.2.1 Cold War Context ............................................................................................... 32 4.2.2.2 NRHP Criteria..................................................................................................... 33 4.2.2.3 Exceptional Importance ...................................................................................... 34 4.2.3 Evaluation of Integrity.................................................................................................. 34 4.2.4 Priority Matrix .............................................................................................................. 35 4.2.5 Resource Organization ................................................................................................. 36 4.3 BASE SPECIFIC METHODS .............................................................................................. 36 5.0 RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY RESULTS ..................................................................... 38 6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS......................................................................................................... 39 6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS ........................................................ 39 6.1.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 39 6.1.1.1 Documentary Collection ..................................................................................... 39 6.1.1.2 Documentary Collection ..................................................................................... 41 6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS ......................................................... 41 6.2.1 Alert Facilities .............................................................................................................. 41
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.2.1.1 Bomber/Tanker Alert Facility............................................................................. 41 6.2.1.2 Fighter Alert Facility........................................................................................... 42 6.2.2 Missiles......................................................................................................................... 43 6.2.2.1 Missile Launch Complex .................................................................................... 43 6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES ..................................................................... 44 6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES...................................................................................................... 45 6.4.1 Missile Training ........................................................................................................... 45 6.4.1.1 GLCM Training Facility ..................................................................................... 45 6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES ............................................................................................ 45 7.0 UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 46 8.0 FUTURE THREATS TO RESOURCES ................................................................................... 48 9.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 49 9.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY ............................................................................................................ 49 9.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility.................................................... 49 9.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility ................................................................................ 51 9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 53 9.2.1 Documentary Collection .............................................................................................. 53 9.2.2 Documentary Collection .............................................................................................. 55 9.2.3 Bomber/Tanker Alert Facility ...................................................................................... 55 9.2.4 Fighter Alert Facility .................................................................................................... 55 9.2.5 Missile Launch Complex ............................................................................................. 56 9.2.6 GLCM Training Facility .............................................................................................. 56 10.0 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................. 57 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: DETAILED RESOURCE INVENTORY APPENDIX F: EXTANT SOURCES OF INFORMATION
ix
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Bases Selected for the Air Combat Command Cold War Study .............................. 2 Location of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base ............................................................. 6 Davis-Monthan Air Force Base Layout .................................................................... 7 Standard Tactical Air Command Base Layout .......................................................... 9 Davis-Monthan Air Force Base Land Use Diagram ................................................. 11 Standard Tactical Air Command Base Land Use Diagram ...................................... 12 Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, 1950-1960 ............................................................. 26 Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, 1960-1970 ............................................................. 27 Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, 1970-1980 ............................................................. 28 Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, 1980-1990 ............................................................. 30
LIST OF TABLES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is a reconnaissance inventory of Cold War related resources on Davis-Monthan Air Force Base (AFB). Davis-Monthan AFB, a former Tactical Air Command (TAC) 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.
The 355th Wing is the host unit at Davis-Monthan AFB. The wing is composed of six groups, four located on the base and two geographically separated units. The two separated units are the 3rd Air Support Group, Fort Hood, Texas and the 1st Air Support Group, Fort Lewis, Washington. The four groups on the base are: the 355th Operations Group with seven
squadrons, the 355th Logistics Group with six squadrons, the 355th Support Group with five squadrons, and the 355th Medical Group (Davis-Monthan AFB 1993:17-35). The 355th
Operations Group consists of the 41st and the 43rd Electronic Combat Squadrons (ECS), which provide command, control, and communications countermeasure capability using the EC-130H aircraft. The squadrons' combat mission is to support tactical air and ground operations by confusing the enemy's defenses and disrupting its command, control, and communications capabilities (Davis-Monthan AFB 1993:20). The 355th Operations Group also consists of four fighter squadrons (FS) flying the A/OA-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft.
The 355th Wing Treaty Compliance Office is the headquarters for administration and compliance activities associated with the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. The office also handles START issues and other potential international treaties. The office handles all
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) (formerly the Soviet Union) inspections relating to the above mentioned treaties. CIS inspectors have performed more than 20 inspections at Davis-Monthan AFB to ensure the elimination of the Ground Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM) (completed in May 1991) and the destruction of 350 B-52 Stratofortress bombers. CIS
inspections will continue at Davis-Monthan AFB through the year 2001 (Davis-Monthan AFB 1993:34).
Among the base's tenant units are the 12th Air Force Headquarters (United States Air Force [USAF] 1993a), the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center (AMARC) (USAF 1993b),
the 305th Air Rescue Squadron (ARS) (USAF 1994a), Detachment 1 of the 120th Fighter Interceptor Group (FIG), and the 162nd Air National Guard (ANG). Other federal agencies are also tenants on Davis-Monthan AFB. These tenants include the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), the U.S. Customs Service Air Service Branch, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and a detachment of the Naval Air Systems Command (Davis-Monthan AFB 1993:36-43).
Davis-Monthan AFB is located in southern Arizona in Pima County (Figure 2.1). The city of Tucson, of which the base is a part, lies to the north and west of the base, and Interstate 10 is directly to the south of the base. The Davis-Monthan AFB/Tucson area lies in a valley at an elevation of approximately 2,400 ft (731 m) above mean sea level, with the Santa Catalina Mountains to the north, the Rincon Mountains to the east, the Santa Rita Mountains to the south, and the Tucson Mountains to the west. The area is located in the Basin and Range Physiographic Province, which is characterized by isolated ranges of mountains and a desert environment. The average high and low temperatures are 81.7 and 54.2 F respectively. The base is approximately 10,763 acres (4,355 ha) in size (Davis-Monthan AFB 1993; Department of Defense [DoD] 1982).
o o
Davis-Monthan AFB's layout (Figure 2.2) consists of a long, narrow area oriented northwest to southeast, with three primary areas of development. At the northwestern end is the main base development, in the middle are the AMARC facilities, and at the southeastern end are the weapons storage and the Combat Arms Training (CAT) areas. The runway extends from the extreme northwestern corner to the southeast along the main base development to the AMARC area. The runway forms the southwestern boundary of these two sections of the base. Aside from the control tower, which is found just west of the center of the runway, all base development is located east of the runway.
The main base development lies adjacent to the runway and extends northeast to the base boundary. The AMARC area, at the southeastern end of the runway, lies adjacent to the bomber/tanker alert apron. Aircraft access the AMARC parking aprons by going through the alert apron and along a narrow taxiway. The AMARC area includes large areas of natural ground surface for parking aircraft, and thus comprises a major portion of the base. The weapons storage area is located adjacent to the southwestern boundary of the southeastern portion of the base. The CAT area, located at the extreme southeastern end of the base, is also adjacent to the southwestern boundary. These areas are surrounded by open space to allow for explosive and weapon storage buffer zones.
The Davis-Monthan AFB layout corresponds only generally to the standard TAC base layout (Figure 2.3). Similarities include the location of almost all base development on one side of the runway and the position of the weapons storage area away from the runway and main base development. Differences stem from Davis-Monthan AFB's use of three development areas that together extend far beyond the runway. Also, Davis-Monthan AFB has a bomber/tanker alert area, with facilities and a "christmas tree" parking apron, which are left over from the days when this base was under the jurisdiction of Strategic Air Command (SAC).
2.4 BASE LAND USE
The following is a list of standard TAC and SAC land use categories: Alert Facility - provides 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.
10
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. Weapon 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.
Open space areas occur on Davis-Monthan AFB southwest of the runway, near the weapons storage area, and surrounding the CAT area (Figure 2.4). The areas between the main base development and AMARC, and between AMARC and the weapons storage area, were originally open space but are now used by AMARC for aircraft and component storage.
Land use within the main base development at Davis-Monthan AFB is generally similar to that shown on the standard TAC base land use diagram (Figure 2.5). Mission and industrial areas are next to the runway. The central portion is a mix of base support, community, unaccompanied housing, and recreation areas, with headquarters facilities spread throughout this portion. Family housing is located farthest from the runway, against the northeastern base boundary.
13
Differences in land use between the base and the standard diagram appear to arise from the base's history while under the jurisdiction of SAC and from the elongated layout of the base. One difference again is the presence of a bomber/tanker alert apron, facilities, and command post. Another is the presence of industrial, mission, weapon storage, and recreation facilities and areas past the end of the runway. It appears that the need for storage areas for the AMARC mission (marked as industrial areas on the diagram) and for open space buffer zones around the weapons storage and CAT areas necessitated this elongated and unusual layout.
14
Davis-Monthan AFB's history begins in 1925, when the United States Air Service sent SSgt Dewey Simpson to Tucson, Arizona, to establish an airport as a refueling and service stop for Army planes that were landing there with increasing frequency. Under his able management, the demands on the airport's services expanded, and a new and larger site for the airfield was sought. The tracts of land that ultimately were purchased were located to the southeast of the city and east of the Southern Pacific railroad tracks. Construction of the new airport was completed in late 1927. On September 23, 1927, Charles A. Lindbergh arrived in Tucson to dedicate what was the first municipal airport in the nation as Davis-Monthan Field (Myers 1982:17). The name honors two Tucson men, Lieutenant Samuel Howard Davis and Lieutenant Oscar Monthan. Davis was a World War I aviator killed in an aircraft accident in Florida on December 28, 1921. Monthan, who served as an aviator and advanced aeronautical engineer after the Armistice, was killed in the crash of a Martin B-2 bomber at Lake Field, Hawaii on March 27, 1924 (Myers 1982:17-22).
Full U.S. Army involvement with Davis-Monthan Field began in 1940, when the Aviation Committee of the Tucson Chamber of Commerce approached the War Department concerning the establishment of an Army air field in Tucson. As World War II continued in Europe, the Army began to seriously consider Tucson as the location of one of six new air bases the War Department had recommended (Myers 1982:23).
In 1941, the field was named Tucson Air Base and served as a training base for the mostly obsolete Douglas B-18 Bolo twin engine medium bomber. On December 1, 1941, the air base was rechristened Davis-Monthan Field (Myers 1982:27-31). In 1942, the 39th Bombardment Group (BMG) arrived and began training B-17 Flying Fortress and B-24 Liberator aircraft and
15
crews. Rapid growth of the Second Air Force, under which Davis-Monthan Field operated, led to an ambitious program of development on the base.
The 39th BMG was redesignated Combat Crew Training School (CCTS) on December 1, 1943. By year's end, there were 150 combat crews in training at Davis-Monthan Field. The pilots learned high altitude flying and steady bomb approaches, while navigators, radiomen, and gunners all practiced their duties (Myers 1982:41). By the end of 1944, Davis-Monthan Field was converting to a B-29 Superfortress training program (Myers 1982:44; USAF 1994b).
Toward the end of the war, Davis-Monthan Field had a German prisoner-of-war camp. The camp, with 135 German prisoners, was used only a short time and was discontinued on March 31, 1946. Davis-Monthan Field was also the site of one of three Separation Processing Centers for the Second Air Force. Separation processing of personnel taxed the base to its limits in September 1945, when there were 11,614 people staying on the base. The Separation Center was located in Hangar 8030, and over 300 people a day went through processing. When the center closed on November 30, 1945, it had processed almost 9,500 people out of the military (Myers 1982:47).
With the end of World War II, Davis-Monthan Field no longer had the responsibilities of B-29 training. On November 15, 1945, the San Antonio Air Technical Service Command took jurisdiction of the field from the Second Air Force. The 4105th Army Air Force (AAF) Base Unit was activated and assigned the mission of extended aircraft storage for AAF planes, mostly B-29 and C-47 aircraft, and the responsibility for maintenance of the deserted buildings and flight lines on Davis-Monthan Field (Myers 1982:49). Environmental conditions at DavisMonthan Field made it ideally suited for the storage mission. The low residual acidic content and very high caliche content of the field's soil made it possible to park aircraft directly on the ground surface, thus eliminating the need to construct thousands of acres of asphalt or concrete ramps. Low annual rainfall and a dry desert climate further enhanced Davis-Monthan Field's suitability
16
for aircraft storage. In 1946, approximately 900 aircraft were in storage at Davis-Monthan Field; the majority of these were being processed for overhaul and return to service.
On March 31, 1946, the newly formed SAC and the Fifteenth Air Force assumed control of Davis-Monthan Field, bringing to the field a new strategic flying mission under the 43rd BMG; however, Davis-Monthan Field's role as an aircraft storage center continued under the transfer agreement (Myers 1982:49). In November of 1946, command jurisdiction over the 43rd BMG and all its facilities was transferred from Fifteenth to Eighth Air Force.
Davis-Monthan Field personnel and planes played an important part in the early stages of the Cold War. A significant international mission of the 43rd BMG was the flight of six B-29s to Europe where they spent almost two weeks visiting European capitols, evaluating airfields for possible future use, and, perhaps most important, flying missions along the border of Soviet-occupied territory. This critical mission, which demonstrated the United States's intention not to abandon Western Europe to Communist aggression, marked the first use of SAC bombers as instruments of international diplomacy (Myers 1982:50-52).
In 1947, the 2nd BMG was assigned to Davis-Monthan Field, and both the 43rd and 2nd BMGs were redesignated as bombardment wings (BMW). With the formation of the USAF as a separate military service, Davis-Monthan Field was officially redesignated Davis-Monthan AFB on January 13, 1948 (Myers 1982:52). The arrival of the 43rd and 2nd BMWs and the other personnel precipitated an immediate housing problem as three-fourths of the incoming personnel were married and had families. Some unused hospital barracks were divided into single and double-room units, and 24 additional barracks were donated for the same sort of housing. These barracks had to be dismantled and put back together on the base proper (Myers 1982:50).
The technological development and deployment of new bombers to replace the B-29s of World War II had a direct bearing on Davis-Monthan AFB. On February 20, 1948, the first B-50 Superfortress in the SAC inventory landed at Davis-Monthan AFB and was delivered to the 43rd
17
BMW. The 43rd Air Refueling Squadron (AREFS), one of the first AREFS in the Air Force, was assigned to the base in June of 1948. The tanker aircraft used by the squadron were modified B29s, designated KB-29Ms; these arrived later that same year (Myers 1982:53-54).
In March 1949, a Davis-Monthan AFB B-50A, called the Lucky Lady II, completed a 23,452 mi non-stop flight around the world. The B-50A was refueled four times during the mission by KB-29 tankers of the 43rd AREFS (Myers 1982:56-57). This momentous flight showed the world that the USAF had the capability to fly to any place on the globe and return; more importantly, it showed the Soviet Union that it had the capability to strike inside Soviet borders (Lewis et al. 1995:29-31).
The 2nd BMW was transferred to Chatham AFB, Georgia in April 1949. In 1951, the 43rd BMW was joined by the 303rd BMW, which flew the B-29. In 1953, the 43rd and 303rd BMWs began converting to the B-47 Stratojet. The B-47 was the first jet-powered aircraft to be mass produced and deployed by the USAF. Deployment of the B-47 at Davis-Monthan AFB required construction of a 200-ft wide, 11,500-ft long runway of asphalted concrete engineered to take the stress of the largest aircraft in SAC's inventory at the time (Myers 1982:59). Davis-Monthan AFB also received four T-33 jet trainers which were assigned to the 303rd BMW. By early 1954, both BMWs had disposed of their B-50s and KB-29s and taken possession of the last of their new B-47 bombers and the accompanying KC-97 tankers (Myers 1982:60).
As Cold War hostility intensified during the years following World War II, it became increasingly clear that military aircraft had to be preserved for future use in emergencies. In June of 1953, there were 210 aircraft in storage at Davis-Monthan AFB. By the end of the year, as the base received its first influx of all types of planes, there were 981 (Myers 1982:94).
In April 1953, the Air Defense Command (ADC) became a tenant at Davis-Monthan AFB when the 15th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS) was activated and assigned to the base. The FIS was initially outfitted with F-86A Sabre aircraft. These were replaced the following year with the "D"
18
models which were capable of supersonic speed (Lewis et al. 1995; Myers 1982:63). In 1956, an alert hangar for the FIS was constructed (355th Civil Engineering Squadron [CES] 1994). Also in 1956, the runway was extended to 13,645 ft to accommodate larger bombers and tankers. In 1960, a bomber alert facility was completed next to the fighter alert facility at the southeastern end of the runway. By this time, the 15th FIS F-86s had been replaced by the F-101 Voodoo aircraft. Also in 1960, the 43rd BMW was reassigned, leaving the 303rd BMW as base host.
In 1960, Davis-Monthan AFB was selected as the location for a Titan II intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) wing. The base was to be the site of the nation's first operational Titan II weapon system (Myers 1982:63). A task force unit of the Air Force Systems Command was established at the base to supervise the siting, construction, engineering, and management of the new weapons system.
The Davis-Monthan Area Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Construction Office (CEBMCO) was established at the base on October 3, 1960. The mission of the
Davis-Monthan Area Office was the administration of Corps of Engineer contracts for construction of Titan II ICBM launch and support facilities (CEBMCO 1964:I.1). The
establishment of the Titan II program was based on the concept of concurrency. Concurrency meant that basic missile research and development were underway while missile launch facilities were being built and personnel were being acquired and trained to carry out the strategic mission of the ICBMs (CEBMCO 1964:VIII.1; Myers 1982:65).
Eighteen Titan II launch complexes were scattered over a wide area around the base, with the closest being 24 mi and the farthest more than 60 mi away. The 390th Strategic Missile Wing (SMW) was officially activated at the base on January 1, 1962 to man the system (Office of the Historian 1990a:23). By November 29, 1963, the 390th SMW was fully equipped with 18 operational missiles. From ground breaking to operational status, the process took almost three years. The 390th SMW was comprised of the 570th Strategic Missile Squadron (SMS) and the 571st SMS. On November 30, 1963, the 390th SMW became the first operational Titan II wing
19
in the USAF (390th SMW 1981; Office of the Historian 1990b:42). Each Titan II was housed in its own hardened underground silo, with launch control provided from a subterranean launch control center located on the site. Unlike the Titan I, the Titan II was able to be maintained in a fully fueled state that permitted immediate launch directly from its silo (Lewis et al. 1995; Myers 1982:80-82; 390th SMW 1981).
During this time, Davis-Monthan AFB was the site of repeated marches and demonstrations by anti-war protestors and pacifist groups. For the most part, these activities were peacefully
conducted near base entrances and missile construction sites; however, several demonstrators were turned over to federal marshals for trespassing on base property (Myers 1982:67,139-142).
In 1960, President John F. Kennedy announced the Soviet buildup in Cuba, and the 390th SMW was placed on alert despite possessing no operational missiles at this time (Myers 1982:141). The Cuban Missile Crisis also impacted the aircraft storage area; by July of 1960, the storage inventory had increased to more than 4,000 assorted aircraft, and plans were in progress for the disposal of a large number of old fuselages and parts. Those plans ended with the Soviet missile buildup in July and August of 1961, as a result of which the phaseout of the B-47 and other disposal projects were put on hold. Some planes removed for disposal were placed back into storage although many had already been stripped of useable parts. Over the next 12 months, reclamation projects produced over 110,000 items with a total monetary value of $60,400,000; these were placed back into the system as spare parts (Myers 1982:95-98).
On July 1, 1963, the 4080th Strategic Wing (SW), a reconnaissance unit with 23 U-2 high-altitude aircraft, transferred from Laughlin AFB, Texas to Davis-Monthan AFB and added a new dimension to the base's strategic importance. The last reconnaissance unit on DavisMonthan AFB had been the 41st BMG with their B-18 Bolos during World War II. With the addition of the 4080th SW, the base was now a three wing base. The primary mission of the 4080th SW was to conduct strategic reconnaissance operations on a global scale. The wing worked in cooperation with other U.S. forces to complete reconnaissance reports, target material,
20
and compile weather data for operational forecasting, and with the Defense Atomic Support Agency, to conduct continuous upper air sampling (Davis-Monthan AFB 1964). The 4080th SW was the only SAC unit with the high-altitude U-2 aircraft (Myers 1982:69).
The ADC's 15th FIS was deactivated in 1964, and its assets were dispersed to other ADC units. Phaseout of the 303rd BMW's operations and preparation for turnover of the wing's facilities also began early in 1964. On June 11, 1964, the wing's last B-47 departed for Pease AFB, New Hampshire. One week later, the 303rd BMW was officially deactivated, and Davis-Monthan AFB lost its last bombardment unit. Components of the newly assigned 4453rd Combat Crew Training Wing (CCTW) were to assume possession of the 303rd BMW's facilities (Myers 1982:69-74). This was the first time that Davis-Monthan AFB had a combat crew training mission since immediately before the end of World War II.
On July 1, 1964, Davis-Monthan AFB became the new home of the 4453rd CCTW. This wing was a TAC unit reassigned from MacDill AFB, Florida. The mission of the 4453rd CCTW was to prepare the aircrews of 12 tactical fighter wings (TFW) for the complete conversion to the F-4C Phantom II aircraft. The F-4 had the capability to be either a supersonic air superiority fighter or a long-range nuclear or conventional bomber. The intensive flight training program included flying and radar training courses designed to prepare the two-man crews to fully utilize the new fighter-bomber's capabilities (Myers 1982:74). The F-4 was one of the primary jet fighter-bombers utilized in the Vietnam War by the United States, and in July 1966, the 4453rd CCTW began to train replacement crews in the F-4 for direct assignment to Southeast Asia (Myers 1982:74).
The 4080th SW began to deploy U-2 aircraft and personnel to Southeast Asia in the spring of 1964. In June of 1966, the 4080th SW was deactivated, and its personnel and equipment were assigned to the newly activated 100th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing (SRW).
21
In 1971, the 390th SMW became the host unit at Davis-Monthan AFB. After a brief period, the 12th Strategic Missile Division (SMD) assumed the host unit role (Myers 1982:82). In July 1971, the 355th TFW was assigned to Davis-Monthan AFB. With its A-7D Corsair II aircraft, the 355th TFW became the major TAC tenant unit. It had two missions: maintenance of combat ready pilots and aircraft and training of new A-7D pilots and maintenance personnel. On September 30, 1971, the 4453rd CCTW was deactivated, and its F-4 fighter-bombers were transferred to Luke AFB, Arizona (Myers 1982:82). In 1973, the 12th SMD was redesignated the 12th Air Division.
As the war in Southeast Asia continued, the 100th SRW continued its operational mission from its forward operating bases. With the signing of the ceasefire in January 1973, the workload of the 100th SRW was considerably diminished. On September 30, 1976, the 100th SRW was inactivated, and its personnel and U-2 aircraft were reassigned to the 9th SRW at Beale AFB for the purpose of consolidating in a single organization the management of all high-altitude manned reconnaissance operations. Beale AFB was the home of the SR-71 Blackbird, the other highaltitude reconnaissance aircraft (Myers 1982:84-85).
As technologies changed and weapon systems were developed and deployed, missions and systems changed on Davis-Monthan AFB. The 355th TFW continued its tactical fighting and training missions with the A-7D aircraft. In 1976, the 355th TFW began its transition to a new type of close air support aircraft, the A-10A Thunderbolt II attack aircraft. Davis-Monthan AFB became the home of the only A-10A pilot training program in the USAF (Myers 1982:89).
With the inactivation of the 100th SRW, the SAC flying mission at Davis-Monthan AFB was substantially reduced. This brought about the reassignment of the 12th Air Division to Dyess AFB, Texas. That move was completed on October 1, 1976, TAC assumed control of the base, the 355th TFW became host unit, and the 390th SMW assumed status as a tenant unit (Myers 1982:89).
22
As the Cold War continued, technological development of strategic as well as tactical weapons progressed. In 1979, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) decided to modernize its nuclear deterrent forces and use U.S. missiles to counter-balance the ever-increasing number of Soviet missiles aimed at Europe (Office of Public Affairs 1989:2-5). Davis-Monthan AFB was chosen as the training center for the GLCM system. The GLCM was a medium-range (up to 1,500 mi), tactical, highly survivable nuclear weapon based on mobile missile launchers called Transporter-Erector Launchers (TEL). This weapon system was developed to counter the Soviet SS-20 missile, which was able to reach all of Europe from its mobile bases (Hess 1983; Office of Public Affairs 1989:19-24). The GLCM was one of the most controversial nuclear weapon systems in the United States arsenal because it was deployed throughout Europe (Hess 1984).
The 836th Air Division was activated at the base on January 1, 1981, and assumed base host responsibilities. The only GLCM training squadron, the 868th Tactical Missile Training
Squadron (TMTS), was activated at the base at the same time. This unit trained crews to operate, maintain, and defend the GLCM system (355th TFW 1981; USAF 1994b). The 41st and 43rd ECSs also arrived at the base equipped with C-130 transport aircraft specially configured to the EC-130H Compass Call aircraft. These units' combat mission is to support tactical air and ground operations by confusing the enemy's defenses and disrupting its command, control, and communications capabilities through the use of electronic countermeasures systems, aerial refueling capabilities, and upgraded engines and avionics (Davis-Monthan AFB 1993:20). The 602nd Tactical Air Control Wing, a unit responsible for the Air Force's tactical control system west of the Mississippi River, was activated under the air division at Davis-Monthan AFB on September 1, 1982 (355th TFW 1982; Davis-Monthan AFB 1993:17). Members of the 602nd were responsible for directing forward air forces and coordinating them with ground forces for a combined team effort. To accomplish their mission, wing air controllers and liaison officers were stationed on both Air Force and Army bases (Smith 1994).
On October 2, 1981, Deputy Secretary of Defense Carlucci ordered the deactivation of the Titan II system (Office of the Historian 1990b:70). During 1982 through 1984, the 390th SMW deactivated
23
all of its missiles, destroyed all but one of its Titan II launch complexes, and was deactivated (Office of the Historian 1990b:77). On July 10, 1984, the USAF and DoD approved a plan to donate one deactivated launch complex at each of the three Titan II bases to a public agency for use as a museum (Office of the Historian 1990b:77). Missile Site No. 8, also designated 571-7, a deactivated complex formally of the 390th SMW located near Green Valley, Arizona, became a first-of-its-kind historical museum (Lawler 1984). A missile without its warhead and guidance system stands in the silo, and the 740-ton blast door is permanently placed halfway open. Russian treaty observers continue to fly over the silo to verify its inactive status (Titan Missile Museum 1994).
On November 18, 1981, President Ronald Reagan made the so-called "zero-zero" arms control offer to the Soviets. According to the terms of this offer the United States would not produce or deploy in Europe the 108 Pershing IIs and 464 GLCMs requested by NATO in 1979 if the Soviet Union would agree to dismantle its force of 250 new SS-20 missiles and more than 350 older SS-4 and SS-5 missiles. On November 30, 1981, representatives of the United States and Soviet Union governments held the first round of what would come to be called the INF talks (Office of Public Affairs 1989:6). These negotiations continued for six years.
As the INF talks proceeded, Davis-Monthan AFB again became a site for protests against nuclear weapons. One group of demonstrators set up a "peace camp" near the main gate of the base for over six months (Hess 1984; Kemper 1983). Other demonstrations and protests promoted an "anticruise" policy (355th Wing History Office 1994), and hundreds of protestors and marchers used acts of civil disobedience to protest nuclear proliferation (Heltsley 1984; Hess 1984; Lawler 1983; Matier 1983; Spivak 1983). On May 3, 1985, security police apprehended four female protestors who had gained access to the base, climbed on top of the 868th TMTS Headquarters, and declared the area a nuclear free zone.
In July 1987, General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev accepted a "global double zero" INF missile balance. This proposal included provisions for the global elimination of all U.S. and Soviet
24
intermediate-range missiles and short-range ground-launched missiles, the destruction of missile launchers, and the most stringent verification regime in arms control history (Office of Public Affairs 1989:12). Finally, on December 8, 1987, the treaty documents were signed in
Washington, D.C. by Reagan and Gorbachev. On June 1, 1988, the President and General Secretary exchanged instruments of ratification in Moscow and the INF Treaty came into force (Office of Public Affairs 1989:14-15).
Davis-Monthan AFB and the Treaty Compliance Office of the 355th Wing have the responsibility for carrying out the stipulations of the INF Treaty and the START provisions. Under the terms of the INF Treaty, Davis-Monthan AFB's AMARC serves as the elimination site for GLCMs. During the three-year period ending May 1991, AMARC eliminated 445 missiles and canisters, 29 driver training vehicles, 124 TEL, and 68 training launch canisters. Soviet Union inspectors were on site 11 times to witness the elimination process (USAF 1993b). The areas associated with the GLCM program are specifically targeted for inspection by the Soviet Union through the year 2001 (personal communication, Dr. L. Lashbrook, 1994). AMARC has also been designated to accomplish the task of eliminating approximately 350 B-52 aircraft during a three and a half year period to comply with the conditions of START. Elimination of these aircraft is accomplished with a 13,000 lb free-falling guillotine blade attached to a Linkbelt crane. The blade severs the wings and the fuselage at predetermined points. The Soviet Union inspectors will visit Davis-Monthan AFB in the future to verify this elimination process.
The last class of the 868th TMTS graduated in May of 1990, and the unit was inactivated. In October 1991, as part of USAF-wide reorganization, the 355th TFW was redesignated the 355th Fighter Wing, and the 602nd Tactical Air Control Wing was redesignated as an air control wing. In May 1992, the 836th Air Division and the 602nd Air Control Wing were deactivated, and the 355th Fighter Wing was redesignated as the 355th Wing and assumed base host responsibilities. At this time, the 12th Air Force headquarters moved to Davis-Monthan AFB. In June 1992, command of the base and the wing switched from TAC to ACC.
25
Use of Davis-Monthan AFB during World War II had already established extensive areas of development at the base. The 1950s brought a new runway (Figure 3.1) suitable for the B-47 medium bomber and the KC-97 tanker. Barracks were added, some of which replaced older units. In 1952, several hundred Wherry housing units were constructed on the base. Additional acreage was procured for the aircraft storage area in 1953. In 1955, base operations and the fire station on the flight line were constructed. In 1956, an alert facility was constructed for ADC's 15th FIS unit at the southeastern end of the runway. In 1957, five housing units were constructed as commander's family quarters. That same year a new base theater and Officer's Open Mess were constructed. The next year, 1958, a new Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Open Mess was completed.
The 1960s brought more changes to Davis-Monthan AFB. An alert facility and its attendant "christmas tree" alert apron were completed for SAC in 1960 (Figure 3.2). The main runway was extended to 13,645 ft. Also in 1960, Davis-Monthan AFB was selected as the site for a future Titan II missile wing. Although this caused some refitting of extant buildings and some new facilities, most of the construction for the missile complexes took place away from the installation. In 1961, a 180,072 ft reclamation shelter was completed in the AMARC area. A new hospital was also completed, along with an 18-hole golf course. A new gymnasium was constructed in 1968. In 1969, a golf clubhouse was constructed.
2
The 1970s saw expansions in base housing and other base facilities (Figure 3.3). An additional family housing area was constructed in 1972 through 1975. A new base exchange was opened in 1974, and the commissary was constructed in 1978. Some maintenance hangars and other shops were also constructed in the 1970s.
29
The 1980s brought a new mission to the base when the 868th TMTS was officially activated. In 1983, three facilities were constructed for the GLCM training complex and the 868th TMTS (Figure 3.4). New hangars, supply buildings, and community facilities were also constructed during the 1980s.
31
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the reconnaissance inventory of Davis-Monthan 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
4.1 INVENTORY
The DoD Legacy Program outlines three general categories under which Cold War resources may be included: real property, personal property, and records/documents (USAF 1993c: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).
32
As part of the reconnaissance inventory of Davis-Monthan 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 Davis-Monthan 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.
33
importance of resources within the Cold War era is hindered by two issues: (1) a lack of historical perspective due 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).
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 1993c) 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;
34
35
36
The USAF Interim Guidance (USAF 1993c) 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.
Upon arrival at Davis-Monthan AFB, the Mariah field team met with Mrs. Gwen Lisa, the Natural and Cultural Resources Officer, Mr. John Thompson, Chief of the Environmental Flight, and Mr. Gino Patriarka, Community Planner, all with the 355th CES. These contacts were advised of the team's schedule and the objectives and needs for accomplishing the base reconnaissance inventory.
Mrs. Lisa provided the field team with a tour of the base to familiarize them with the base layout, types of facilities present, and resources potentially significant within the context of the inventory. At the Real Property Office, Ms. Jan DeMaria gave the team a copy of the Real Property Change List and access to the older files containing Property Change Cards. The team was also supplied with copies of earlier planning documents, old property inventories, and other pertinent research materials. Mr. Ben Kaiser of the Drafting Office provided copies of computer generated C-Tabs or maps of the base. The field team was also given access to old project files containing architectural drawings, maps, aerial photographs, and other documents. These project files were an excellent source of data regarding base development and land use. TSgt Kim R.
37
Smith, Wing Historian in the 355th Wing History Office, was also contacted by the team, and the team inventoried the collections in his office. The 355th Wing Public Affairs Office furnished historical research material and copies of the current missions for the host unit and any tenant units on the base.
The field team visited the Titan Missile Museum at Green Valley, Arizona. This property is owned by the USAF and is listed on the Davis-Monthan AFB Real Property Office records. Therefore, the museum was subject to inventory and investigation.
Photographic inventory of property types on the base was conducted throughout the base visit. Mr. Daryl Johnson, the Airfield Manager, gave permission for photographing relevant facilities along the secured flight apron. Lt. Col. G. Peluso, Commander of Detachment 1, Fighter Interceptor Group, was in attendance during photographing of the ADC alert facility.
On the last day of the base visit, the field team visited the 355th Wing Treaty Compliance Office and spoke with Dr. Larry Lashbrook, the Director of Treaty Compliance. On the same day, the team provided an outbriefing to the Commander of the 355th CES regarding the study's preliminary findings.
38
During the reconnaissance inventory of Davis-Monthan AFB, 184 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.
39
Six resources were evaluated at Davis-Monthan AFB, four of them falling under the DoD category of real property and two under records/documents. 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
6.1.1 Documentation
This collection, located in the Wing History Office, contains reports, histories, newsclippings, and photograph prints and slides pertaining to the base and the 355th Wing during the Cold War. A more detailed listing of the collection contents is provided in Appendix E. This documentary collection is an important source of data regarding the history and development of the base during the Cold War era. The collection is generally in good condition. The photograph collection is currently being organized and catalogued.
41
This documentary collection, located in the Civil Engineering Office, contains architectural drawings and aerial photographs. The architectural drawings include blueprints and plans of all existing buildings on the base, in addition to buildings and facilities that have been demolished, such as the Titan II launch complexes. Many of these drawings are originals. The aerial
photographs record facility construction and alteration projects that have taken place on the base. A more detailed listing of the collection's contents is provided in Appendix E. This collection is an important source of information regarding the construction of base facilities and illustrates the development of the base throughout the Cold War. It also records the construction of facilities that are evaluated by this study as important to the base's Cold War context.
This collection generally is well organized and in good condition. The archival drawers, which contain the older drawings, are not organized. The entire collection is subject to continuous use, which has resulted in wear on the collection, especially to the older maps which have been torn.
6.2.1.1 Bomber/Tanker Alert Facility (Resource No. 24017, Real Property No. 140)
This building, built in 1960 for SAC combat forces, was utilized as an alert facility for B-47 and KC-97 aircraft until 1965. Since then the building has been used for academic classrooms, as a multipurpose facility by wing headquarters, and as temporary headquarters for the GLCM training units of the 868th TMTS. It currently is used as the 41st ECS operations building.
This two-story, concrete block, semi-subterranean building exhibits architectural features common to alert facilities, including ramps and covered tunnels for quick egress from both floors of the
42
building; an alert aircraft parking apron, called a "christmas tree" apron due to its shape; and attendant security facilities. This building has the unique feature of a sun deck on one end of the roof. The building's traffic check house has been converted into a storage shed, and the security fencing is no longer in place. The exterior integrity of the building is intact. Although this facility has been used for offices by various units on the base, the real property card for the facility indicates no major renovations to the building. Thus interior integrity is also determined to be intact.
The exceptional importance of this facility to the base and national Cold War contexts lies in its use for maximum readiness and rapid deployment of air crews in response to enemy aggression. Its design, association, and setting convey the military strategy of survivability, a major component of the U. S. deterrent capability during the Cold War. The facility was constructed and operated in direct response to the Killian Report, meeting the needs of deterrence through a survivable force and the dispersion of bombers and tankers across the country (Lewis et al. 1995). This building was used as an alert facility during the transition from Phases II to III; however, it characterizes the policy and strategy enacted during Phase II of the Cold War. This facility meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
This building, built in 1956, was the first alert facility constructed on the base and served as facilities for the 15th FIS under ADC. The facility includes such character defining features as two-story metal-framed construction, four bay aircraft shelter with bay doors on front and back, administrative and living quarters for crews on alert status in the center of the building, security fencing, and a security station building. While on alert, fighter pilots and support staff were required to be in the building and ready to deploy within five minutes. The building served as the alert facility until 1967. It was subsequently used for base warehouse supply and equipment until 1973. It then reverted back to an alert facility, this time for TAC forces flying the F-16 Falcon, and has continued this function to the present. Although no longer on alert status, this facility still supports the mission to intercept, identify, and, if necessary, destroy an airborne threat to the United States.
43
The exterior of the building maintains intact integrity. The interior of the facility was partially investigated. Based on these investigations, and the almost continual use of the facility as an alert facility to the present day, interior integrity is also determined to be intact.
This facility is exceptionally important to the base's Cold War history and to Cold War history at the national level. The importance of this facility lies in its sole mission to defend the United States against attacks from the Soviet Union. The construction of this facility and others around the country was stimulated by fear that the Soviet Union possessed the capability to strike targets in the United States. It is the direct result of Congressional approval in the 1950s for the construction of interceptor bases and the NSC-68 recommendations for a massive military build-up to counteract the increasing threat posed by the Soviet Union (Lewis et al. 1995). Its function of rapid deployment illustrates the strategy of survivability, a major component of the U. S. deterrent capability. This facility was used for this purpose during Phases II through IV of the Cold War era, and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
6.2.2 Missiles
6.2.2.1 Missile Launch Complex (Resource No. 24019, Real Property No. 8004)
This Titan II missile launch complex is now the Titan Missile Museum located at former missile site 571-7 in Green Valley, Arizona. It was an active missile facility from July 1963 through 1983 under the 390th SMW at Davis-Monthan AFB. Upon deactivation, it was donated to the museum for an interpretive display.
The missile complex is primarily underground. Visible at the surface are the various antenna arrays, security fences, retractable closure door and base with portable crane hardstand, the inside of
44
the silo complete with an inert missile, and intake and exhaust air shafts.
The complex is
constructed of reinforced poured concrete with steel plates, forming a hardened silo and command center. The complex came under the stewardship of the museum upon deactivation, thus it retains a high level of integrity.
This missile launch complex is evaluated as exceptionally important to the base and national Cold War contexts. The United States ICBM force has held a major role in the country's deterrent capability since its inception with the Atlas missile in 1958, and the Titan II missile was a part of this force for over 20 years. The Titan II was a second generation missile considered to be a major advancement over the first generation missiles due to its ability to be fired from within the silo. This increased the survivability of the missile. This survivability factor has been the backbone of the U. S. deterrent capability since the 1950s. The Titan II wing at Davis-Monthan AFB was one of three in the country and was the first to be activated. This complex held its importance during Phases III and IV of the Cold War, and it meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
This facility has already been awarded National Landmark status by the NRHP, and is fully interpreted by the Titan Missile Museum. The complex and museum are an excellent example of the interpretation of USAF Cold War properties for the public.
None were evaluated at Davis-Monthan AFB.
45
6.4.1 Missile Training
6.4.1.1 GLCM Training Facility (Resource No. 24040, Real Property No. 70)
This two-story, concrete and brick building was constructed in 1983 as the headquarters of the 868th TMTS. The 868th TMTS later became a group and then moved up to wing status. This facility served as the training facility for the GLCM weapon system under the 836th Air Division from 1983 to 1990. All graduating classes from this training facility were sent to NATO countries where the GLCM system was stationed.
The function of this building is not revealed by any notable architectural features. However, the building remains in association with the "GLCM ramp" (as it is termed on the base map) and with other related buildings on the ramp. These buildings and the surrounding ramp are under INF Treaty physical observation and verification provisions until the year AD 2001. The building retains both its interior and exterior integrity.
This training facility is exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts. It represents one of the last remnants of a weapon system integral to the United States deterrent capability and was the only training facility for the GLCM in the USAF. The GLCM system functioned as a negotiating lever in the INF Treaty with the Soviet Union. All GLCMs have since been destroyed under the provisions of the INF Treaty, thus this is one of the few remaining resources tied to this weapons system. The importance of the building lies in Phase IV of the
Cold War era. The building meets NRHP criterion (a).
None were evaluated at Davis-Monthan AFB.
46
The purpose of the reconnaissance inventory was to provide initial information on the kinds of Cold War resources extant on Davis-Monthan 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 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 Davis-Monthan AFB. These resources should be investigated further for a more comprehensive analysis of the base's Cold War context.
There are two buildings on the base that, although not evaluated in this study, deserve further attention. Chapel No. 2 (Real Property No. 3208) was built in 1942 and has been in continuous use since that time. The building retains its architectural integrity, and exhibits feeling and association regarding base structures of the period with a religious function. It is recommended that this building be formally evaluated for eligibility to the NRHP within a World War II context. Until this evaluation is completed, stewardship to maintain the building's integrity is recommended.
Hangar 8030 was built in 1932 and is the oldest structure on the base today. The building retains its integrity; however the severity of threat to this facility is moderate as it is positioned within the clear zone of the runway. A nomination of this building to the NRHP has been begun. It is recommended that the nomination process for this building be completed.
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 Davis-Monthan AFB revealed approximately 175 citations. Most of these are unit histories and special collections. More specific topics include the histories of base realignment due to acquisition of the Titan II missile system and the GLCM weapon system. The vast majority of these documents are
47
available on microfilm. Future studies of Cold War history at Davis-Monthan AFB should allot time to researching these documents.
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 and a list of informal interviews conducted by the field team at the base are presented in Appendix F.
48
The planned disposal of buildings on Davis-Monthan AFB for the next four to five fiscal years does not include any buildings that have been evaluated by this study as important to the base's Cold War context. The Military Construction Program through FY99 also does not contain any indicated action for these evaluated resources.
Facilities on Davis-Monthan AFB have been identified by this study as historically and/or architecturally significant outside of the base's Cold War context. Hangar 8030 (Real Property No. 8030) and Chapel No. 2 (Real Property No. 3208) have been previously identified as properties possibly eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. At present, there are no known threats to these resources. However, nomination to the NRHP and possible future listing could help ensure the stewardship of these buildings.
49
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 Davis-Monthan 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.
50
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 Davis-Monthan 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 Davis-Monthan AFB have not been evaluated, and thus must be considered and treated as eligible until an evaluation and determination of eligibility are made.
51
These
52
53
Recommendations for the evaluated resources at Davis-Monthan 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 Documentary Collection (Resource 24182, Located in Real Property No. 2300)
This documentary collection is an important source of information regarding the base's Cold War history and development, and is generally in good condition. This collection of reports, histories, newsclippings, and photograph prints and slides should be inventoried and copied. It is further recommended that the base retain the copies for its use, and that the originals be sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
55
This collection of architectural drawings and aerial photographs is an important source of information regarding the development of the base during the Cold War, and is generally in good condition. However, use of the collection has resulted in wear on the drawings. This collection should be inventoried and copied. It is further recommended that the base retain the copies for its use, and that the originals be sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
9.2.3 Bomber/Tanker Alert Facility (Resource No. 24017, Real Property No. 140)
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II and III. 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 and its features is determined to be intact based upon partial observation and the lack of documented major renovations. 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 for nomination of this resource to the NRHP.
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II through IV. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) based upon its role of rapid deployment and interception of enemy attack, a strategy that was part of the United States deterrent capability, 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 and its features is intact based upon visual inspection and the almost continual use of the facility as an
56
alert facility for fighter aircraft and aircrews. Therefore, this building is recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Recommendations include stewardship to retain the integrity of the building, and further documentation for nomination of this resource to the NRHP.
9.2.5 Missile Launch Complex (Resource No. 24019, Real Property No. 8004)
This complex is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases III and IV, and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) base upon its role within the deterrent strategy of the United States. The integrity of the facility is intact. This facility is already listed on the NRHP as a National Landmark, therefore, stewardship of the complex within its role as a museum is recommended.
9.2.6 GLCM Training Facility (Resource No. 24040, Real Property No. 70)
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during the last phase of the Cold War, and meets NRHP criterion (a) based upon its association with the GLCM weapon system. The integrity of the building is intact. Therefore, this building is recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Recommendations include stewardship to maintain the integrity of the building, and further documentation for nomination of this resource to the NRHP.
57
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. Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Construction Office 1964 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Construction Office (CEBMCO) History of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona October 1960 - January 1964. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Construction Office, Titan II Directorate. Davis-Monthan Air Force Base 1964 Davis-Monthan Air Force Base Directory-Guide Tucson, Arizona. Newspapers, Massachusetts.
Community
1993 Davis-Monthan Air Force Base 1993-94. Installation Guide. Benchmark Publication, Inc. Department of Defense 1982 Installations Survey Report Davis-Monthan Air Force Base Tucson, Arizona. Office, Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations), Washington, D.C. 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. Heltsley, E. 1984 "Monk Starts Peace Vigil Outside Davis-Monthan." The Arizona Daily Star, January 10, 1984. Tucson, Arizona. Hess, B. 1983 "Why the Big Fuss About Cruise Missiles?" Courier, October 23, 1983. Prescott, Arizona. 1984 "Missile-Related Training to Increase." Sierra Vista Herald-Dispatch, September 24, 1984. Sierra Vista, Arizona. Kemper, V. 1983 "Davis-Monthan Crew Arrests 60 Protesters." The Arizona Daily Star, October 22, 1983. Tucson, Arizona.
58
Lawler, E. 1983 "19 Arrests in Protest at Air Base." The Arizona Daily Star, December 13, 1983. Tucson, Arizona. 1984 "Missile Site Museum is Racing Clock, AF Begins Work Early on Deactivated Titan." The Arizona Daily Star, January 20, 1984. Tucson, Arizona. 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. Matier, P. 1983 "`Peace Camp' Activists Plan to Step Up Protest." Tucson Citizen, October 20, 1983. Tucson, Arizona. Myers, G. P., MSgt 1982 The Story of Davis-Monthan AFB. Strategic Air Command History. On file, 355th Wing History Office, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona. 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. Office of Public Affairs 1989 Understanding the INF Treaty. Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Arms Control & Disarmament Agency, Washington, D.C. Office of the Historian 1990a From Snark to Peacekeeper: A Pictorial History of Strategic Air Command Missiles . Office of the Historian, Headquarters Strategic Air Command, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. 1990b SAC Missile Chronology 1939 - 1988. Office of the Historian, Headquarters Strategic Air Command, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska.
59
Smith, K. R., TSgt 1994 History of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. 355th Wing History Office, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona. Spivak, J. 1983 "New Barrier Separates Davis-Monthan and `Peace Camp.'" Arizona Daily Star, October 23, 1983. Tucson, Arizona. 355th Civil Engineering Squadron 1994 Real Property Records for Facility # 128. Real Property Records Office, 355th Civil Engineering Squadron, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona. 355th Tactical Fighter Wing 1981 355th TFW Chronology 1 July - 30 September 1981. On file, 355th Wing History Office, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona. 1982 355th TFW Chronology 1 January - 30 December 1982. On file, 355th Wing History Office, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona. 355th Wing History Office 1994 355th Wing Chronologies. 1983 through 1987 on file, Wing History Office, DavisMonthan Air Force Base, Arizona. 390th Strategic Missile Wing 1981 "A Portrait of the 390th." 390th Strategic Missile Wing History Office. On file, 355th Wing History Office, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona. Titan Missile Museum 1994 Pima Air Museum Titan Missile Museum. Tucson Air Museum Foundation Brochure. Tucson, Arizona. United States Air Force 1993a Fact Sheet: Twelfth Air Force. Headquarters Twelfth Air Force, Office of Public Affairs, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona. 1993b Fact Sheet: Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center. 355th Wing, Public Affairs Office, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona. 1993c 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. 1994a Fact Sheet: 305th Rescue Squadron (AFRES). 939th Rescue Wing, Portland International Airport, Oregon.
60
1994b Fact Sheet: Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona. 355th Wing, Public Affairs Office, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona.
APPENDIX E: DETAILED RESOURCE INVENTORY
E-1
Documentary Collection (Resource No. 24183, Located in Real Property No. 5313)
295 Flat File Drawers containing: 265 files labelled by real property number with plans and modifications of individual buildings. Files include mylar, paper, and cloth drawings dating to 1941. The following drawers contain drawings associated with evaluated buildings: Drawers 136-5/140-4 and 140-3/146-1 - building No. 140 Drawers S-1-12/7006, 70-5/70-5, and 70-4/70-1 - building No. 70 Drawers 72-1/118-1, 72-1/118-1, and 128-1/128-48 - building Nos. 70 and 128
20 files of plans and as-built drawings of general systems (i.e. base parking, railroads, roads, lighting, aprons, and taxiways, etc.). Spans 1940s-1990s. Drawings are on mylar, vellum, and sailcloth. 5 assorted files labelled Ft. Huachuca/Marana Air Park Mt. Lemmon Drawings AFDAT Moss 1984 aerial photos with negatives 1990s aerials 4 files 5 archival files including 11 x 17 drawings, various projects and dates Alert facility modifications Site plans - deactivated missile status
E-2
File Cabinets: 1 Classified File safe with 355th Wing Histories 1 File Cabinet with Active Files: Drawer #1 Storage
Drawer #2 Base Archives - Copy of Treaty between USA and USSR on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles dated Dec 1987 - Early Davis-Monthan files - Davis and Monthan - 1940 - 1941 - World War II - Base Guides from 1940s, 1955-1957, 1976, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1990, and 1992 - Davis-Monthan Statements of Resource and Economic Impact - 1977, 1978, 1979, and 1982-1989 - Commander's Facts Books - various years. - Various social items - Davis-Monthan Active Units & Inactive Units - AMARC - 23d Photographic Reconnaissance - 868th TMTG - Past Units - Davis-Monthan aircraft - Aircraft accidents - overflight - AICUZ - Libby airfield - Marana Airfield - Facilities and Land Use - Base Closure studies - Land Issues - Road Extensions - Aircraft on Display at Warrior Park - Davis-Monthan memorialization - Hangar 8030 - Environmental Impact - Protestors at Davis-Monthan: newspaper articles, etc. 1983 through 1985 - INF Treaty Compliance
E-3
Drawer #3 Wing Archives - General emblems - Honors - General orders - Commanders and key personnel - Organizations and functions - Chartbooks 1987 and 1989 - Southeast Asia - River Rats Songbook - Active Unit Information - Operations Group, Support Group, Wing aircraft, deployments, exercises, and inspections Drawer #4 Active Files - Chapter 1, Miss. & Org. - Chapter 2, Operations and Training - Chapter 3, Maintenance Drawer #5 (drawer is stuck and contents are inaccessible)
Assorted Holdings on Shelves: Above Shelves - 1941 newspaper clipping scrapbook - "Desert Airman" base newspaper, 1951-1984 1st Shelf - USAF Historical Publications 2nd Shelf - Air Force Magazine, 1960-92 - Airman Magazine, various years 1960-93 - Other magazines: Aviation Week, Space Tech, Airpower Journal, Combat Edge, USAF Weapons Review, Sergeants 3rd Shelf - 25 videotapes and 1991 newsclippings - 1990 Economic Impact Study - 1988 Aerial Victory Credits Reprint - Anti-terrorism program - 355 TFW/432 TDG histories - 1976 Headquarters Tactical Training histories, 1976-1977
E-4
4th Shelf - 355th TFW histories, 1971 - HQ Tactical Training histories, 1978-1982 - 355th TFW histories, 1972-1976 5th Shelf - Newspaper clippings 1919-1988 (4 ring binder notebooks) - Planning documents (2 notebooks) - 1980 slides (large ring binder) - 1983 slides (large ring binder) - One B/W print of Titan construction - 1987 slides (ring binder) - 1980s slides (ring binder) - 836 AD/355 TfW histories, 1982-1985 6th Shelf - 836 AD/355 TTW histories, 1985-1989 - 836 Combat Support - Chaplain histories, 1985-1989 - Titan II history of SATAF, 1961 and 1962
Assorted Holdings: - Photos being processed and cataloged for files - Slide files: Historic aircraft, current aircraft, early Davis-Monthan AFB slides through 1945, AMARC, Chemical Warfare Exercises, INF Treaty Cuts, GLCM Ops-Treaty Elimination, Davis-Monthan AFB people and facilities - 29 microfilmed case histories of various organizations - Files (4) on Marana & Libby Air Fields - AMARC histories, 1946-1974 - MASCS histories, 1979-1983 - Early pilots register, 1925-1936 - Ribbons and flags from various units - Two bookcases: - videos/publications/AMARC histories, 1941-1982 - video of GLCM mission - slides from 1989 of people and buildings - general publications
APPENDIX F: EXTANT SOURCES OF INFORMATION
F-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 Davis-Monthan AFB, and to provide research materials for this study:
Mrs. Gwen Lisa Cultural/Natural Resource Manager 355 CES/CEQ 5285 E. Madera Street Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona 85707 (520) 750-4885 Mr. John Thompson Chief, Environmental Flight 355 CES/CEQ 5285 E. Madera Street Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona 85707 (520) 750-5372 Mr. Gino Patriarka Community Planner, Engineering & Construction Flight 355 CES/CEEV 5220 E. Madera Street Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona 85707 (520) 750-5791 Mr. Ben V. Kaiser CADD Manager, Engineering & Construction Flight 5220 E. Madera Street Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona 85707-4926 (520) 750-2304 Mrs. Jan DeMaria Real Property Office, Resources Flight 355 CES/CERR 5220 E. Madera Street Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona 85707-4926 (520) 750-2305
F-2
TSgt Kim R. Smith Wing Historian 355 WG/HO 5275 E. Granite Street Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona 85707-3012 (520) 750-4669
F-3
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 Davis-Monthan AFB history and Cold War context.
Dr. Larry Lashbrook Director, 355 Wing Treaty Compliance Office 355 WG/CCI 5085 E. Granite Street Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona 85707 (520) 750-3154 Major Alan Blackburn Deputy Director, 355 Wing Treaty Compliance Office 355 WG/CCI 5085 E. Granite Street Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona 85707 (520) 750-3154 Mr. Michael Mazur Civilian, 355 Wing Treaty Compliance Office 355 WG/CCI 5085 E. Granite Street Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona 85707 (520) 750-3154
VOLUME II-6: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE AT DYESS AIR FORCE BASE
Prepared by James A. Lowe Patience Elizabeth Patterson Katherine J. Roxlau Mariah Associates, Inc. Albuquerque, New Mexico MAI Project 735-15
June 1997
Volume II-6: Dyess Air Force Base
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Dyess Air Force Base was inventoried by Mariah Associates, Inc. between April 4 and 13, 1994 as part of the Air Combat Command Cold War study for the on-going Department of Defense Legacy Program. Information was obtained on base from the Real Property files, the Drawing Room files, and from an assortment of photographs, documents, and memorabilia located in the 7th Civil Engineering Squadron files. Additional information was secured from the Wing
Historian's Office, the Base Library, and from the Director of Dyess Air Park.
The Deputy Base Civil Engineer accompanied the field team on an initial reconnaissance of the base which provided the necessary orientation to achieve perspective and focus for base research. Security personnel from the civil engineering squadron conducted a photographic tour of restricted areas and resources on base, and additional photographs were taken of representative property types by the investigators. On-site inspections were also conducted.
From this research and inventory, two resources were determined to be important in their relationship to Dyess Air Force Base's Cold War mission and history. These resources are both mission oriented and one is the direct result of research and development in the 1980s. The properties chosen are representative of temporal phases II through IV as discussed in the Cold War historic context and methodology document written for this project (Lewis et al. 1995). Recommendations for the resources include stewardship, further documentation, and National Register of Historic Places eligibility for the Bomber Alert Facility, and stewardship and further documentation for the Large Aircraft Maintenance Dock.
ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACC ACHP AFB AGE AMMS AMS BMW DoD FMS FTD HABS MAC Mariah MMS NCO NHPA NPS NRHP OCONUS OMS PME RAPCON SAC SALT SDI SHPO START TAC TAW USAF
Air Combat Command Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Air Force Base Air Ground Equipment Airborne Missile Maintenance Squadron Avionics Maintenance Squadron Bombardment Wing Department of Defense Field Maintenance Squadron Field Training Detachment Historic American Buildings Survey Military Airlift Command Mariah Associates, Inc Munitions Maintenance Squadron Noncommissioned Officer National Historic Preservation Act National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Off the Continental United States Organizational Maintenance Squadron Precision Measurement Equipment Radar Approach Control Center Strategic Air Command Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty Strategic Defense Initiative State Historic Preservation Officer Strategic Arms Reduction Talks Tactical Air Command Tactical Airlift Wing United States Air Force
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 longrange 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. 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.
iv
New Look - a policy designed to balance the U.S.'s global military commitments with its finite fiscal resources. The policy focuses on strategic nuclear striking power and massive retaliation as a better and cheaper way of deterring communist aggression. 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 on 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.
5.0 RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY RESULTS ................................................................ 31 6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS ................................................................................................... 6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS .................................................... 6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS .................................................... 6.2.1 Alert Facilities ........................................................................................................ 6.2.1.1 Bomber Alert Facility.................................................................................... 6.2.2 Maintenance Docks/Hangars .................................................................................. 6.2.2.1 Large Aircraft Maintenance Dock ................................................................ 6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES ................................................................ 32 32 32 32 32 35 35 35
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 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 .......................................................................... 9.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY ...................................................................................................... 9.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility............................................... 9.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility ........................................................................... 9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 9.2.1 Bomber Alert Facility............................................................................................. 9.2.2 Large Aircraft Maintenance Dock .......................................................................... 40 40 40 42 43 45 46
10.0 REFERENCES CITED ....................................................................................................... 47 APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D: APPENDIX E: APPENDIX F: RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY BASE LAYOUT MAPS SHOWING INVENTORIED RESOURCES PHOTOGRAPHS OF INVENTORIED RESOURCES DATA BASE DOCUMENTATION FOR EVALUATED RESOURCES ADDITIONAL UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES SOURCES OF INFORMATION
vii
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 2.6 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Bases Selected for the Air Combat Command Cold War Study .......................... 2 Location of Dyess Air Force Base........................................................................ 5 Dyess Air Force Base Layout ............................................................................... 7 Standard Strategic Air Command Base Layout .................................................... 8 "Future" Dyess Air Force Base, 1940s ................................................................. 9 Dyess Air Force Base Land Use Diagram ............................................................ 12 Standard Strategic Air Command Base Land Use Diagram................................. 13 Dyess Air Force Base, 1953 ................................................................................. 19 Dyess Air Force Base, 1960-1970 ........................................................................ 20 Dyess Air Force Base, 1983 ................................................................................. 22 Dyess Air Force Base, 1994 ................................................................................. 23
LIST OF TABLES
Table 6.1
Table 6.2 Table 9.1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
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 the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START). Detente was replaced with deterrence through intimidation, with a focus on the threat of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).
This report is a reconnaissance inventory of Cold War related resources on Dyess Air Force Base (AFB). Dyess 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.
Dyess AFB is the home of the 7th Wing of the ACC. The mission of the host unit includes strategic deterrence, support of combat theater commanders with conventional bombing capability, and theater airlift support. The base mission is to provide support for long-range bombing capability for deterrence of hostile nuclear attack and for tactical airlift support.
The mission is accomplished by the following assigned supporting organizations: 7th Logistics Group (maintenance and scheduling of 32 B-1B and 18 C-130 aircraft), 7th Operations Group (organizing and executing strategic nuclear and conventional bombing, and tactical airdrop and airlift by proper command authority), 7th Support Group (base support services, Civil Engineering, Security Police, Personnel, Communications, Emergency Ordnance, and International Military Student Office for 6,000 personnel assigned to the 7th Wing and all associated units), and the 7th Medical Group (comprehensive healthcare, maintenance of a safe industrial and community environment, and maintenance of wartime readiness in support of the 7th Wing and Air Force missions) (Dyess AFB 1994).
Dyess AFB is situated on approximately 5,386 acres on the west side of the city of Abilene located in Taylor County in north-central Texas (Figure 2.1). Characterized by an environment that consists of gently rolling hills and broad flat plains, elevations at Dyess AFB range from 1,733 ft (528 m) to 1,820 ft (555 m) above mean sea level (USAF 1989:4.4-1,4.4-38). West of Dyess AFB lies Callahan Divide, a mountain uplift that trends in a northwestern to southwestern direction. The High Plains are west of the area, and the Great Plains are south and east. Farming and ranching activities dominate the landscape within a 1 mi (1.6 km) radius of the base.
To the south, the landscape is dominated by a grassland habitat; to the north, shrubland habitat predominates (USAF 1989: 4.4-4.29; Hatcher 1963: 41,45; Fenneman 1931:57-58).
The layout of buildings and facilities at Dyess AFB (Figure 2.2) conforms to that of a standard SAC base (Figure 2.3). The flight line forms one edge of the base with most buildings and facilities located to one side of the flight line. The buildings closest to the flight line are missionrelated and support facilities. Buildings further away include housing and community buildings. Few buildings or structures are found near either end of the flight line.
Tye Army Air Field, built in 1942, originally occupied the site on which Dyess AFB is built (Figure 2.4). Major portions of the original runways that comprised the Air Field have either been removed or have disintegrated through the decades. These runways, taxiways, and apron, constructed in 1943, were connected to form roughly an "A" shape. One runway was oriented north and south with additional runways emanating from either end: one to the northwest, the other to the northeast. The two additional runways intersected each other at 90 degrees. The old Army air base was located west of the current north-south runway (Mueller 1989:120).
Construction of the present flight line and runway at Dyess AFB was begun in 1953. Both trend in a general north-south direction. All base properties are east of the flight line with the runway west of the flight line. A grassy area between the flight line and runway contains a portion of the old army runway. Taxiways are located on each end of the runway, with three additional taxiways connecting the center of the runway with the flight line. Building foundations and segments of the old runways are extant on the west side of the runway; these are the remains of the original air field. This area now has a dirt runway, built in 1975, which is utilized by C-130s for exercises that include takeoffs, landings, and accuracy drops of dummy cargo. Clear zones (areas with no development) are located immediately north and south of the runway. These areas are likely for buffers and were purchased from the city of Abilene to facilitate public safety.
10
All the mission-related buildings and structures are located immediately to the east of the flight line. According to the Real Property records at Dyess AFB, most of these buildings date to 1955 and 1956. The alert facility, control towers (old and new), hangars, and maintenance docks are adjacent to the flight line. Additional support facilities such as the jet engine maintenance shop and test facility, base operations, warehouses, and wing headquarters are located in the first three blocks east of the flight line.
Dormitories, some of which are utilized for administrative purposes, civil engineering, and recreational facilities are further east with the community buildings located in the center of base development. A fuel tank farm is located northeast of the flight line and runway. A missile assembly building and adjacent nuclear and conventional weapons igloos are located east of the community buildings. The main gate at Dyess AFB is located on the eastern side of the base with a golf course along the southern portion of the access road. The bulk of base housing is located south of the golf course in the southeastern portion of the base.
It must be noted that all the buildings on the base, with the exception of the mission buildings, are constructed of red brick, which is atypical of military base construction. The use of brick and the fact that most of the buildings were constructed to be permanent, was proposed by the city of Abilene in anticipation that Dyess AFB might be closed. This would allow the city to more easily absorb the buildings back into the local community.
2.4 BASE LAND USE
The following is a list of standard SAC land use categories: Alert Facilities - 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.
11
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. Weapon 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 between base facilities, safety clearances, secure areas, utility easements, and environmentally sensitive areas.
Figure 2.5 is a diagrammatic land use plan for Dyess AFB and Figure 2.6 is a diagrammatic land use plan of a standard SAC base. Dyess AFB follows the standard plan in a majority of ways. In both plans, all of the areas are located to one side of the flight line, with the mission buildings against the flight line. The headquarters tend to be located away from the flight line near the middle of the base. Community areas concentrate in the middle of the base and may act as a division between the mission/base support areas and the majority of the housing areas, which are located near the edge of the base furthest from the flight line. Recreation areas tend to cluster next to the housing and community areas.
14
Differences between Dyess AFB and the standard SAC base land use are few. Dyess AFB has two mission areas separate from the main mission area along the flight line, whereas the standard base diagram shows only one mission area along the flight line. Also, Dyess AFB has a large amount of open space, whereas the standard base diagram shows none.
15
The origins of Dyess AFB date to 1942 when Tye Army Air Field began operations as an adjunct training facility to Camp Barkeley. Army Air Corps cadets flew trainers and P-47 Thunderbolts at the air field during World War II. Between 1943-1947, the air field was known as Abilene Army Air Field. Camp Barkeley and the air field were deactivated in January 1947 after the war. The city of Abilene purchased the air field for one dollar and loaned the land to the Texas National Guard for use as a training facility (Mueller 1989:117; Engineering-Science 1985:1,2-1,2-5).
In response to the situation in Korea and National Security Council document No. 68, which advocated the build-up of U.S. military capabilities, defense spending tripled in 1950. The United States Air Force (USAF) planned to grow from 48 wings to 143 wings. Also in 1950, after the outbreak of the Korean conflict, the City of Abilene petitioned Washington, D.C. and the Pentagon for a permanent military base. To show that they were serious, the city raised $893,000 to purchase 3,500 additional acres of land to augment the 1,500 acres already in their possession. City officials travelled to Offutt AFB, Nebraska, to make their case to General Curtis LeMay, commander-in-chief of the new SAC. Congress approved $32,273,000 for
construction of a new SAC air base in Abilene in mid-1952, and construction began in September 1953. The following month, the base was temporarily designated Abilene AFB (United Forces Guides Publications 1959; City of Abilene 1988:28-29; Mueller 1989:117).
Construction began but only two officers were permanently assigned to the base during 1954, both as construction overseers. In July 1955, military officials sponsored a drive to select a formal name for the new base. The final decision was made in Washington, D.C., and it was announced April 14, 1956 that the base was to be named in honor of Lt. Colonel William E. Dyess (Leavelle 1976).
16
Lt. Colonel Dyess had led initial air attacks on the Japanese from the Philippines shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Dyess and his men, suffering from constant attrition of manpower and materiel, were finally cornered on Bataan and captured by the Japanese. He was a participant and survivor of the infamous Bataan death march. Upon returning to the United States, Dyess began training again for an overseas assignment but was killed in a plane crash near Burbank, California. Although he had the capability to bail out of his aircraft, Dyess chose instead to divert his plane from a populated area and therefore died in the crash (Leavelle 1976:19; City of Abilene 1988:30; Hatcher 1963:185-86; Mueller 1989:117).
The assignment of the new base as a SAC facility was solidified in 1953 with President Eisenhower's New Look, a policy that focused on increased strategic nuclear force and reduced conventional forces. Dyess AFB was activated September 1, 1955 and assigned to SAC. The 341st Bombardment Wing (BMW) arrived at Dyess AFB in September 1955 and was the first host wing. The 96th BMW arrived two years later in September 1957. The motto of the 96th remained the same during its entire tenure at Dyess AFB: E Sempre L'Ora - It Is Always the Hour (Floyd Ball, personal communication, April 1994) (Leavelle 1976:6).
The Soviet Union successfully detonated a hydrogen device in August of 1953. The Killian Report soon followed, recommending that highest priority be placed on the development of the Air Force missile program. President Eisenhower accepted this recommendation in 1955, and in 1958, he called for deployment of Atlas and Titan missile squadrons at 16 SAC bases. In 1959, the decision was made to deploy the Atlas F missile at Dyess AFB. This resulted in 700 men, 400 of them with families, relocating to Dyess AFB for construction and maintenance of the new launch complexes and support facilities. The 341st BMW was moved to another base in June 1961, leaving the 96th BMW as the host unit, armed with a mixed inventory of manned and unmanned weapons. The 578th Strategic Missile Squadron, an Atlas F unit, was activated July 1, 1961 and assigned to the 96th BMW. In April 1962, the wing was redesignated the 96th Strategic Aerospace Wing, and the Atlas squadron was deactivated March 25, 1965 (Hatcher 1963:247-48,271; Leavelle 1976:5).
17
The Killian Report also recommended that the USAF long-range bomber force be dispersed across the country. In 1955, Dyess AFB received the B-47 Stratojet bomber and the KC-97 Stratofreighter propeller tanker. These were replaced between 1962-1965 by the B-52
Stratofortress and the KC-135 Stratotanker. The last B-47 left the base in March 1963. The C-130 Hercules cargo plane arrived at Dyess AFB in 1963 (Mueller 1989:120; Leavelle 1976:2).
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the mission at Dyess AFB remained constant strategic bombing and tactical airlift support whenever and wherever needed. The 463rd Tactical Airlift Wing (TAW) was activated at Dyess AFB in June 1972 as part of the C-130 force. It was the largest tenant unit assigned to the base. Also in 1972, the 96th was redesignated the 96th BMW. The B-52s and C-130s remained the work horses of the base arsenal until 1983, when it was announced that Dyess AFB would receive the supersonic B-1B Lancer bomber.
Development of the B-1B began in 1966 as the replacement for the aging B-52. The aircraft was designed to penetrate enemy airspace at low altitudes and evade radar detection. President Carter cancelled the B-1B program in 1977 for economic reasons; however, President Reagan reactivated it in 1981. This signaled the end of an era and the drawdown of the B-52. Many of the B-52s went to Carswell AFB with the last leaving Dyess AFB on January 18, 1985. The 96th BMW was chosen in 1983 to be the first wing to receive the B-1B, and they were to participate in the development of baseline operations and logistic procedures to be followed throughout the USAF for the B-1B. The 96th BMW at Dyess AFB also became the focal point for all initial training of B-1B crews. The first B-1B arrived at Dyess AFB on June 29, 1985. The increase in workload due to the conversion from B-52s to B-1Bs resulted in a personnel increase from 1,796 to 2,097 between 1986 and 1987.
In 1971, development of the Peacekeeper missile was begun.
When the Soviets invaded
Afghanistan in 1979, President Carter called for full development of the missile even though a method of deployment had not yet been found. The decision of how to deploy the Peacekeeper was finally made in 1985. Fifty of the missiles would be placed in modified silos at F. E. Warren
18
AFB, while the other fifty would be deployed on a mobile rail garrison system. Dyess AFB was selected in 1987 as one of ten USAF bases in the continental United States to receive the proposed Rail Garrison because it still maintained its rail system. Although it was proposed and a final environmental impact statement was completed for the ten bases, the Rail Garrison was never built (USAF 1989: S-1 thru S-4).
In June 1992, Dyess AFB was reassigned to the Air Combat Command. The 463rd TAW and 96th Wing remained at Dyess AFB until the Fall of 1993, when the 7th Wing was assigned to Dyess AFB and replaced the 96th as the host wing. The 7th Wing is the current host and includes the 9th Bomb Squadron (B-1B), the 39th and 40th Airlift Squadrons (C-130s), the 337th Training Squadron, along with other support groups.
The Capehart Housing Act was passed by Congress on August 2, 1955 to provide for the needs of an expanding military force. The following February, $12,400,000 was appropriated to build 944 units on the northeastern portion of Dyess AFB, to meet the housing needs at the base (Figures 3.1 and 3.2). By 1958, several dormitories were built, and Dyess AFB was the first to receive Capehart housing for married officers and enlisted personnel. The exterior of these buildings was constructed of the red brick, prevalent among the community and administrative buildings found on the base today (City of Abilene 1988:29).
Construction of 12 Atlas missile sites around Abilene by the Corps of Engineers required approximately $50,000,000 for construction, added 700 people to the military population, and brought 400 families to Abilene. This influx of personnel required more housing, which was begun in 1957. However, the housing programs at Dyess AFB and other bases were halted in 1965 to re-allocate funds to the Vietnam War effort.
21
During the Cold War era, bomber aircraft technology at Dyess AFB proceeded from the B-47, to the B-52, to the B-1. Along with changes in aircraft came changes in the support facilities and runways for these aircraft. In 1963, the runway at Dyess AFB was converted to accommodate the weight and jet fuel of the B-52. A new, Tri-Service Landing Mat Assault runway was completed in 1966, and the arrival of additional B-52s prompted upgrading of hangars and concrete areas (Figure 3.2). The primary runway is 13,500 ft in length and one of the longest conventional runways in the United States (Mueller 1989:120). The Bomber Alert Facility for the B-52 pilots played the most significant role in SAC strategy at Dyess AFB during the Cold War. Adjacent to the flight line, the alert facility was a self-contained portion of the base where security was extremely tight and pilots spent active duty shifts awaiting the possibility of immediate offensive or defensive duty assignments at a moments notice (Figure 3.3). This facility allowed maximum readiness for reaction to enemy aggression (Hatcher 1963:230-35).
After the last B-52s left the base in early 1985, personnel levels dropped significantly, from approximately 1,500 to 720 (Goddard and O'Brian 1985:2,33-35; Newell 1993:3). The
conversion to the B-1 required major expansion of the base after this brief downsizing, and the squadrons of the 96th Support Group projected large increases in workload due to the impending conversion to the B-1. A flight simulator/classroom building, a new 3-bay hangar, fuel system maintenance dock, and jet engine maintenance building with near-by test cell had to be constructed specifically for the B-1 (Figure 3.4). Expansion also included renovating seven dormitories and constructing three additional units to support the increase in personnel due to the overall B-1 conversion program. Personnel levels had increased to 1,796 by 1986, further increasing to 2,097 by 1987, the highest ever (Goddard and O'Brian 1985:7,31-35).
24
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the reconnaissance inventory of Dyess 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
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,
25
As part of the reconnaissance inventory of Dyess 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 The
4.2.1 Documentation
The evaluated resources at Dyess 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.
26
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;
27
28
29
The Mariah field team, James A. Lowe and Patience Elizabeth Patterson, contacted the Base Engineer, Mr. Floyd Ball, upon arrival at Dyess AFB. Research objectives and needs for
accomplishing the base inventory were discussed, then Mr. Ball and the field team toured the base facilities. Mr. Ball has been at Dyess AFB since 1972 and was the ideal point of contact and informant. The field team met with personnel from the Civil Engineering, Real Property, and Drafting Section offices, and also with the Wing Historian and the Air Park Director. The field team briefed these personnel on the inventory project, and established needs from each of them in regard to computerized and earlier Property Change Lists and cards, planning documents and maps, and base layout plans, maps, and drawings from each decade for the base. A time frame and the possibility of more requests was presented. The field team was in contact with the personnel on a daily basis during the base visit.
Fieldwork began with a photographic inventory of those portions of the base which did not require a clearance or an escort. Some photography was accomplished each day. The base historian was informally interviewed and a document inventory was conducted in the History
30
Office as well as in other offices. Arrangements were made to complete the photography of base resources located within secure areas. Finally, resources were selected for evaluation and were more fully documented. In closing out the fieldwork, the field team met briefly with the Base Commander to discuss the base visit and answer his questions, and then conducted a final coordination with their contacts.
31
During the reconnaissance inventory of Dyess AFB, 121 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.
32
Two resources were evaluated at Dyess AFB, both 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 the evaluated buildings could not be obtained. In lieu of direct observation, documentation describing any changes to the buildings was consulted to provide insight into the integrity of the buildings' interiors.
None were evaluated at Dyess AFB.
Completed in 1959, the Bomber Alert Facility is located at the northern end of the flight line and immediately adjacent to the parking apron. The facility is a permanent, two-story structure. The first floor is below ground and consists primarily of bedrooms, bathrooms, and a mechanical room. The second story is above ground and has bedrooms, bathrooms, briefing room, library, kitchen, war room, and recreational areas. This facility was for alert crews of B-52 aircraft that were in direct support of the National Emergency War Order and were in continuous ready-to-go status. The facility also included a swimming pool (no longer in existence), a facility for
34
conjugal visits, and a building for barbecues and other family gatherings. There were emergency generators which would allow the facility to operate independently in case of infiltration or sabotage.
During the Cold War period this facility was under heavy security, with a manned guardhouse at the entrance, as well as several detection devices, such as heat, movement, and weight sensors. The perimeter of the alert facility compound is still encircled by a 10-ft high chainlink fence crowned with barbed wire and razor wire. Exit ramps, facilitating a quick egress to the flight line, are extant, and blast deflectors are still in place on the parking apron in the formation that allowed aircraft to start their engines and proceed one at a time out onto the runway for expedient takeoff in the event of an emergency. Thus the facility's exterior integrity remains intact.
Access to the interior of the facility was not obtained; however, due to its sole function as an alert facility, and because the real property card for the facility indicates no major renovations and no changes in use, the integrity of the interior is also determined to be intact.
This facility allowed for maximum readiness and rapid deployment in response to enemy aggression, and thereby embodied the SAC strategy of deterrence. Its design, association, and setting embody and convey U.S. military policy of global deterrence that was evident during the Cold War as the United States sought to maintain a defensive edge over the Soviet Union through military and technological superiority.
The Bomber Alert Facility is exceptionally important to Dyess AFB's Cold War context and to Cold War history at the national level. It exemplifies the concept of deterrence and the need to respond to any Soviet attack threat. This facility was constructed and operated in direct response to the Killian Report, meeting the needs of deterrence through a survivable force and the dispersion of bombers across the country (Lewis et al. 1995). This facility was used for this purpose during Phases II through IV of the Cold War and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
35
6.2.2 Maintenance Docks/Hangars
6.2.2.1 Large Aircraft Maintenance Dock (Resource No. 2002, Real Property No. 5110)
Completed in 1987, this massive three-bay hangar was built specifically to accommodate the B-1B. This permanent, concrete and steel frame building has a unique stepped-in, triangular configuration in plan. The first tier of that configuration has rounded ends which hold the massive bay doors as they move on their rail-tracks. This facility provides protected space for the maintenance of the large aircraft and self-contained utility systems. Unlike many aircraft, the B-1B requires an enclosure when undergoing maintenance due to the costly electronic components used in the defensive and offensive avionics. The large size (three bays) of the hangar was necessary due to the required inspection of two aircraft each week, plus the potential for unscheduled maintenance on a third aircraft.
Access to the hangar was not available. However, due to the young age of the building and its sole use for the mission of B-1B aircraft maintenance, the interior and exterior integrity of the hangar is determined to be intact.
This maintenance dock was of primary importance to the maintenance of B-1B aircraft and, therefore, was important to the base in utilizing this aircraft in the overall defense mission of SAC during the later part of the Cold War period. This facility was used for this purpose during Phase IV of the Cold War and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
36
37
The purpose of the reconnaissance inventory was to provide initial information on the kinds of Cold War resources extant on Dyess AFB. 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 Dyess AFB. These resources should be investigated further for a more
comprehensive analysis. A listing of these resources and their general location is provided in Appendix E.
Several documents, objects, and static displays are extant at Dyess AFB. The Civil Engineering Squadron has a large photo of the base (circa 1960) located in the drafting department, as well as documents and maps pertaining to the Rail Garrison proposed for select SAC bases during the 1980s. There are also numerous, large format photographs of early base construction. The Wing Historian's office has in its possession complete histories of the 96th BMW and the 463rd TAW as well as other base tenant units. An adjacent room is full of memorabilia including flags, trophies, and numerous photographs of personnel, planes, and property construction. A
collection of base newspapers for the past 5 years is extant as well. These resources are scheduled to be inventoried by the two wing historians. On display in the lobby at the base officer's mess is a collection of personal artifacts and memorabilia that belonged to Colonel Dyess; a similar collection is on display at Wing Headquarters. An aerial photograph of the base dating to 1964 is on display at the visitor center at the main entrance to the base.
Dyess AFB has a linear airpark consisting of 28 aircraft, several of which played important roles during the first three temporal phases of the Cold War. The base also has an Airfield Operations Specialist/Airpark Director who has in his possession a collection of historic USAF clothing, flags, banners, objects, and memorabilia that has already been inventoried and catalogued.
38
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 Dyess AFB revealed approximately 150 citations. Most of these are unit histories and special collections. More specific topics include the histories of base realignment due to acquisition of the B-52 and then the B-1B, and retirement and acquisition of various missile systems. The vast majority of these documents are available on microfilm. Future studies of Cold War history at Dyess AFB should allot time to researching these documents.
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 F.
39
The only capital improvement project currently planned at Dyess AFB that may impact important historic properties and resources related to the Cold War is interior upgrading conducted as needed for mission-oriented facilities. No exterior work is planned that would alter the character or integrity of these buildings.
40
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 Dyess 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.
41
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 Dyess 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 Dyess AFB have not been evaluated, and thus must be considered and treated as eligible until an evaluation and determination of eligibility are made.
42
43
Recommendations for the evaluated resources at Dyess 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:
45
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II through IV. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) based upon 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 and its features is intact based upon partial observation and a lack of documented major renovations. Therefore, this building is recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Recommendations include stewardship to maintain the integrity of the building and features, and further documentation for nomination of this resource to the NRHP.
46
9.2.2 Large Aircraft Maintenance Dock (Resource No. 2002, Real Property No. 5110)
This building is evaluated as important to the base and national Cold War contexts during Phase IV. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) for its role in sustaining a survivable force to meet the needs of deterrence and its distinctive architectural style, and exhibits intact integrity. However, the building neither meets the 50 year criterion for eligibility, nor is it considered exceptionally significant within the Cold War context. Therefore, it is recommended as currently ineligible to the NRHP. It is additionally recommended that this building undergo stewardship to retain its current level of integrity and, when it meets the 50 year criterion, further documentation and re-evaluation for NRHP eligibility.
47
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. City of Abilene 1988 Community Award Publication. On file, Wing Historian's Office, Dyess Air Force Base, Texas. Department of Defense 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. Dyess Air Force Base 1994 Real Property Survey Report FY 1994, Executive Order 12512. Dyess Air Force Base, Texas. Engineering-Science 1985 Installation Restoration Program, Phase I: Records Search, Dyess AFB, Texas. Engineering-Science, Atlanta, Georgia. Fenneman, N. M. 1931 Physiography of Western United States. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. Goddard, B. D. and P. A. O'Brian 1985 Preparations to Receive the World's First Operational B-1B. 96th Bombardment Wing History Office, Dyess Air Force Base, Texas. Hatcher, J. H. 1963 A History of Dyess Air Force Base in Its First Decade: A Study in Community Relations. Unpublished Master's Thesis. On file, Hardin-Simmons University, Abilene, Texas. Leavelle, C., ed. 1976 The Dyess Story: The Eye-Witness Account of the Death March From Bataan and the Experiences in Japanese Prison Camps and of Eventual Escape. G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York. Originally published 1944. Lewis, K. and H. C. Higgins 1994 Cold War Properties Inventory Field Guide. MAI Project 735-15. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque.
48
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. Mueller, R. 1989 Air Force Bases: Active Air Force Bases Within the United States of America on 17 September 1982. Office of Air Force History, United States Air Force, Washington, D.C. 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. Newell, C. 1993 History of the 96th Wing and Dyess Air Force Base. On file, Wing Historian's Office, Dyess Air Force Base, Texas. United Forces Guides Publications 1959 Dyess Air Force Base Guidebook. Abilene, Texas. United States Air Force 1989 Final Environmental Impact Statement: Peacekeeper Rail Garrison Program. Vol. I. 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 E ADDITIONAL UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES
E-1
Civil Engineering Office
Final Draft/Environmental Impact Statement for Peacekeeper Rail Garrison Program
Green Photo Album-Facility Construction dating 1955-1957 Includes: Base Operations, Hospital, Hangars, Control Tower, Runway, Nose Docks, Fire Station, Base Housing, Base Exchange, Library, Chapel, Fuel Storage, Railroad tracks, Ordnance Igloos, Service Club, Officer's Mess, Women's Officer Quarters.
Notebook-ICBM Modernization Program - January 1988 Need to modernize - "growing Soviet threat" - maintain effectiveness of current systems. Minuteman, Peacekeeper-Advanced Inertial Reference Sphere (AIRS), Small ICBM
Aerial photos (10) of Dyess AFB 1950s, 60s and possibly 70s (2) 8x8" and (3) 12x14, all b/w.
Aerial photos of Dyess AFB for 1940's, 1964, 1967, 1976, and 1986. 1960: Large (approximately 5'x 5') Aerial Photograph of Base, located in the Drafting Room at 7th CES Draft Environmental Impact State Peacekeeper Rail Garrison Program - June 1988 Vols 1&2 B/W aerial photos (35) of Dyess AFB 1976. B/W aerial photos (5) of clear zone with end of runway March 17, 1964. B/W aerial photos (25) north and south ends of clear zones of runways and flight apron - dating from 1971 through 1976. 1 b/w aerial 33,000 feet - National Guard Gunnery Range.
E-2
B/W aerial photo (1 16"x20") of Dyess AFB at 9,000 feet on 28/5/76. 96 Civil Engineering Squadron scrapbook - wooden front and back. Copy of telephone directory (?) date. Various newspaper articles on Dyess from the Peacemaker - the base "unofficial" newspaper. Dates - 1966 to 79 or 1980. Articles of concern or general interest regarding civil engineering on Dyess AFB. Cardboard box containing records of: Construction projects B-1B Horseblanket FY 85 & 86. Munitions maintenance facility CCTS ADAL miscellaneous facilities Aerial Delivery System Apron Support B-1B General Blast Deflectors Flight simulator FY86 Folders: B-1B Construction concerns - 1985 "Point Papers" - B-1B facility status FY84/85 Fire Department UHF radios Folders on B-1B facilities/support work group - 1985 DX rating - Defense materials priorities systems. Manpower/personnel - B-52H manpower drawdown and B-1B manpower buildup furniture. FY 84 - Financial working group minutes, B-1B enhancements, etc. B-1B construction, etc. concerns - misc. mtgs. SATAF information. Scheduling and visits, B-1B related B-1B working group minutes B-1B construction schedules, etc., FY85 through March 85. Teleconference files on B-1B Horseblanket Technical Orders - 84-85 Facilities brains B-1B maintenance complex B-52 D to H ORI - Operational Readiness Inspection (pertaining to A.F. Achievement Medal to Captain Joseph Burns) B-1B "bed-down" materials Munitions facilities - construction project Drawings - maps (2) of Rail Garrison Baseline concept plan - Nov. 29, 1989
E-3
Weapons Storage Area (WSA) construction - June 1985 - Overhead transparencies large format (6). Conventional munitions. Box - 16" x 20" full of large format OHP transparencies pertaining to construction and refurbishment projects all over the base. Various states involved. many have to do with B-1B facilities or support facilities for B1B (500 +/- OHP transparencies). Cardboard box 16" x 20" of OHP transparencies (and large format) CES mtgs slides for presentation - FY projects and numbers met. B-1B bed down projects for facilities etc. change over from B-52 Ds to Hs to B-1B, etc. Wing Historian's Office Wing Histories: 463rd TAW 1960s-1993, 96th BMW (classified) (older histories of the 96th on microfiche, 1943-1987). 516th TAW 1963-1968; 64th Troop Carrier Wing, 1961-1962. Base Newspaper/"Peacekeeper" 5 year collection, the rest should be on file at the Abilene City Newspaper Office where they are published; 1 year collection at Base Library. Public Affairs Office? Assorted Office of Air Force History books Master's Thesis/Dyess AFB: The First Decade Base Guidebooks (approximately 25) since 1959 File Cabinets: Archive photos/KC-97 & B-47 refueling Colonel Dyess file Facilities photos Missile Milestones file 7th Wing " B-17 " B-47 " B-1B " Desert Shield " Dyess/Abilene Histories Dyess AFB Various Bomb Wings (96th, 341st, 917th Air Refueling Sq. Air Force History Files: 8th, 15th Air Force 12th Air Division Base/Community B-1B Operations/Test Evaluations/General info. file Peacekeeper Rail Garrison file
E-4
Drawer full of Misc. video tape: B-1B, SAC, 96th BMW (all from Public affairs office-not viewed by Wing Historian). Storage Room: Large framed photos of 96th BMW (50-75) Trophies (2) Surplus book collection (USAF histories) Slide collection/several notebooks full Catalog of Oral Histories on file at Maxwell AFB Boxes of Misc. reports Misc. photos Globe on stand Scrap book of newspaper clippings from World War II/Colonel Dyess Flag/463rd TAW Base Library Thesis/Dyess AFB: The First Decade Report-Installation Restoration Program: Phase I Dyess AFB Collection of newspaper clippings about Colonel Dyess, 2 vols. = 60 pp.
APPENDIX F SOURCES OF INFORMATION
F-1
BASE CONTACTS
The following people were contacted during the base visit by the Mariah field team to help identify Cold War material culture extant on Dyess AFB and to provide research materials for this study:
Floyd Ball, Deputy Base Civil Engineer 7 CES/CEEC 710 3rd Street Dyess AFB, TX 79607-1670 (915) 696-2250 1st Lt. James Sackett, Civil Engineer/Squadron Security Mgr. 7 CES/CEEC 710 3rd Street Dyess AFB, TX 79607-1670 (915) 696-4316 SrA Charles Newell, Wing Historian 7 WG/HO 650 2nd Street Dyess AFB, TX 79607-1918 (915) 696-3312 Carlene Wood, Real Property Officer 7 CES/CEEC 710 3rd Street Dyess AFB, TX 79607 (915) 696-4209 Elaine Mason, Chief of Resources 7 CES/CER 710 3rd Street Dyess AFB, TX 79607 (915) 696-4265 TSgt Richard Warner (retired), Airfield Operations Specialist/Airpark Director 7WG/CVM 650 2nd Street Dyess AFB, TX 79607-1960 (915) 696-2636
F-2
INFORMAL INTERVIEWS
The following people were informally interviewed by the Mariah field team during the base visit. They were identified as individuals possessing extensive knowledge of Dyess AFB history and Cold War context.
Floyd Ball, Deputy Base Civil Engineer, April 4, 1994 SrA Charles Newell, Wing Historian, April 12 and 13, 1994 1st Lt. James Sackett, Civil Engineer/Squadron Security Manager, April 5 and 12, 1994 TSgt Richard Warner, Airfield Operations Specialist/Airpark Director, April 7, 1994 Carlene Wood, Real Property Officer, April 5, 1994
F-3
The following individuals were identified during the investigations as people with extensive knowledge of base history during the Cold War. They possess much more information than could be documented during this preliminary reconnaissance.
Floyd Ball, Deputy Base Civil Engineer TSgt Richard Warner, Airfield Operations Specialist/Airpark Director
VOLUME II-7: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE AT ELLSWORTH AIR FORCE BASE
August 1997
Volume II-7: Ellsworth Air Force Base
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Ellsworth Air Force Base was inventoried for Cold War material culture between July 25 and August 2, 1994 as part of the Air Combat Command Cold War Study for the on-going Department of Defense Legacy Program. R. Blake Roxlau and Karen Lewis of Mariah
Associates, Inc. conducted the inventory. Information was obtained from the base Real Property files, the Civil Engineering drawing vault, and the Public Affairs office. Additional information was secured from the Wing Historian after the visit; the historian was on leave during the field investigation.
After a meeting with base personnel and with a National Park Service contractor doing a similar survey of base properties, an initial reconnaissance was conducted with Dr. Dan Friese of the Civil Engineering Squadron. A photographic survey of property types and on-site inspections of resources led to a determination of seven resources as important in their relationship to the base's Cold War history and context. These resources were further documented and evaluated. The properties selected are representative of all four temporal phases of the Cold War era, as discussed in the historic context and methodology document written for this project (Lewis et al. 1995).
Recommendations for the Documentary Collection and Architectural Drawing Files include stewardship, further documentation, and conservation. Eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places is recommended for the Bomber Alert Facility, Large Aircraft Maintenance Dock, Missile Launch Complex, and the Segregated Storage Igloo. Stewardship and further
documentation are also recommended for these four resources. Finally, the Tanker Alert Facility is recommended as potentially eligible to the National Register of Historic Places, with stewardship and further documentation also recommended.
ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS ACC ACCS ACHP AEC AFB AFS AGE ALCS AMMS AMS BMW DoD FMS FTD HABS ICBM LCF LF MAC Mariah MMS NCO NHPA NPS NRHP OCONUS OMS PACCS PME RAPCON SAC SAD SALT SDI SHPO SMW SRW START TAC USAF VHF WSA - Air Combat Command - Airborne Command and Control Squadron - Advisory Council on Historic Preservation - Atomic Energy Commission - Air Force Base - Air Force Station - Air Ground Equipment - Airborne Launch Control System - Airborne Missile Maintenance Squadron - Avionics Maintenance Squadron - Bombardment Wing - Department of Defense - Field Missile Squadron - Field Training Detachment - Historic American Buildings Survey - Intercontinental Ballistic Missile - Launch Control Facility - Launch Facility - 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 - Post Attack Command and Control System - Precision Measurement Equipment - Radar Approach Control Center - Strategic Air Command - Strategic Aerospace Division - Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty - Strategic Defense Initiative - State Historic Preservation Officer - Strategic Missile Wing - Strategic Reconnaissance Wing - Strategic Arms Reduction Talks - Tactical Air Command - United States Air Force - Very High Frequency - Weapons Storage Area
iii
GLOSSARY
Airborne Launch Control System - a system which allowed an airborne aircraft to transmit launch codes to underground Minuteman ICBMs in their silos from a distance of hundreds of miles. 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. 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 longrange 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. 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.
iv
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. Post Attack Command and Control System - a system of airplanes that could serve as U.S. command posts should command centers on the ground become inoperable. These modified Boeing 707 aircraft were originally supervised by the Strategic Air Command. They are now under the control of U.S. Strategic Command. 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.
5.0 RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY RESULTS ................................................................ 29 6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS ................................................................................................... 6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS .................................................... 6.1.1 Documentation ....................................................................................................... 6.1.1.1 Documentary Collection................................................................................ 6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS .................................................... 6.2.1 Alert Facilities ........................................................................................................ 6.2.1.1 Tanker Alert Facility ..................................................................................... 30 30 30 30 33 33 33
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.2.1.2 Bomber Alert Facility.................................................................................... 6.2.2 Documentation ....................................................................................................... 6.2.2.1 Architectural Drawing Files .......................................................................... 6.2.3 Maintenance Docks/Hangars .................................................................................. 6.2.3.1 Large Aircraft Maintenance Dock ................................................................. 6.2.4 Missiles .................................................................................................................. 6.2.4.1 Missile Launch Complex .............................................................................. 6.2.5 Storage .................................................................................................................... 6.2.5.1 Segregated Storage Igloo ............................................................................... 6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES ................................................................ 6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES ................................................................................................ 6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES....................................................................................... 34 35 35 35 35 37 37 38 38 39 39 39
7.0 UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 40 8.0 FUTURE THREATS TO RESOURCES .............................................................................. 42 9.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 9.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY ...................................................................................................... 9.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility............................................... 9.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility ........................................................................... 9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 9.2.1 Documentary Collection......................................................................................... 9.2.2 Tanker Alert Facility .............................................................................................. 9.2.3 Bomber Alert Facility............................................................................................. 9.2.4 Architectural Drawing Files ................................................................................... 9.2.5 Large Aircraft Maintenance Dock .......................................................................... 9.2.6 Missile Launch Complex 50 ................................................................................. 9.2.7 Segregated Storage Igloo ........................................................................................ 43 43 43 45 47 47 49 49 49 50 50 50
10.0 REFERENCES CITED ....................................................................................................... 52 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 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Figure 3.5 Bases Selected for the Air Combat Command Cold War Study .......................... 2 Location of Ellsworth Air Force Base .................................................................. 6 Ellsworth Air Force Base Layout ......................................................................... 7 Standard Strategic Air Command Base Layout .................................................... 8 Ellsworth Air Force Base Land Use Diagram ...................................................... 11 Standard Strategic Air Command Base Land Use Diagram................................. 12 Ellsworth Air Force Base 1940-1950 ................................................................... 17 Ellsworth Air Force Base 1950-1960 ................................................................... 18 Ellsworth Air Force Base 1960-1970 ................................................................... 19 Ellsworth Air Force Base 1970-1990 ................................................................... 20 Ellsworth Air Force Base 1990-Present ............................................................... 21
LIST OF TABLES
Evaluated Resource Prioritization by Air Force Group and Subgroup ................ 31 Evaluated Resource Prioritization by Priority Rank ............................................ 32 Recommendations for Evaluated Resources ........................................................ 48
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is a reconnaissance inventory of Cold War related resources on Ellsworth Air Force Base (AFB). Ellsworth 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.
Ellsworth AFB is home to the 28th Bomb Wing and the 99th Wing. It was also home of the 44th Strategic Missile Wing (SMW) prior to its 1994 deactivation. The 28th Bomb Wing is assigned to the 8th Air Force and is the host wing at Ellsworth AFB. The mission of the bomb wing is "first to the fight with decisive combat air power that achieves the aims of the combatant commander's campaign" (United States Air Force [USAF] 1994).
The 28th Bomb Wing is divided into four groups. The Operations Group operates, supports, and maintains the largest B-1B Lancer bomber force in the USAF. The group includes aircrew, maintenance, and support functions. The Logistics Group provides aircraft back-shop repair, vehicle maintenance, supplies, contracting for goods and services, and B-1B engineering, maintenance training, and quality assurance. The Support Group provides civil engineering, real property control, security police, communications, and other services such as billeting. The Medical Group provides all medical services for Ellsworth AFB.
The 99th Wing is the Air Force heavy bomber tactical employment center and includes three groups, the Test Group, Operations Group, and Electronic Combat Range Group, that support the four missions of the 99th Wing. The missions include tactics development, tactical employment training, operational unit support, and employment data clearinghouse. The wing develops and disseminates plans for offensive and defensive tactics across the spectrum of conflict and establishes requirements for gathering of intelligence and analysis of weapons systems, tactics, and adversary defensive measures. The wing also trains aircrews for effective weapons delivery (USAF 1994).
Prior to the deactivation of the 44th SMW, its mission at Ellsworth AFB was to exercise command and control of the Minuteman II missiles throughout western South Dakota. There

2 2
were 150 missile silos located across 13,500 mi (34,962 km ).
The 44th SMW began
deactivation in 1991 with the removal of the first missile from launch facility "Gulf Two." Approximately six missiles per month were removed. By September 1994, all were removed and the wing was deactivated (USAF 1993a). The National Park Service (NPS) is in the process of accessioning Delta One launch control facility (LCF) and Delta Nine launch facility (LF) for public visitation and interpretation.
Ellsworth AFB is located 12 mi (19.3 km) northeast of Rapid City, South Dakota (Figure 2.1). The land surrounding the base consists of the rolling grassy hills that characterize the northwestern Plains region. Located to the east and north of the base are badlands, and to the west are located the Black Hills.
The layout of buildings on Ellsworth AFB (Figure 2.2) is very similar to the standard SAC layout (Figure 2.3). The runway extends in a northwest/southeast direction, forming one edge of the base. Most of the buildings and facilities are located to the northeast of the flight line.
Southwest of the flight line are some conventional weapons storage bunkers and the Bomber Alert Facility.
The "christmas tree" pattern of the alert apron has been filled in to create an oblong shape. The mission and administrative facilities are located directly on the northeastern edge of the flight line. The golf course is located to the south/southeast of the flight line and the weapons storage area is located to the north/northwest, with a small open-space buffer. The community and housing areas are to the north/northeast of the flight line and mission areas.
Much of the old accompanied and unaccompanied housing has been demolished. This includes Wherry Housing to the east of the flight line and dormitories in the center of the base. New housing areas have recently been completed and are located to the north. These new housing areas include three large houses for the wing commanders.
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. Weapon 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
10
provide buffers for base facilities, safety clearances, secure areas, utility easements, and environmentally sensitive areas.
Figure 2.4 is a diagrammatic land use plan for Ellsworth AFB and Figure 2.5 is a diagrammatic land use plan of a standard SAC base. Ellsworth AFB follows the standard SAC plan in that the housing area is located at the farthest point from the flight line and the mission related facilities are directly on the flight line. The two areas are separated by the base support and community facilities, and the unaccompanied housing is located in the center of the community facilities. The recreation area is located to the south of the mission facilities and adjoins the accompanied housing area to the east.
The only difference between the two land use plans is that Ellsworth AFB has two weapons storage areas instead of one, as in the standard SAC plan. At Ellsworth AFB, the nuclear storage area is located to the northeast of the flight line and the conventional weapons storage area is located to the southwest of the flight line.
13
Rapid City Army Air Base was established in 1942 to provide training for the B-17 Flying Fortress bomber crews. The training included all personnel related to the operation of the B-17, including pilots, radio operators, navigators, and gunners. By 1945, the mission had changed to training weather reconnaissance squadrons and combat crews flying the P-61 Black Widow, P-38 Lightning, and P-51 Mustang fighters, and the B-25 Mitchell bomber. In 1946, the missions associated with these aircraft at the base were deactivated and the base was closed until 1947. The base reopened in late 1947 as a base, called Rapid City AFB, and became the home of the 28th Bombardment Wing (BMW).
In 1948, the base was declared a permanent installation, and in 1949, runway improvements were completed for the 28th BMW conversion from the B-29 Superfortress bomber to the B-36 Peacemaker. In 1950, Rushmore Air Force Station (AFS) was established as a separate
installation from the base. Rushmore AFS primarily consisted of the current weapons storage area (WSA) and was jointly operated by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), Armed Forces Special Weapons Project, and Air Force Materiel Command. Sandia National Laboratories provided maintenance and quality assurance at the site under contract to the AEC. The AEC operated the WSA until 1962, when Ellsworth AFB took over the station (Sandia National Laboratories 1994).
In 1950, the 28th BMW was redesignated from a bombardment wing to a strategic reconnaissance wing (SRW) in a SAC effort to make the numbered Air Forces self-sufficient by giving each one fighter, bomber, and reconnaissance capabilities (Reyes 1980). In 1952, the wing mapped most of Western Europe through visual and radar photography. In 1953, twelve B36 bombers from the base participated in simulated combat missions from Lajes Field, Azores, during which photographs were produced and countermeasure training was gained. Later that
14
year, the base was renamed Ellsworth AFB in memory of Brigadier General Richard E. Ellsworth, former commander of the 28th SRW, who died in an RB-36 crash in Newfoundland while returning from the Lajes Field training.
In 1955, the mission of the 28th SRW was again changed, this time from reconnaissance back to bombardment. In 1956, plans were made to convert the wing from the B-36 to the B-52 Stratofortress, and in the spring of 1957, the B-36s were transferred to Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona, and replaced with B-52s.
From 1956 to 1959, four Nike missile sites were constructed around Ellsworth AFB and designated the North, South, East, and West Nike Sites. The sites were operated by the United States Army and each consisted of 64 housing units, concrete block training and office buildings, and the missile launch sites. The sites were considered obsolete shortly after their construction; South Nike was retained as an Education Annex, and the housing areas from all four sites were used as additional base housing. Over time, all sites were sold except the housing area of the South Nike site (USAF 1973).
The 821st Strategic Aerospace Division (SAD) became the host unit for Ellsworth AFB in 1958. Colonel Loran D. Briggs assumed command for both the 821st SAD and the 28th BMW. In 1959, the base received its first KC-135 Stratotanker refueling aircraft to support the deterrence mission of the 28th BMW and its B-52 bombers.
From 1960 to 1962, the base prepared for the installation of the Titan I intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). Three hardened Titan I ICBM sites were constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers and were located in Wicksville, Hermosa, and Sturgis, South Dakota. The Titan I launch sites were constructed underground with steel-reinforced concrete, protecting them from all but a direct hit. Each site consisted of three underground concrete domes that housed power plant and control functions and that were connected by a series of tunnels. The Titan I ICBMs required loading with liquid fuel prior to launch and then elevation to the surface for launch.
15
Shortly after the Titan I missiles arrived, they were replaced by the Minuteman I ICBMs, which had solid fuel and could be launched from underground in seconds. The first operational Titan I was received in June of 1962, and the first operational Minuteman I was received in July of that same year.
In 1962, the 44th SMW was assigned to Ellsworth AFB and assumed command of the ICBM sites for the USAF. Three squadrons of the 44th SMW were assigned, each to support five LCF and 50 LF. There were 150 missiles throughout 13,500 acres (5,463 ha) in western South Dakota. In 1965, the last Titan I was removed from its silo, and the Minuteman Procedures Trainer was installed on the base. In that same year "Project Long Life" was carried out. This was a test of the Minuteman system during which a Minuteman I containing enough fuel for a few seconds of flight was launched from an operational site under controlled conditions. The 44th SMW is the only SAC unit that has ever launched a Minuteman ICBM. In 1971, the 821st SAD was deactivated and the missiles were upgraded to the Minuteman II.
In 1965, the 28th BMW received EC-135 aircraft to support the Post Attack Command and Control System (PACCS) airborne command post mission of SAC. The EC-135 was specially equipped with VHF radio and multiplex equipment, which was designed to allow SAC's commander to continue communications during a nuclear attack. In the late 1960s, the 44th SMW was responsible for testing and development of the Airborne Launch Control System (ALCS) that would link the PACCS aircraft to the Minuteman ICBMs. The 44th SMW had ALCS responsibility for Minot AFB and Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota; Malmstrom AFB, Montana; and Ellsworth AFB. In April of 1970, the ALCS was combined with the PACCS and the Western Auxiliary Command Post, forming the 4th Airborne Command and Control Squadron (ACCS), which was then assigned to the 28th BMW (Reyes 1980).
In 1966, the first Ellsworth AFB B-52 bombers were sent to Korea and the 28th BMW continued involvement until the United States withdrew from the war. In 1986, the 28th BMW began to phase out the B-52s and prepared to become the home for the B-1B Lancer. The preparation for
16
the change in aircraft included upgrading the runway and constructing new dormitories. In 1992, the base was reassigned from SAC to ACC, and the 28th BMW was redesignated the 28th Bomb Wing. The mission of the 28th Bomb Wing was changed from strategic bombardment to world-wide conventional munitions delivery (Whitmore 1994).
In 1942, Rapid City Army Air Base was established, and wooden structures were constructed to house the training and later reconnaissance functions of the base (Figure 3.1). In 1948, runway conversions were completed to allow for the B-36 bomber. In 1950, Rushmore Air Force Station was constructed to the north (Figure 3.2). Rushmore AFS was a separate facility which housed nuclear weapons and had some unaccompanied housing and dining facilities attached. Other developments at Ellsworth AFB during the 1950s included accompanied housing, conventional munitions storage south of the flight line, and a new apron and mission structures along the flight line. One of the new mission structures was the large span hangar which could house two B-36s.
During the late 1950s and into the 1960s, development on the base increased with housing, infrastructure, and mission construction (Figure 3.3). To support the new mission of the B-52s, developments included a longer runway, an alert "christmas tree" apron, and maintenance dock aprons oriented perpendicular to the runway.
During the 1970s and 1980s, base development consisted primarily of a small amount of housing on the east side of the base (Figure 3.4). In 1993, demolition of the 1960s Wherry Housing on the eastern edge of the base was begun (Figure 3.5).
22
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the reconnaissance inventory of Ellsworth 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
4.1 INVENTORY
The Department of Defense (DoD) Legacy Program outlines three general categories under which Cold War resources may be included: real property, personal property, and records/documents (USAF 1993b: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).
23
As part of the reconnaissance inventory of Ellsworth 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 The
4.2.1 Documentation
The evaluated resources at Ellsworth 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.
24
historical perspective due 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 NPS Interagency Resources Division, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).
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 1993b) 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
26
27
The Mariah field team initially met with Dr. Dan Friese, the Resources Manager for Ellsworth AFB. Dr. Friese requested that the team meet with himself, security police, real property personnel, and another cultural resource team also completing an inventory on the base. During this meeting, the team was asked to describe the project goals, methods, and requirements for access. After the meeting, Dr. Friese took the Mariah team on a tour of the base and historic facilities. Through visual identification during the tour and through the history related by Dr. Friese, the team identified numerous resources to evaluate. Other resources were added to this list when the team scanned real property cards and base maps to locate resources that were not identified during the tour.
The field team was required to coordinate access to secured areas with the other cultural resource team. During the field work, the 28th Wing Historian was on temporary duty elsewhere, and the museum director could not readily provide the team with historical material. A list of questions and a request that information be sent to Mariah was left with the museum director. Historic
28
drawings were collected from the drawing room and base layouts from each decade were provided by the drafter in Civil Engineering.
Field work continued with an escorted visit to the weapons storage area and visits to areas that did not require an escort. While waiting for flight line access, the team completed entry of all non-flight line properties into the database, including evaluations of properties. After the
photography on the flight line was completed, those properties were also entered into the database.
29
During the reconnaissance inventory of Ellsworth AFB, 109 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
Seven resources were evaluated at Ellsworth AFB, five of them falling under the DoD category of real property and two under records/documents. 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.
6.1.1 Documentation
This documentary collection is located in the Civil Engineering building drawing vault and includes six cabinets of flat files. The files include numerous historical maps, original base master layout drawings, construction and utility project drawings, topographic maps, aerial photographs, and standard photographs, all of Ellsworth AFB and related facilities. The
drawings and maps are of paper, linen, mylar, vellum, and blue line. Additional rolled drawings are stored on top of the cabinets. The documentary collection spans the decades from the 1940s to the 1990s, including all the Cold War periods, and provides information on base development and history and on resources evaluated in this study.
33
In general, the resources are kept in a secure, climate-controlled room. Unfortunately, the older, more fragile documents are not being preserved separately, resulting in some being torn.
6.2.1.1 Tanker Alert Facility (Resource No. 11095, Real Property No. 606)
The Tanker Alert Facility was constructed in 1952 of reinforced concrete and asbestos shingles. The facility and its associated structures were all originally owned by the Air Defense Command and were eventually turned over to SAC. The buildings associated with this main alert facility are No. 605, constructed in 1942; No. 608, constructed in 1959; and No. 609, constructed in 1954. Each provided various functions throughout the period of crew readiness including
maintenance dock, squadron operations, dining hall, and even wing headquarters.
Real Property No. 606 had to be adapted for use as crew readiness and is an example of a makeshift alert facility. The plan is somewhat awkward in that it is L-shaped and the bedrooms are divided between two floors. This building does not have the clarity of the standard plan alert facility. The integrity of the exterior of the facility appears to be intact. However, access to the interior was not secured, thus integrity of the interior remains unknown.
This alert facility was in use from 1959 to 1991. The presence of the Tanker Alert Facility allowed tanker crews to stay close to their planes and have the capability to be airborne in a short span of time in order to support bombers and the Looking Glass aircraft stationed at Ellsworth AFB.
The Tanker Alert Facility was extremely important within the base and national Cold War contexts. The alert facility was constructed in response to NSC-68 and the Killian Report which
34
recommended the dispersion of the nation's bombers across the country (Lewis et al. 1995). The dispersion of bombers required the dispersion of tankers to support them, thus the facility illustrates the concept of deterrence through a survivable force. This facility performed this role through Phases II, III, and IV of the Cold War era, and meets NRHP criterion (a).
This facility was constructed in 1959 of reinforced concrete using a standard plan for Bomber Alert Facilities. The main floor housed offices, activities rooms, dining hall, and the briefing room, while the below-ground level housed corridors with bedrooms. Ramps extend from both levels out from all four sides of the building. The facility is located to the south of the runway and includes a "christmas tree" apron and security facilities. This facility was briefly used for the B-1B from 1987 to 1991. In 1991 the facility was removed from alert. Currently, the building is being used as an Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) education center.
The building retains its exterior integrity; however, access into the alert facility was not secured, thus integrity of the interior was not assessed. Due to the current use of the building as an education center, a function that would probably not require major renovations, it is determined that interior integrity is also intact.
The Bomber Alert Facility is extremely important to Ellsworth AFB's Cold War context and to Cold War history at the national level. It 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 the Killian Report, meeting the concept of deterrence through a survivable force and the dispersion of bombers across the country (Lewis et al. 1995). The B-52 force was an integral part of the DoD defense triad, and was relied upon as the United State's primary manned bomber force for over 30 years. This facility fulfilled this role during Phases II through IV of the Cold War era, and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
35
6.2.2 Documentation
These drawings, located in the drawing vault of the Civil Engineering building, are currently in good condition. There are two drawers dedicated to drawings of the Large Aircraft Maintenance Dock (Real Property No. 7504), but the original construction record documents are of particular interest. These are a set of 40 ink on linen drawings, and are in good condition. The set includes structural details, plans, elevations, and other important construction information.
This set of drawings is important to understanding the construction of Real Property No. 7504. The drawings show structural details and give an understanding of how the building's 340 ft (103.6 m) concrete arch span was achieved. The building is important because of its relationship to the B-36 and its importance during Phase I of the Cold War. The drawings are important because they show how the hangar was constructed and embody the technology available to provide shelter for the B-36.
This is a large, concrete-arched structure originally built in 1949 as a hangar and adapted during the 1960s to serve as offices for the 44th SMW. The structure was constructed to provide protection and maintenance for two B-36 bombers at once. These bombers were integral to the base mission from 1949 until 1957, when the 28th BMW changed to B-52s. In 1958, the building became a missile assembly shop, and by 1966, the building had been renovated as offices for the 44th SMW Headquarters.
36
The building is constructed of brick and reinforced concrete. The primary structural system is reinforced concrete arches with a clear span of 340 ft. The arches are buttressed by 14 ft x 20 in (4.3 m x 50.8 cm) concrete structures at the base of each arch. The arches define nine bays which are 24 ft (7.3 m) wide, making the building dimensions 219 x 368 ft (66.7 x 112.1 m). This is the largest structure on Ellsworth AFB and can be seen from most areas of the base. The building has an uncomplicated grace that arises from its concrete arches, rounded massing, and clean lines. The reinforced concrete arch construction is unique to two bases, Ellsworth AFB and Loring AFB, Maine.
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 as the offices are only one story and the space rises to nine stories. Thus, the integrity of the building is intact.
The B-36 was critical to Phase I of the Cold War, 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-50s 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 (70.1 m) and its length is 160 ft (48.8 m); the hangar can fit two of these aircraft placed nose to nose. The arched reinforced concrete construction, large span, and use for B-36s give this structure its primary Cold War significance; its use as the 44th SMW Headquarters gives it a secondary significance. This building fulfilled its primary role during Phases I and II of the Cold War era, and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
37
6.2.4 Missiles
6.2.4.1 Missile Launch Complex (Resource No. 11088, Real Property No. D11)
This complex, built in 1962, includes the Minuteman missile system Delta One LCF and Delta Nine LF, both of which are currently being accessioned by the NPS, pending congressional approval. Although the missile is no longer in the silo at Delta Nine LF, the mechanical room, the above ground features, the collimator track, the capsule, and the silo itself retain their integrity and provide the physical elements required for interpretation of the site to the public.
The Delta One LCF was left intact the day the missile wing deactivated the site and thus retains its integrity. Magazines, sheets, dining hall wall menu, security police log, and other artifacts were all left in place and the doors were locked. The entire facility is surrounded by a security fence and sensors. Above ground there is a security police garage, for heated storage and the storage of snow removal and water control equipment. North of this structure is the main building, which houses sleeping facilities, dining hall, lounge area, security police, and various mechanical rooms. These above ground structures are referred to as "soft," indicating they would be destroyed in a nuclear attack.
Access to the underground LCF capsule is through the above ground security police station. When the complex was active, gaining access required code words and daily passwords that had to be combined, decoded, and accepted by the capsule crew. This occurred both at the perimeter fence and inside the facility at the security police station. Once the codes were accepted, a door was opened that allowed access to an elevator. The elevator descends approximately 30 ft (19 m) and opens onto a small concrete room. To the left of the elevator is a mural of a Minuteman missile tearing through a Soviet flag and to the front is a mural of a Domino's Pizza box and the inscription, "World-wide delivery in 30 minutes or the next one is free." The second mural is on the massive steel door to the capsule. Currently, the capsule is intact with the two stations, equipment panels, covered launch key holes, sleeping facility, and technical books present.
38
This complex is exceptionally important to the Cold War and reflects the strategies of deterrence and survivability. The Minuteman ICBM system represents an advance in missile technology, allowing for multiple missiles to be operated from one missile LCF and for the use of solid fuel, which was not only safer but could be installed well in advance of a launch. The Minuteman system allowed a great proliferation of missiles and quick response time, which maximized the strategy of deterrence through intimidation. This complex fulfilled this role during Phases II and III of the Cold War era, and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
6.2.5 Storage
This building was constructed in 1952 in the weapons storage area. This storage facility provides the means of properly storing and separating small quantities of explosives which may not be compatible. Over the years, the structure has had different nomenclature. Originally it was called "Storage: A-Structure," later it was referred to as a Storage Igloo, and later as Segregated Magazine Storage.
The building is approximately 55 x 40 ft (16.7 x 12 cm) and constructed of 10 ft (3 m) thick, reinforced concrete walls with false windows delineated on the north and south elevations. This design gave the structure the appearance of a staff building if photographed or viewed from a distance, thus providing a security measure. The interior is divided into four equally sized rooms (approximately 10 x 12 ft [3 x 3.6 m]) with 10 in (25 cm) thick steel vault doors on each room. The structure was originally the property of the AEC and was eventually turned over to SAC. The AEC ownership points to the structure having had a nuclear role related to the mission of Ellsworth AFB. The building was originally constructed to store "bird cages" containing nuclear components for weapons systems, and was designed to protect these capsules from attack, rather than to contain accidental detonations (Sandia National Laboratories 1994). The interior room
39
layout and steel vault doors are intact. The exterior massing, false windows, and entrance are also intact. Thus this building has a high level of integrity.
According to the Real Property records, in 1967, the building's function was changed to sterile, probably indicating that nuclear materials were no longer stored in this facility. Although the structure is referred to as a weapons storage building, it is currently empty.
This facility is extremely important because it is one of the first operational nuclear weapons storage sites maintained under the control of AEC and then SAC in response to the onset of the Cold War. During its operation, it played a significant role on the waging of the Cold War and represents the significant warfighting capability of the USAF. Its construction illustrates the importance of security and survivability during the Cold War. It fulfilled this function during Phases II and III of the Cold War era, and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
None were evaluated at Ellsworth AFB.
40
The purpose of the reconnaissance inventory was to provide initial information on the kinds of Cold War resources extant on Ellsworth 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 Ellsworth AFB. These resources should be investigated further for a more comprehensive analyses.
Due to an oversight while at the base, the Mariah field team was not able to evaluate the missile LF maintenance trainer located on the base. Similar maintenance trainers located on other AFBs in this study have been found to be of exceptional significance with intact integrity, and thus NRHP eligibility was recommended for them. It is recommended that this maintenance trainer be evaluated for NRHP eligibility prior to any undertakings that would affect the maintenance trainer's integrity.
Mariah team members inquired about the potential for historic properties at the Badlands Air Force Range, a bombing and gunnery range used by Ellsworth AFB for training. Base personnel from the Real Property office informed the Mariah team that no buildings are extant at the range, and that the range is considered contaminated and condemned (personal communication, Barb Nichols, January 11, 1995). Based on this information, the decision was made by the Mariah field team to not visit Badlands Air Force Range.
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 Ellsworth AFB revealed approximately 260 citations. Most of these are unit histories and special collections. More specific topics include the histories of base realignment due to acquisition of the B-52 and then the B-1B, and retirement and acquisition of various missile systems. The vast majority of
41
these documents are available on microfilm. Future studies of Cold War history at Ellsworth AFB should allot time to researching these documents.
42
The Delta One and Delta Nine missile launch complex may not be accessioned by the NPS. According to a Special Resource Study published by the Department of the Interior, NPS, there are three preliminary management alternatives for the sites. Alternative 1 is to implode the sites and sell the land to local farmers. Alternative 2 allows for some other agency or non-profit group to preserve the sites for visitation. Alternative 3 is to accession the site to the NPS as a National Historical Site. These three alternatives were presented to the public and response was requested by July 29, 1994. What the response determined is unknown at this time.
The current use of the Bomber Alert Facility as an education center may threaten the building's integrity due to modifications made to accommodate the new function.
There are no other known threats to the evaluated resources.
43
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 Ellsworth 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.
44
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 Ellsworth 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
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 Ellsworth AFB have not been evaluated, and thus must be considered and treated as eligible until an evaluation and determination of eligibility are made.
45
46
47
Recommendations for the evaluated resources at Ellsworth 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:
This collection of maps, drawings, and photographs is currently stored in a secure area; however, the collection is used often, resulting in some of the older resources being torn. It is
recommended that the collection be inventoried and copied, with the copies retained by the base for its use and the originals sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
49
9.2.2 Tanker Alert Facility (Resource No. 11095, Real Property No. 606)
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II through IV. It meets NRHP criterion (a) based upon its role in sustaining a survivable force to meet the needs of deterrence. However, the integrity of the interior of the building remains unknown. Therefore, this building is recommended as
potentially eligible to the NRHP. Further documentation to determine the level of integrity and to explore NRHP eligibility is recommended. Stewardship of the building to retain its current level of integrity is recommended in the interim during this evaluation.
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II through 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 and identify it as an example of Cold War military architecture. The integrity of the building is determined to be intact based upon partial observation and the lack of documented major renovations. 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.
This collection of drawings of the B-36 Large Aircraft Maintenance Dock is currently in good condition, but is not protected. It is recommended that the drawings be inventoried and copied, with the copies retained by the base for its use and the originals sent to a permanent curatorial facility for conservation and stewardship.
50
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases I and II. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) based on its role in
maintaining the B-36 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 determined to be intact. 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.
9.2.6 Missile Launch Complex (Resource No. 11088, Real Property No. D11)
This complex is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II and III. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) based on its role in enforcing deterrence through the survivability of the nation's forces and on its structural components which are unique to this complex and identify it as an example of Cold War military architecture. The integrity of the complex is intact based upon observations. Therefore, this complex is recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Recommendations include stewardship to maintain the integrity of the complex and its features, and further documentation to nominate this resource to the NRHP.
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II and III. 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. Therefore, this building is recommended as
51
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.
52
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. Department of Defense 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. Knaack, M. S. 1988 Post World War II Bombers. 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. McDougall, W. A. 1985 The Heavens and the Earth: A Political History of the Space Age. Basic Books, Inc., New York. 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. Polmar, N., and T. Laur, Eds. 1990 Strategic Air Command: People, Aircraft and Missiles. Second edition. The Nautical & Aviation Publishing Company of America, Inc., Baltimore, Maryland. Reyes, 2 Lt V. J., 1 Lt K. M. Wald, and Lt Col C. E. Gowins 1980 A History of Ellsworth Air Force Base. Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota.
53
Sandia National Laboratories 1944 Trip Report - Ellsworth AFB Weapons Storage Area. Prepared by Otto D. Laursen, Task Leader, Sandia National Laboratories Organization 7583. Albuquerque, New Mexico. United States Air Force 1973 Ellsworth Air Force Base Annexes. Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota. 1993a Fact Sheet: 44th Missile Wing. Public Affairs Office, Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota. 1993b 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. 1994 Fact Sheet: Ellsworth Air Force Base. Public Affairs Office, Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota. Whitmore, TSgt B. S. 1994 Brief History of Ellsworth Air Force Base. Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota.
EVALUATED RESOURCES AT ELLSWORTH AFB

Property Description: Ten foot thick reinforced concrete wall with false windows on exterior and four interior rooms with steel vault doors Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: 9/30/84 Base Map Building Number: 88106 Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Storage Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Segregated Storage Igloo Statement of Significance: The 10 foot thick walls indicate nuclear resistant construction and false windows indicate camouflage. Building was originally used by AEC and has direct relationship to early storage and maintenance of early nuclear weapons. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: 4 Theme Relationship: 3 Temporal Phase Relationship: 4 Level of Importance: 4 Percent Historic Fabric: 4 Severity of Threats: 2 Total Score for Priority Matrix: 21 Comments on Threats: The structure is currently stable but abandoned. Abandonment raises the concern of possible demolition in the future. No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: Exceptionally important and NRHP eligible. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility Eligible
Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use: Other Use/Dates: Comments on Use: Primary Building Materials: Character Defining Features:
25 F 2326 Permanent Abandoned Munitions Storage Poured Concrete 10 foot thick walls, false windows

Property Description: Large hangar for two heavy bombers, designed and used for B-36 Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: 9/30/84 Base Map Building Number: 7504 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: The building is a hangar specifically designed for and used for B-36 and RB-36 Strategic bombers and Reconnaissance planes. These were early nuclear long range bombers and long range reconnaissance planes important in strategic defense in the initial phase of the Cold War. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 4 3 4 4 4 1 20
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: Exceptionally significant and NRHP eligible. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility Eligible Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use: Other Use/Dates: Comments on Use: Primary Building Materials: Character Defining Features: 95 128062 Permanent Office Space Aircraft hangar Brick and concrete Large arched concrete structural ribs; massing; large divided light, aircraft doors.

Property Description: Delta Launch Control Facility consists of aboveground "soft" structures (quarters,security,powerplant) and hardened below ground launch control capsule. Associated Property: Delta 9 Launch Facility Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: Base Map Building Number: D11 Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Missiles Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Missile Launch Complex Statement of Significance: The Delta 1 Launch Control Facility has been chosen as a potential NPS National Historic Site. It is a pristine example of an early Minuteman LCF with "soft" structures. It is likely that few examples of this type remain and most deactivated Minuteman LCFs are being disposed of as surplus property. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 4 4 3 4 4 1 20
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: NPS is attempting to gain ownership and maintain the site and associated Launch Facility as a National Historic Site. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility Eligible Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use: Other Use/Dates: Comments on Use: Primary Building Materials: Character Defining Features: Changes to the Resource: 12 5999 Permanent mothballed Missile Launch Control Poured Concrete and asbestos shingles Control Capsule

Property Description: Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: Base Map Building Number: Crew Readiness Facility Tanker Tanker alert support facilities 605-maintenance, 608,
810 Kenney Rd. 9/30/84 606
Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Alert Facilities Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Tanker Alert Facility Statement of Significance: The building and associated buildings served as tanker alert facilities for nuclear bomber support throughout the Cold War. They contained al facilities for suppport of alert crews Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 4 4 4 3 4 2 21
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: Unknown interior integrity. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility Potential Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use: Other Use/Dates: Comments on Use: Primary Building Materials: Character Defining Features: 15 16196 Permanent Offices, storage Crew Readiness Poured Concrete L-shaped plan, stepped massing, alert and crew support facilities room arrangement.

Property Description: Bomber Alert Facility located near bomber apron, contains crew quarters , support facilities Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: 250 Kenney Rd. Base Map Date: 9/30/94 Base Map Building Number: 7430 Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Alert Facilities Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Bomber Alert Facility Statement of Significance: The building served as a bomber alert facility and contains crew accomodations, suppport facilities, and features that allowed rapid deployment of bomber crews and therefore is directly related to the nuclear bomber mission of Ellsworth AFB Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 4 4 3 4 4 2 21
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: Exceptionally significant and NRHP eligible. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility Eligible Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use: Other Use/Dates: Comments on Use: Primary Building Materials: Character Defining Features: 15 17994 Permanent Education Center Bomber Alert Poured Concrete Room Arrangement, Crew Ramps to Apron, Christmas Tree Apron

Property Description: Drawing Files Vault, contains numerous architectural drawings of base facilities Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: Base Map Building Number: inside 8203 Operational Support & Installations: Documentation Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Documentary Collection Statement of Significance: The files are significant as they contain architectural information on base facilities Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 3 2 4 2 4 3 18
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: No Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: Yes Comments on Resource Management: Many drawings are in poor condition and in a disorganized state. Improved storage and organization is recommended. Object Condition: Record/Document Category: Year of Document: Period of Association: Comments on Condition: In Storage/Benign Neglect Architectural Drawing Various various Some files are in poor condition and disorganized

Property Description: Construction record documents for hangar 07504. A full set of 40 sheets on linen. Associated Property: Building 07504 Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: Base Map Building Number: inside 8203 Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Documentation Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Architectural Drawing Files Statement of Significance: These are a record of the building at the time it was used for B-36s - the primary period of significance. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: 4 Theme Relationship: 3 Temporal Phase Relationship: 4 Level of Importance: 4 Percent Historic Fabric: 4 Severity of Threats: 2 Total Score for Priority Matrix: 21 Comments on Threats: In storage, but not being handled as an important document. No Further Work: Stewardship: National Register Listing: Further Documentation: Preservation/Conservation/Repair: Comments on Resource Management: Importance: Eligibility Record/Document Category: Year of Document: Period of Association: Comments on Condition: Architectural Drawing 1950 Phase I Good No Yes No Yes Yes
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 Ellsworth AFB, and to provide research materials for this study:
Dr. Dan Friese 28 CES/CEV 8203 Scott Drive Ellsworth AFB, SD 57706 (605) 385-6624 TSgt Bret Whitmore Base Historian (605) 385-4970 Barbara Nichols and Cheryl Cordright Real Property Office 28 CES/CERR 2149 Scott Drive Ellsworth AFB, SD 57706 (605) 385-2669 Major Joseph Mecadon Public Affairs Office (605) 385-5056 1st Lt Robert Licciardi Section Commander Security Office 28 CES 2116 Scott Drive Ellsworth AFB, SD 57706 (605) 385-2650
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 Ellsworth AFB history and Cold War context.
Dr. Daniel Friese, Civil Engineering Squadron, July 27, 1994
Ronald Alley, Curator, South Dakota Air and Space Museum, July 28, 1994
VOLUME II-8: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE AT FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE
Prepared by James A. Lowe Lori E. Rhodes Katherine J. Roxlau Mariah Associates, Inc. Albuquerque, New Mexico MAI Project 735-15
February 1996
Volume II-8: Fairchild Air Force Base
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Mariah Associates, Inc. conducted a material culture inventory at Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington, between August 16 and 22, 1994 to identify extant Cold War resources important to the base, its history, and its Cold War mission as discussed in the historic context and methodology written for the study (Lewis et al. 1995). A variety of repositories at the base were inventoried: the Wing History Office, Public Affairs Office, Civil Engineering Office and Drafting Department, Real Estate Office, Environmental Office, and Fairchild Heritage Museum. A photographic
reconnaissance of the base was conducted to document Cold War resources as well as representative architecture on the base.
Seven resources were selected for documentation and evaluation.
These resources include
buildings, objects, and records/documents. These resources represent the United States Air Force alert posture, weapons delivery potential, and deterrence capabilities during the Cold War era. Recommendations for these resources range from stewardship to National Register of Historic Places eligibility. Two resources are recommended as currently eligible to the National Register and one as eligible in the future.
ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACC ACHP AEC AFB AFS AGE AMC AMC AMMS AMS amsl ANG ARS ARW BMS BMW CCTG DoD FICON FMS FTD HABS ICBM MAC Mariah MMS NCO NHPA NPS NRHP OMS POW SAC SALT SAW SDI SHPO SMS SRAM TAC USAF
Air Combat Command Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Atomic Energy Commission Air Force Base Air Force Station Air Ground Equipment Air Mobility Command Air Materiel Command Airborne Missile Maintenance Squadron Avionics Maintenance Squadron above mean sea level Air National Guard Air Refueling Squadron Air Refueling Wing Bombardment Squadron Bombardment Wing Combat Crew Training Group Department of Defense Fighter Interceptor Carrier Reconnaissance Project Field Maintenance Squadron Field Training Detachment Historic American Buildings Survey Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Military Airlift Command Mariah Associates, Inc. Munitions Maintenance Squadron Noncommissioned Officer National Historic Preservation Act National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Organizational Maintenance Squadron Prisoner of War Strategic Air Command Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty Strategic Aerospace Wing Strategic Defense Initiative State Historic Preservation Officer Strategic Missile Squadron Short Range Attack Missile Tactical Air Command United States Air Force
iii
GLOSSARY
Anti-Ballistic Missile Protocol - signed in 1974, this agreement amends the Strategic Limitation Treaty I by reducing the number of anti-ballistic missile systems deployed by the United States and the Soviet Union to one each. 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 United States military forces. 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. 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. 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.
iv
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 to 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 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 ...................................................................................................... 16 4.0 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 24 4.1 INVENTORY ........................................................................................................................ 24 4.2 EVALUATION OF IMPORTANT RESOURCES ............................................................. 25 4.2.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 25 4.2.2 Evaluation of Importance ............................................................................................. 25 4.2.2.1 Cold War Context ............................................................................................... 25 4.2.2.2 NRHP Criteria..................................................................................................... 26 4.2.2.3 Exceptional Importance ...................................................................................... 27 4.2.3 Evaluation of Integrity.................................................................................................. 27 4.2.4 Priority Matrix .............................................................................................................. 28 4.2.5 Resource Organization ................................................................................................. 29 4.3 BASE SPECIFIC METHODS .............................................................................................. 29 5.0 RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY RESULTS ..................................................................... 31 6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS......................................................................................................... 32 6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS ........................................................ 32 6.1.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 32 6.1.1.1 Photograph Collection ........................................................................................ 32 6.1.1.2 Museum Collection............................................................................................. 32 6.1.1.3 Office Files .......................................................................................................... 35 6.1.1.4 Documentary Collection ..................................................................................... 35
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS ......................................................... 36 6.2.1 Alert Facilities .............................................................................................................. 36 6.2.1.1 Bomber Alert Facility ......................................................................................... 36 6.2.2 Maintenance Docks/Hangars ....................................................................................... 37 6.2.2.1 Engine Test Building .......................................................................................... 37 6.2.3 Storage .......................................................................................................................... 38 6.2.3.1 Segregated Storage Igloo .................................................................................... 38 6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES ..................................................................... 39 6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES...................................................................................................... 39 6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES ............................................................................................ 39 7.0 UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 40 8.0 FUTURE THREATS TO RESOURCES ................................................................................... 41 9.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 42 9.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY ............................................................................................................ 42 9.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility.................................................... 42 9.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility ................................................................................ 44 9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 45 9.2.1 Photograph Collection.................................................................................................. 47 9.2.2 Museum Collection ...................................................................................................... 47 9.2.3 Office Files ................................................................................................................... 48 9.2.4 Documentary Collection .............................................................................................. 48 9.2.5 Bomber Alert Facility................................................................................................... 48 9.2.6 Engine Test Building.................................................................................................... 48 9.2.7 Segregated Storage Igloo ..............................................................................................49 10.0 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................. 50 APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D: APPENDIX E: RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY BASE LAYOUT MAPS SHOWING INVENTORIED RESOURCES PHOTOGRAPHS OF INVENTORIED RESOURCES DATA BASE DOCUMENTATION FOR EVALUATED RESOURCES EXTANT SOURCES OF INFORMATION
vii
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Figure 3.5 Bases Selected for the Air Combat Command Cold War Study ............................... 2 Location of Fairchild Air Force Base ......................................................................... 5 Fairchild Air Force Base Layout ................................................................................ 7 Standard Strategic Air Command Base Layout ......................................................... 8 Fairchild Air Force Base Land Use Diagram ............................................................ 10 Standard Strategic Air Command Base Land Use Diagram ..................................... 11 Fairchild Air Force Base, 1940s ................................................................................ 18 Fairchild Air Force Base, 1950-1960 ........................................................................ 19 Fairchild Air Force Base, 1960-1970 ........................................................................ 20 Fairchild Air Force Base, 1970-1980 ........................................................................ 21 Fairchild Air Force Base, 1980-present..................................................................... 23
LIST OF TABLES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Phase III - November 1963 to January 1981 The 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 The 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 in 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 Fairchild Air Force Base (AFB). Fairchild 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.
Fairchild AFB supported the mission of the 92nd Bombardment Wing (BMW) from 1947 until July 1994. While on alert, the 92nd BMW remained in a constant state of readiness to immediately respond to a National Emergency War Order and to sustain long-range bombardment with aerial refueling on a global scale (Johnson 1971:1). However, due to the July 1, 1994 realignment of Fairchild AFB from ACC to Air Mobility Command (AMC), the present mission at Fairchild AFB is strictly air refueling. The 92nd and 43rd Air Refueling Squadrons (ARS) and the 453rd Operations Support Squadron were reassigned to the 92nd Air Refueling Wing (ARW) July 1, 1994. The 92nd ARW's primary responsibility is to provide immediately responsive KC-135 air refueling and airlift support to the United States and friendly forces (personal communication, William J. Summers, May 4, 1995). The base is also host to the 141st ARW of the Washington Air National Guard (ANG), the 36th Rescue Flight, the 50th Space Wing, and the 336th Crew Training Group, which operates the only survival school in the United States Air Force (USAF) (Fairchild AFB 1994:20).
Fairchild AFB is located approximately 12 mi (19.3 km) west of Spokane, Washington, in Spokane County (Figure 2.1). Situated on the western Spokane Plain and near the northwestern edge of the Columbia Basin, the base landscape is relatively flat. The base occupies approximately 4,300 acres (1,740 ha), with elevations ranging from 2,400 ft (731 m) above mean sea level (amsl) in the east to 2,462 ft (750 m) amsl in the west (Chatters 1994:28). In this semi-arid climate, centuries of wind erosion have resulted in a deposit of fine, sandy loam soil and dry agricultural techniques now prevail, especially wheat production.
Fairchild AFB (Figure 2.2) closely resembles the standard SAC base layout (Figure 2.3). The 13,900 ft (4,236 m) runway and associated taxiways and aprons are oriented from northeast to southwest, bisecting the base into two sections, one to the north of the runway, the other to the south. The location of the main gate to the base west of the northernmost housing area coincides with the standard layout. The alert apron at Fairchild AFB is located adjacent to and north of the northeastern end of the runway, also resembling the standard layout. Wing Headquarters is located southwest of the northernmost housing area in a location similar to that of the standard layout. The location of the base hospital near the same family housing development corresponds roughly to the standard plan for community buildings, although the standard does not explicitly show where the hospital should be located within the community buildings.
The USAF Survival School, complete with dormitories, classrooms, and training facilities, is located south of the runway, just southwest of the weapons storage area. The mission-related prisoner of war (POW) camp is located further south of the weapons storage area. Because many of the buildings from the former Deep Creek Air Force Station (AFS) were utilized for the Survival School, the positioning of this training area on base does not correspond to the standard layout, which shows training areas on the mission side of the flightline and runway.
2.4 BASE LAND USE
The following is a list of standard SAC land use categories: Alert Facilities - 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. Weapon and Warhead Storage - for nuclear and conventional weapons.
Land use at Fairchild AFB (Figure 2.4) closely resembles the standard SAC land use diagram (Figure 2.5). Mission-oriented buildings at Fairchild AFB are situated north of the main runway and adjacent to the taxiways and parking aprons for the full length of the flightline, the same as depicted in the SAC diagram. The central location north of the mission area of a mixture of base support, community, recreational, and industrial buildings and facilities generally corresponds to the standard land use diagram. Primary family housing areas at Fairchild AFB are located in two areas: one is north of the northeastern end of the runway near the main gate, and the other is located on the opposite side of the base, west of the large base support and recreational areas of the base. This differs from the SAC diagram, which shows only one area defined for family housing. Recreational facilities are interspersed within the community area and accessible to the family housing areas on both sides of the base. Unaccompanied housing is located southwest of the community area in a location similar to the standard diagram.
12
Unlike the SAC diagram, however, unaccompanied housing for USAF Survival School participants is also found on the other side of the runway and flight line.
The weapons storage area is located south of the central portion of the runway, with the sewage treatment facilities further to the southeast. The location of the weapons storage area at Fairchild AFB does not correspond with that on the standard diagram: the standard diagram depicts the location of the weapons storage area in closer proximity to the alert facility than shown for Fairchild AFB. Although not depicted on either of the land use diagrams, clear zones for explosions and air traffic have been incorporated into the planned development at Fairchild AFB.
13
The need for an aircraft repair center during World War II provided the catalyst for the construction of the air depot that eventually became Fairchild AFB. The geographic location of Spokane, Washington 300 mi (483 km) inland from coastal Seattle made it less vulnerable to attack and further helped determine the site of the depot. The decision was made on September 12, 1941 to establish Spokane Army Air Depot under Air Materiel Command (AMC) (Fairchild AFB 1992:1,4,7).
Official recognition of the depot's name came in March 1942, and construction of over 262 buildings continued throughout the year. Between 1943 and 1946, the depot served as a major repair center for aircraft (mostly B-17 Flying Fortresses) returning from the pacific theater. Specialized engine maintenance began when a 12 acre (5 ha) hangar was completed in October 1943. Planes entered on the eastern side, gliding through on rails, and workers in three shifts completed repairs in three or four days (Fairchild AFB 1992:12,14; Fairchild AFB 1994:14; Chatters 1994:12).
The end of World War II would have necessitated the deactivation of Spokane Army Air Depot in March 1947 (Fairchild AFB 1992:17) had it not been obtained by the newly created SAC and USAF (Lewis et al. 1995; Goldberg 1957:102-103, 121). Two bombardment wings utilizing the B29 Superfortress, the 92nd and the 98th, were assigned to the base in November 1947, making the base the largest B-29 organization in SAC. The base was renamed Spokane AFB in 1948
(Fairchild AFB 1994:14; Fairchild AFB 1992:22).
The 92nd and 98th BMW were deployed to Japan in 1950 as part of the air campaign against North Korea. The 92nd in particular was designed as a global combat force responsible for maintaining a state of readiness, being deployed worldwide, and operating independently or in conjunction with
14
land or naval forces (McFarland 1950:1; Fairchild AFB 1994:14; Fairchild AFB 1992:23). Upon its return from the Far East in October 1950, the 92nd BMW resumed its long affiliation with Fairchild AFB.
In September 1950, the base was renamed in honor of General Muir S. Fairchild. A native of Bellingham, Washington, he had been commandant of the Air University and had recently passed away while serving at the Pentagon as Vice Chief of Staff, USAF. The official dedication of the base in his memory on July 20, 1951 coincided with the arrival of the first B-36 Peacemaker aircraft (Mueller 1989:171; Fairchild AFB 1992:23-24; Fairchild AFB 1994:14).
The Deep Creek AFS was constructed in the early 1950s as part of research and development early in the nuclear age. Located south of the eastern end of the main runway, the station was established to manage nuclear weapons supporting air operations at Fairchild AFB and other SAC bases. The mission of Deep Creek AFS was "to store, control, and maintain nuclear weapons for use on Strategic Air Command aircraft under conditions rigidly controlled by national security procedures... " (Fairchild AFB 1993:ES1, 1-1). The 3082nd Aviation Group, a nuclear armament group supervised by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), remained at the station for approximately 10 years. These early storage areas are now part of the conventional storage area within and south of the main weapons storage area at Fairchild AFB.
The 92nd BMW received the B-36 bomber, which replaced the B-29, in July 1951. Having never dropped a bomb in defense of the country, the B-36 still served SAC for half a decade as its primary weapon system. From October 1, 1956 through October 1, 1957, Fairchild AFB converted to the new B-52 Stratofortress. Strike capabilities were expanded in July 1957 with the arrival at Fairchild AFB of the 92nd ARS. The following February, the 92nd ARS received the new KC-135 Stratotanker. Air refueling capabilities were further supplemented in 1960 with the arrival of the 43rd ARS. The 92nd and 43rd ARS are still assigned to Fairchild AFB (Fairchild AFB 1992:24,26; Fairchild AFB 1994:18,20). The arrival of the Hound Dog missile at
15
Fairchild AFB in November 1961 further augmented the striking power of the B-52 (Mueller 1989:174).
Construction of launch complexes for the Atlas missile at Fairchild AFB began in 1959. These sites encircled Fairchild AFB. On April 1, 1960, the 567th Strategic Missile Squadron (SMS) was activated at the base, and all nine Atlas complexes were completed in 1961. The 92nd BMW was redesignated the 92nd Strategic Aerospace Wing (SAW) in March of 1962. The mission of the 92nd SAW in 1962 was to supply trained men and equipment for operations involving long range bombardment with atomic or conventional weapons and air refueling operations (Lewis 1962). Fairchild AFB was the first base to incorporate both manned aircraft and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) under the same wing (Fairchild AFB 1992:26; Fairchild AFB 1972:13).
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy initiated a naval quarantine of Cuba. The 92nd SAW at Fairchild AFB "was placed on DEFCON TWO and both ground and airborne alert forces were increased...all leaves were cancelled...and there was substantial tightening of security control at all SAC installations." Although SAC had required aircraft and missiles to be on a 15 minute alert status since July 1961, SAC further increased its alert capability following Kennedy's decision (Hartsfield 1962:4-5).
Beginning in 1964, Fairchild AFB deployed the 92nd and 43rd ARS to Southeast Asia during the Vietnam conflict. The following year, B-52s from the 92nd SAW became involved as well. The wing's bombers and tankers participated in operation Arc Light until 1973, rotating aircraft and crews with the ebb and flow of the bombing missions (Fairchild AFB 1992:27-28; Fairchild AFB 1994:18).
The Atlas complexes were deactivated in 1965, and the sites were sold to individual landowners. Most of the old Deep Creek AFS property became associated with the 3636th Combat Crew Training Group (CCTG) in 1966, and facilities were converted for use as a survival training school. The 3636th (CCTG) assumed responsibility for all USAF survival training in 1971. This facility
16
was constructed primarily due to the United States involvement in Vietnam; a mock POW camp was created and parachute training facilities were constructed. This survival school is still in use today (Chatters 1994:13-14; Fairchild AFB 1994:14,20).
With the Atlas missiles gone, the 92nd SAW was redesignated the 92nd BMW (Heavy) on July 1, 1972. The mission of its three squadrons remained unchanged during the 1970s: nuclear deterrence by maintaining a capability to conduct long-range bombing operations with assigned weapons, and sustaining that capability by engaging in air refueling operations. Crews of the 325th Bombardment Squadron (BMS) trained B-52 crews in aerial bombardment utilizing conventional or nuclear weapons. The 92nd and 43rd ARS refined their techniques as well. Certain aircrews from each squadron rotated on alert status to maintain a constant state of readiness for immediate response to a National Emergency War Order (Johnson 1971:1; 1972:1; Eichelberger 1978:ix).
Throughout the remainder of the 1970s and 1980s, the 92nd BMW remained on alert until the Cold War era came to an end. On September 28, 1991, crews left the alert facility for the last time and alert aircraft were downloaded and taken off alert (Fairchild AFB 1992:38). Fairchild AFB's status as a SAC base changed in June 1992, when it was reassigned to the newly created ACC. In July 1994, Fairchild AFB was reassigned from ACC to AMC. With this reassignment, the mission of the base was redesignated from bombardment and refueling to strictly air refueling. The 92nd BMW was redesignated the 92nd ARW.
The most active periods of development at Fairchild AFB occurred during wartime situations. Consequently, World War II in the 1940s, Korea in the early 1950s, and the Vietnam Conflict in the 1960s and early 1970s were the catalysts for base development (Chatters 1994:13). Further construction and renovations occurred as needed throughout the 50 year history of the base.
17
Many of the buildings and facilities at Fairchild AFB were constructed between 1943 and approximately 1952, including a 12 acre maintenance hangar (Real Property No. 2050) and the Engine Test building (Real Property No. 2150) (Figure 3.1). Directly related to the early research and development of nuclear weapons, Deep Creek AFS was constructed in the early 1950s south of the main runway to facilitate the storage, control, and maintenance of SAC nuclear weapons components for the AEC (Figure 3.2). Expansion and realignment of the original runway for the B-36 was completed in 1952, and a Control Tower and Base Operations building were constructed that year as well. Due to the increased loads on the older asphalt runways and the use of jet fuel, which dissolved asphalt, the USAF decided in 1956 that all primary airfield pavement should be constructed of concrete (Goldberg 1957:195; Lewis et al. 1995). Concrete replacement and extension of the runways at Fairchild AFB were completed by the fall of 1958 (Mueller 1989:174).
To alleviate the housing shortage and to provide more comfortable housing for base personnel, a 1,000 unit Wherry housing project was constructed in the northeastern portion of Fairchild AFB in 1957-1958. This was completed under the auspices of the 1949 National Housing Act. Another housing development, completed under the 1956 Capehart Housing Act, was constructed by 1960 on the western side of the base and north of the runway (Mueller 1989:174; Goldberg 1957:190,194).
Because SAC planned in the late 1950s for increased deterrence capabilities and faster response times to operational readiness inspections, the alert apron and crew readiness facility were constructed in 1959-1960 north of and adjacent to the northeastern end of the runway (Figure 3.3). Deep Creek AFS was closed sometime in the early to mid-1960s, and many of the facilities associated with the station were converted to use for the USAF Survival School.
New construction and major modifications were completed in the early 1970s to accommodate the 141st ANG Refueling Wing located north of the runway and south of the Wherry housing area on the western side of the base (Figure 3.4).
22
A major runway renovation project was completed in 1983 (Fairchild AFB 1992:30) (Figure 3.5). Further construction was completed on the 12 acre maintenance hangar in November 1986. This construction improved Fairchild AFB's ability to repair assigned aircraft (Fairchild AFB 1992:34). The housing developments underwent major renovations between 1989 and 1990 and in 1992.
24
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the reconnaissance inventory of Fairchild 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 Department of Defense (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 this list 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).
25
As part of the reconnaissance inventory of Fairchild 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 Fairchild 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.
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
26
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).
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 (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;
27
28
characteristics making the resource important, the lack of integrity in that area may not preclude intact integrity for the resource. 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.
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
29
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.
The USAF Interim Guidance (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.
Upon arrival at Fairchild AFB, the Mariah field team began their research on base. The Wing History Office supplied wing histories that augmented base historical information provided by the Public Affairs Office. These histories were examined to determine the mission at Fairchild AFB and to link the base to significant events that occurred during the Cold War era as discussed in Lewis et al. (1995). The drawing files in the Drafting Department of the Civil Engineering Office were inventoried, and the office also supplied the field team with base layout maps on computer discs, as well as current hard copies of base maps. Property cards from the Real Estate Office established information pertinent to the resources chosen to be documented and evaluated for their Cold War significance. A photographic reconnaissance was also conducted to document Cold War properties and representative architecture on base.
The Environmental Office provided several resources useful for determining the history of the base. Of special note is a collection of aerial photographs on file in the office, which proved to be useful in plotting base development through the decades of the Cold War era. The Fairchild Heritage Museum was also inventoried. Located on base, the museum has a base newspaper collection
30
dating to 1952. A B-52 flight simulator is located in one of four railroad cars adjacent to the museum. The museum has additional Cold War memorabilia that includes an uninventoried collection of slides and photographs, an emergency controller SAC command post with phones, and static weapons that include Quail and Air Launched Cruise Missiles and hard target gravity bombs (nuclear capability).
The base library was explored as a possible source of research information, but most of the material pertinent to Fairchild AFB was located in the repositories mentioned above. Interviews were conducted with the Natural Resources Officer, Wing Historian, and ranking officers currently assigned to the base museum. These interviews expanded the field team's knowledge and
understanding of the mission of Fairchild AFB since its post-war debut as a SAC base.
31
During the reconnaissance inventory of Fairchild AFB, 113 resources were inventoried. Appendix A lists the inventoried resources and Appendix B shows their location on the base. Photographs of inventoried properties are presented in Appendix C.
32
Seven resources were evaluated at Fairchild AFB, four of them falling under the DoD category of real property and three under records/documents. 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
6.1.1 Documentation
This collection of high quality aerial photographs of Fairchild AFB depicts development at the base from 1950 through 1991. The photographs are currently stored in a map file drawer and are used by base personnel in the Environmental Office. The photographs appear to be in good condition.
6.1.1.2 Museum Collection (Resource No. 14116, Located in Real Property No. 3511)
This museum collection is being curated at the Fairchild Heritage Museum and includes a base newspaper collection, a B-52 pilot training simulator in a railroad car, and a Quail Missile. The base newspaper collection is continuous from the early 1950s and is a valuable resource for details
35
concerning Fairchild AFB during the Cold War period. The B-52 simulator traveled to SAC bases around the country to train pilots in the operation of the B-52 during the Cold War era. As such, it conveys to the public the concept of the mission of a B-52 crew: long-range bombardment in case of a crisis situation. The static Quail Missile display represents American missile technology in the early 1960s, specifically that which guided enemy radar away from the airborne B-52. The objects are currently on display, are in good condition, and are well maintained. Continued stewardship is recommended.
6.1.1.3 Office Files (Resource No. 14117, Located in Real Property No. 2285)
The Wing History Office possesses written histories that provide details and insights into the activities of the Wing, Groups, and Squadrons as they pertain to the overall mission at Fairchild AFB during the Cold War era. It is an important resource as it illustrates the development of the base's mission throughout the Cold War. The collection is located in a secured area in the office. It is in good condition and is well maintained.
This collection of drawings, maps, and photographs is stored in a vault in the Civil Engineering Office. Organized in a coherent manner, the collection includes drawings for most buildings on base as well as annexes, utility layouts, communications, and housing. The type of drawings include original ink on linen, vellum, mylar, and sepia. A collection of aerial photographs is extant as well, consisting of two sets of 100 photographs each. The photographs measure 10 x 10 inches and, when put together, form an aerial composite of the base. A specific archive drawer pertinent to the Cold War era, No. 122, contains map layouts of the base from 1942 through 1969.
36
Overall, this collection is significant for the information it contains regarding important properties on Fairchild AFB. The collection is in the process of being inventoried. The number of maps from earlier decades of the Cold War is noted as lower than at some other bases.
The Bomber Alert Facility was constructed in 1960 and is located adjacent to the alert apron at the northeastern end of the runway. Specially constructed to house B-52 alert crews, this facility played an integral role in the mission at Fairchild AFB to maintain SAC's capability of nuclear deterrence by sustaining long-range bombardment and aerial refueling operations during the Cold War. The building itself was designed to facilitate rapid egress to the mission aircraft during a National Emergency War Order or during operational readiness inspections.
The building is characterized by its ramped exterior entrances and the earthen berm surrounding the exterior walls. The real property card indicates some renovations to the building for maintenance of operations, and the addition of 770 ft . As the building is currently used as a tanker alert facility, its function has basically not changed. Based on visual inspection, the exterior integrity of the building is intact. Interior integrity of the building is also determined to be intact.
2
The Bomber Alert Facility 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 the Killian Report, meeting the concept of deterrence through a survivable force and the dispersion of bombers across the country (Lewis et al. 1995). The B-52 force was an integral part of the DoD defense triad and was relied upon as the United States primary manned nuclear bomber
37
force for over 30 years. This facility was used for this purpose during Phases II through IV, and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
6.2.2.1 Engine Test Building (Resource No. 14002, Real Property No. 2150)
Real Property No. 2150, constructed in 1943, was designed and utilized for the testing of B-17, B29, and B-36 engines. Following the arrival of the B-52 at Fairchild AFB, this function ceased. The massive concrete design of the building was conducive for use as a "survivable" building, and, from 1955-1956, the building housed an intelligence and planning division in its below ground operations section. The Fighter Interceptor Carrier Reconnaissance Project (FICON) was the focus of this division, testing the feasibility of carrying RF-84 reconnaissance aircraft under the fuselage of the B-36 to extend the range of interceptors. The building was decommissioned sometime prior to the mid-1960s. Since then, it has functioned as a disaster preparedness facility, a contractor staging area, and a hazardous waste storage building.
The building retains interior and exterior integrity. The test cell architectural design of the building, with its 4 ft thick concrete walls and louvered sections incorporated into the exterior, is unique.
This building functioned in tandem with a maintenance hangar (Real Property No. 2050) in maintaining aircraft during World War II. It also continued in this capacity during the first decade of the Cold War. During Phase II of the Cold War, this facility housed intelligence operations to help SAC fulfill its mission in the Northwest. These intelligence operations were integral to operational planning at SAC headquarters and provide the context of this facility's importance. This facility meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
38
6.2.3 Storage
Real Property No. 1467 was built in 1955 and is currently located in the conventional weapons storage area south of the main runway. Deep Creek AFS was constructed in this area of the base during the early years of the Cold War and was operated by the AEC. The mission of Deep Creek AFS was "to store, control, and maintain nuclear weapons for use on SAC aircraft under conditions rigidly controlled by national security procedures. The nuclear components of the weapons were maintained under custody of the AEC..." (Fairchild AFB 1993:ES1,1-1). This structure, built as a nuclear components storage facility for Deep Creek AFS, was one of a limited number of facilities in the United States designed to function in this capacity. This building, its features, and its function all embody the feeling and association of the nuclear threat that was so significant during the decades of the Cold War.
This structure is characterized by massive 10 ft thick reinforced concrete walls with four interior vaults that have heavy steel vault doors. The exterior of the structure consists of two stories. The upper story has false windows to simulate a staff or office building, and the lower story is bermed with earth and is the actual storage area. This structure has excellent exterior integrity due to its massive reinforced concrete construction. The real property card for this building indicates no major renovations, and it continues its use as magazine storage. Thus interior integrity is also intact.
This structure is exceptionally important for the role it played during the early years of the Cold War and the arms race with the Soviet Union. It was one of only 13 operational storage sites in the nation maintained by the AEC. During its operation, it played a significant part in the waging of the Cold War and represents the significant warfighting capability of the USAF. Its construction illustrates the importance of security and survivability during the Cold War. The date of
construction early in the Cold War, the security facilities associated with the structure, and the
39
architectural style designed to store nuclear weapons components make this structure unique among USAF properties. This structure was used in this capacity during Phase II of the Cold War, and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
None were evaluated at Fairchild AFB.
40
The purpose of the reconnaissance inventory was to provide initial information on the kinds of Cold War resources extant on Fairchild 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 Fairchild AFB. These resources should be investigated further for a more comprehensive analysis.
While conducting their research, the team discovered that additional information concerning Fairchild AFB is located at the Spokane City/County Historical Preservation Office in downtown Spokane, Washington. However, due to time constraints, the field team was unable to visit that facility.
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 Fairchild AFB revealed approximately 170 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 Fairchild AFB should allot time to researching these documents.
41
Fairchild AFB has recently implemented a Cultural Resource Management Plan, which is now complete and signed by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) (Chatters 1994). However, the plan focuses on World War II and the Vietnam War as the context for its determinations of what is an important cultural resource. Since Fairchild AFB was a SAC base and played a key role in the deterrence of nuclear war, any focus on historic preservation should include the base's overall importance during the Cold War.
Real Property No. 2150 (Engine Test Building) has been decommissioned and has been utilized for a variety of non-mission oriented functions. The threat to this facility is considered severe since it has been periodically considered for removal. Only the high cost of demolition has kept this facility from being destroyed. The current historic preservation plan does not consider the building significant.
Personnel at the Fairchild Heritage Museum expressed concern for the future of the museum due to limited funding and the need for properly trained curators to manage the collections.
42
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 Fairchild 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.
43
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 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 Fairchild 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 Fairchild AFB have not been evaluated, and thus must be considered and treated as eligible until an evaluation and determination of eligibility are made.
44
These
45
Recommendations for the evaluated resources at Fairchild AFB are presented below. Table 9.1 summarizes these recommendations. More than one recommendation may apply to a given
47
9.2.1 Photograph Collection (Resource No. 14115, Located in Real Property No. 2451)
This collection of aerial photographs is currently in good condition. The collection is a valuable resource in that it documents the growth of the base from 1950 through 1991. It is recommended that this collection be inventoried and duplicated. It is further recommended that the base retain the copies for its use, and that the originals be sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
9.2.2 Museum Collection (Resource No. 14116, Located in Real Property No. 3511)
This collection is currently on display and is in good condition. Continued stewardship and conservation of the collection is recommended.
48
9.2.3 Office Files (Resource No. 14117, Located in Real Property No. 2285)
This collection of written histories, illustrating the development of the base's mission during the Cold War, is in good condition. Continued stewardship of the collection is recommended.
This collection of drawings, maps, and photographs is currently in good condition. At the time of the inventory, the collection was in the process of being inventoried. It is recommended that this collection be duplicated. It is further recommended that the base retain the copies for its use, and that the originals be sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II through IV, and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) based on its role in sustaining a survivable force to meet the needs of deterrence. The integrity of the building is determined to be intact based upon inspection and review of documentation. Therefore, this building is recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Further documentation is recommended to nominate the resource to the NRHP. Stewardship is also recommended to retain the building's current level of integrity.
9.2.6 Engine Test Building (Resource No. 14002, Real Property No. 2150)
This building is evaluated as important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phase II. It exhibits intact integrity and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c). However, the building neither meets the 50 year criterion for eligibility, nor is it considered exceptionally significant within the Cold War context. Therefore, it is recommended as currently ineligible to the NRHP. It is additionally recommended that this building undergo stewardship to retain its current level of
49
integrity, and when this vbuilding meets the 50 year criterion, further documentation and reevaluation for NRHP eligibility.
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phase II, and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) based on its role in sustaining a survivable force to meet the needs of deterrence. The integrity of the building and its features are intact. 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.
50
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. Chatters, J. C. 1994 Cultural Resource Management Plan, Fairchild Air Force Base. North American PaleoScience, Richland, Washington. On file, Environmental Office, Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington. Department of Defense 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. Eichelberger, C. L. 1978 History of the 92nd Bombardment Wing (Heavy) and 92nd Combat Support Group, January-March 1978. On file, Wing History Office, Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington. Fairchild Air Force Base 1972 Executive Order 11508 Installation Survey Report, Fairchild Air Force Base, Spokane, Washington. On file, Real Estate Office, Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington. 1992 Fairchild-Spokane: 50 Golden Years, 1942-1992. On file, Wing History Office, Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington. 1993 Installation Restoration Program: Priority 2a Sites, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Work Plan Addendum. ICF Technology Incorporated, Richland, Washington. On file, Environmental Office, Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington. 1994 Welcome to Fairchild Air Force Base. Marcoa Publishing Incorporated, San Diego, California. On file, Public Affairs Office, Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington. Goldberg, A., ed. 1957 A History of the United States Air Force, 1907-1957. D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey.
51
Hartsfield, R.J. 1962 History of the 92nd Strategic Aerospace Wing (Heavy) and 92nd Combat Support Group, 1-31 October 1962. On file, Wing History Office, Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington. Lewis, K., K. J. Roxlau, L. E. Rhodes, P. Boyer, and J. S. Murphey 1995 A Systematic 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. Johnson, M. M. 1971 History of the 92nd Strategic Aerospace Wing (Heavy) and 92nd Combat Support Group, 1 January-31 March 1971. On file, Wing History Office, Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington. 1972 History of the 92nd Strategic Aerospace Wing (Heavy) and 92nd Support Group, 1 January-31 March 1972. On file, Wing History Office, Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington. Lewis, K. and H. C. Higgins 1994 Cold War Properties Inventory Field Guide. MAI Project 735-15. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. Lewis, R. 1962 History of the 92nd Strategic Aerospace Wing and 92nd Combat Support Group, May-June 1962. On file, Wing History Office, Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington. McFarland, K.D. 1950 History of the 92nd Bombardment Wing (M), Spokane Air Force Base, January 1950. On file, Wing History Office, Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington. Mueller, R. 1989 Air Force Bases: Active Air Force Bases Within the United States of America on 17 September 1982. vol. 1. Office of Air Force History, United States Air Force, Washington, D.C. National Park Service 1990 National Register Bulletin 22: Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties That Have Achieved Significance Within the Last Fifty Years. Report prepared by M. Sherfy and W. R. Luce, National Park Service. Washington, D.C.
52
1991 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (revised). Report prepared by the National Register Branch, National Park Service. Washington D.C. United States Air Force 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.
E-2
SSgt Keller Facility Security Officer 92 SPS/SPAI 2 E. Arnold Street Suite 101 Fairchild AFB, Washington 99011 (509) 247-5860 SSgt Lisa Morales 92 LSS Fairchild AFB, Washington 99011 (509) 247-5362 SSgt Tracy Partelow Wing Historian 92 BMW/HO 1 E. Bong Street Suite 229 Fairchild AFB, Washington 99011-9588 (509) 247-2173 Stan Williams Fairchild Heritage Museum 92 ARW/CCM 100 E. Bong Street Fairchild AFB, Washington 99011
E-3
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 Fairchild AFB history and Cold War context.
Lt Colonel William Keith, Fairchild Heritage Museum, August 19, 1994 Jerry Johnson, Natural Resources Officer, August 17, 1994 SSgt Tracy Partelow, Wing Historian, August 17, 1994
VOLUME II-9: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE AT GRIFFISS AIR FORCE BASE
Prepared by James A. Lowe David P. Staley Katherine J. Roxlau
August 1997
Volume II-9: Griffiss Air Force Base
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
A Mariah Associates, Inc. field team conducted a cultural resource inventory at Griffiss Air Force Base, New York, between July 5 and 15, 1994, to identify extant Cold War material culture resources important to the base and its Cold War mission and history, as part of the Air Combat Command Cold War Study under the Department of Defense Legacy Program. During field investigations, team members James A. Lowe and David P. Staley gathered information from the Civil Engineering, Planning, Real Property, Public Affairs, and Historian's Offices at the base. An initial reconnaissance of the base enabled the team to become familiar with facilities and determine which property types to inventory. These resources were photographed and catalogued.
Using the inventory, research, and on-site inspections, three resources were selected to be further documented and evaluated as important to the base's Cold War context. These include the Rome Laboratory Headquarters, the Command Center of the Northeast Air Defense Sector/Sector Operations Control Center, and the Bomber Alert Facility. The Rome Laboratory Headquarters and Command Center are both recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Due to an unknown level of integrity, the Bomber Alert Facility is recommended as potentially eligible to the National Register. Further documentation and stewardship are recommended for all three resources.
ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACC ACHP ADC AFB AFCC AFCS AFLC AFMC AFSC AGE ALCM AMC AMMS AMS amsl ARDC AREFS AWACS BMEWS BMS BMW BS BW CCD 3 CI DEW DoD EIG FIS FMS FTD GEEIA HABS ICBM MAC Mariah MMS NCA NCO NEADS
Air Combat Command Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Air Defense Command Air Force Base Air Force Communications Command Air Force Communications Service Air Force Logistics Command Air Force Materiel Command Air Force Systems Command Air Ground Equipment Air-Launched Cruise Missile Air Materiel Command Airborne Missile Maintenance Squadron Avionics Maintenance Squadron above mean sea level Air Research and Development Command Air Refueling Squadron Airborne Warning and Control System Ballistic Missile Early Warning System Bombardment Squadron Bombardment Wing Bomb Squadron Bomb Wing Continental Communications Division Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence Distant Early Warning Department of Defense Engineering Installations Group Fighter Interceptor Squadron Field Maintenance Squadron Field Training Detachment Ground Electronics Engineering Installation Agency Historic American Buildings Survey Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Military Airlift Command Mariah Associates, Inc. Munitions Maintenance Squadron Northern Communications Agency Noncommissioned Officer Northeast Air Defense Sector
iii
NHPA NPS NRHP OCONUS OMS ORI OTH-B PME RADC RAPCON R&D SAC SAGE SALT SDI SHPO SOCC SRAM START SW TAC USAF WACS
National Historic Preservation Act National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Off the Continental United States Organizational Maintenance Squadron Operation Readiness Inspection Over-the-Horizon Backscatter Precision Measurement Equipment Rome Air Development Center Radar Approach Control Center research and development Strategic Air Command Semi-Automatic Ground Environment Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty Strategic Defense Initiative State Historic Preservation Officer Sector Operations Control Center Short Range Attack Missile Strategic Arms Reduction Talks Strategic Wing Tactical Air Command United States Air Force White Alice Communication System
iv
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. 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 deterioration 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.
vi
3.0 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 14 3.1 BASE HISTORY AND COLD WAR CONTEXT.............................................................. 14 3.2 BASE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................... 20 4.0 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 27 4.1 INVENTORY ........................................................................................................................ 27 4.2 EVALUATION OF IMPORTANT RESOURCES ............................................................. 28 4.2.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 28 4.2.2 Evaluation of Importance ............................................................................................. 28 4.2.2.1 Cold War Context ............................................................................................... 28 4.2.2.2 NRHP Criteria..................................................................................................... 29 4.2.2.3 Exceptional Importance ...................................................................................... 30 4.2.3 Evaluation of Integrity.................................................................................................. 30 4.2.4 Priority Matrix .............................................................................................................. 31 4.2.5 Resource Organization ................................................................................................. 32 4.3 BASE SPECIFIC METHODS .............................................................................................. 32 5.0 RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY RESULTS ..................................................................... 34 6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS......................................................................................................... 35 6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS ........................................................ 35 6.1.1 Base and Command Centers ........................................................................................ 35 6.1.1.1 Command Center ................................................................................................ 35 6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS ......................................................... 37 6.2.1 Alert Facilities .............................................................................................................. 37 6.2.1.1 Bomber Alert Facility ......................................................................................... 37
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES ..................................................................... 38 6.3.1 Research Laboratories .................................................................................................. 38 6.3.1.1 Rome Laboratory Headquarters .......................................................................... 38 6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES...................................................................................................... 40 6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES ............................................................................................ 40 7.0 UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 41 8.0 FUTURE THREATS TO RESOURCES ................................................................................... 42 9.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 43 9.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY ............................................................................................................ 43 9.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility.................................................... 43 9.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility ................................................................................ 45 9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 46 9.2.1 Command Center ......................................................................................................... 48 9.2.2 Bomber Alert Facility................................................................................................... 49 9.2.3 Rome Laboratory Headquarters ................................................................................... 49 9.3 PENDING BASE CLOSURE............................................................................................... 49 10.0 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................. 51 APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D: APPENDIX E: RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY BASE LAYOUT MAPS SHOWING INVENTORIED RESOURCES PHOTOGRAPHS OF INVENTORIED RESOURCES DATA BASE DOCUMENTATION FOR EVALUATED RESOURCES EXTANT SOURCES OF INFORMATION
viii
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.3 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Bases Selected for the Air Combat Command Cold War Study .............................. 2 Location of Griffiss Air Force Base .......................................................................... 6 Griffiss Air Force Base Layout.................................................................................. 8 Standard Strategic Air Command Base Layout ........................................................ 9 Griffiss Air Force Base Land Use Diagram .............................................................. 11 Standard Strategic Air Command Base Land Use Diagram ..................................... 12 Griffiss Air Force Base, 1950 .................................................................................... 22 Griffiss Air Force Base, 1950-1960 .......................................................................... 23 Griffiss Air Force Base 1960-1970 ........................................................................... 25 Griffiss Air Force Base, 1970-1980 .......................................................................... 26
LIST OF TABLES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is a reconnaissance inventory of Cold War related resources on Griffiss Air Force Base (AFB). Griffiss 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.
The current ACC mission at Griffiss AFB is to "provide immediate and sustained, worldwide, longrange force projection to achieve `Global Power for America'" (Kaye 1993:4). The mission of the host unit, the 416th Bomb Wing (BW), is "to develop and maintain the capability to conduct longrange strategic bombardment and air refueling operations worldwide" (Environmental Office, Griffiss AFB 1989:5). The 668th Bomb Squadron (BS) and the 509th Air Refueling Squadron (AREFS) are the key aircraft squadrons stationed at Griffiss AFB.
Important tenant and associated organizations located on the base include Rome Laboratory, the Northeast Air Defense Sector/Sector Operations Control Center (NEADS/SOCC), and the 485th Engineering Installations Group (EIG). Rome Laboratory has been important to the mission at Griffiss AFB by playing an integral role in United States Air Force (USAF) development of communication, satellite, and radar systems for the past 40 years. Security of the air space over the northeastern United States is handled by NEADS/SOCC, while the 485th EIG "accomplishes program management, engineering, and installation of Air Force communication-computer systems worldwide . . ., " especially in the United Stated and Europe (Kaye 1993:8-14; Public Affairs Office, Griffiss AFB 1992a:1).
The base is currently scheduled to be closed in September 1995, and preparations are currently underway. [Editor's Note: This report is written based upon the existing conditions and findings made during the field reconnaissance. Since that time, Griffiss AFB has been closed by the Base Re-Alignment and Closure Commission.]
Griffiss AFB consists of approximately 3,900 acres (1,578 ha) located in Oneida County, New York, 2 mi (3.2 km) east of downtown Rome, New York and 12 mi (19.3 km) west of Utica, New York (Figure 2.1). Although bordered on the west by the urbanized area of Rome, the lands bordering the base to the east, north, and south are primarily agricultural with intermittent forest (Environmental Office, Griffiss AFB 1989:6).
The base is located in the Mohawk Section of the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province, which has been shaped and reshaped by advancing glacial activity and by the deposition of gravel, sand, silt, and clay during the last glacial retreat (Fenneman 1938:323-328; Law Environmental, Inc. 1994:1-5). The base is situated within the floodplain of the Mohawk River Valley and is oriented in a northwest-southeast direction. This area is characteristic of the eastern-most extremity of the Central Lowland region, and the topography of the valley is relatively flat. Elevations on Griffiss AFB range from 460 ft (140 m) to 525 ft (160 m) above mean sea level (amsl); however, there is a plateau northeast of the base that rises to a height of 1300 ft (396 m) amsl.
The original runways at Griffiss AFB, completed in October 1941, were configured like a triangle and allowed three airfield surfaces for operations. The portion of the runway oriented east-west was located just north of the mission and industrial areas of the original base; the other runways connected with the above mentioned portion, with one oriented to the northeast, the other to the northwest. The current instrument runway, constructed in 1958, is 11,820 ft (3,603 m) in length, is oriented southeast-northwest, and is adjacent to the original northwest runway which is currently used for a taxiway.
The overall layout of Griffiss AFB is somewhat similar to the standard SAC base layout (Figures 2.2 and 2.3). The layout of the northeastern side of the runway consists of the weapons storage area, missile assembly shops, a small arms range, antennae farms for NEADS/SOCC communication, and open space and clear zones. Southwest of the northwestern end of the runway are recreation areas, including a golf course and club house, a family camping area, and baseball fields. Located in this same area along the Perimeter Road are two homes for commanding officers. Hot cargo storage pads (loading and unloading) are located on that portion of the old runway oriented northeast-southwest. The old runway oriented east-west is no longer utilized for aircraft operations.
In the center of the base, south of the old east-west runway and southwest of the current runway, is a mixture of base properties related to mission, industry, research, administration, and support. The Bomber Alert Facility, the 668th BS, and aircraft (B-52 Stratofortress bombers and KC-135 Stratotanker refuelers) are located on the alert apron just southwest of the instrument runway at its southeastern end. Also in this area, located on Apron 2, are the maintenance hangars that support the mission of the aircraft and crew. Located immediately southwest of Apron 2 on SAC Hill are squadron operation facilities. The headquarters of NEADS/SOCC is located northwest of the squadron operations facilities and south of the industrial/mission area of the base.
One major difference in layout between Griffiss AFB and the standard SAC base layout is the placement of the base hospital at Griffiss AFB in the center of community development rather than on the outskirts of the base, as shown in the SAC base layout.
2.4 BASE LAND USE
The following is a list of standard SAC land use categories: Alert Facilities - to provide for air combat readiness and rapid deployment of air crews. Base Support Facilities - house base support functions and supplies. Community - shopping, medical, and family support facilities.
10
Command Post - to provide tracking of all base activities and communication between battle staff and SAC headquarters. 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. Weapon 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.
Land use planning at Griffiss AFB differs somewhat from standard SAC land use (Figures 2.4 and 2.5). Griffiss AFB has its industrial area between the mission and community areas, whereas the standard SAC base arrangement has the community area between the mission and industrial areas. The arrangement at Griffiss AFB is undoubtedly due to the early construction of Rome Air Development Center (RADC) facilities for research and development (R&D) during the early 1950s. Whereas the recreation areas in the standard plan are scattered throughout the base, recreation at Griffiss AFB is concentrated in two areas, one large and one small. The weapons storage area at Griffiss AFB is centrally located on the far side of the instrument runway, unlike the standard SAC land use plan which has the weapons and warhead storage area near the alert area of the runway. Finally, the SAC plan shows no designated clear zones or open space for the
13
take off and landing of aircraft or for weapons storage areas. These areas are designated as part of the land use plan at Griffiss AFB.
Similarities between the Griffiss AFB and the SAC land use plans include the location of the Alert apron, except that the apron at Griffiss AFB does not have a "christmas tree" formation. The location of family housing on the perimeter of the base as far as possible from the runway and mission areas corresponds roughly to that of the standard SAC plan. The positioning of
unaccompanied housing and community areas between family housing and the mission areas is another similarity between Griffiss AFB and standard SAC base land use.
14
The origins of Griffiss AFB date to 1941, when a War Department survey concluded that Rome, New York, was an ideal place to establish an air depot to serve the strategic northeastern portion of the United States during World War II. A contract was let to the Turner Construction Company of New York City and Louis Mayersohn of Albany, New York, for the construction of Rome Air Depot. The first runway was completed in October 1941 and the depot was activated February 1, 1942, with the runways open for landing and departure on February 14 (Kaye 1993:3; Mueller 1989:205; Wing History Office, Griffiss AFB 1992:2-5).
Initial construction of the depot buildings was completed in 1944. During World War II and for six years after, the depot was under the jurisdiction of Air Materiel Command (AMC), and served the Army Air Force as a storage, shipping, and maintenance center (Environmental Office, Griffiss AFB 1982:3; Wing History Office, Griffiss AFB 1992:2). The depot underwent several name changes between the date of activation and January 29, 1948, when it was officially designated Griffiss AFB (Kaye 1993:3; Mueller 1989:205). Lt. Colonel Townsend E. Griffiss, after whom the base is named, was a native of Buffalo, New York, and was the first American airman killed in the European theater when he was shot down February 15, 1942 (Kaye 1993:3; Mueller 1989:205).
In 1947, the National Security Act reorganized the R&D programs emanating from the War Department. In September 1948, Griffiss AFB was assigned the mission of research, development, and testing of electronic equipment (Environmental Office, Griffiss AFB 1982:3). The Army R&D facility at Watson Laboratories was divided, with a portion of the work force and facilities transferred to Griffiss AFB (Lewis et al. 1995).
15
Due to the increasing tension in the world during the late 1940s and 1950s following events in China, the Soviet Union, and Korea, emphasis on R&D increased dramatically. A new electronic development center to be located at Griffiss AFB was authorized by Congress in September of 1950. The Air Force christened the new facilities RADC in June 1951. Griffiss AFB, with its new research mission and facilities, was subsequently transferred in 1951 to the newly created Air Research and Development Command (ARDC), and RADC became the base host (Environmental Office, Griffiss AFB 1982:3; Thompson and Scott 1986:iii; Wing History Office, Griffiss AFB 1992:14).
RADC functioned as the Air Force's center of excellence for command, control, communication, and intelligence (C I) R&D (Kaye 1993:12; Smith and Byrd 1992:1; Thompson and Scott 1986:iii). The original mission at RADC was "to accomplish applied research, development and test of electronic air-ground systems such as detection, control, identification and countermeasures, navigation, communications, and data transmission systems, associated components, and related flight equipment, in support of the mission of the Air Research and Development Command"; and as host at Griffiss AFB, to provide "logistical and administrative support to tenant units and organizations" (Smith and Byrd 1992:2). Throughout the years, the research mission at RADC evolved with technological advancements in communication and weaponry, but C I remained the paramount focus (Kaye 1993:12).
3 3
Of the many RADC research and development contributions to the Air Force during the Cold War, perhaps the most important were those which involved communication and radar and allowed the USAF and Department of Defense (DoD) to successfully monitor U.S. air space to detect intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and bomber threats to the United States. Between the early 1950s and the 1970s, RADC invented or helped to develop the following systems: Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line, White Alice Communication System (WACS), Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS), Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) system, Over-the-Horizon Backscatter (OTH-B) radar, and the Airborne Warning and
16
Control System (AWACS). These developments played an integral role in monitoring the Soviet Union and deterring a nuclear threat to the United States during the Cold War.
During the Korean Conflict in 1950, the Air Defense Command (ADC) established the 27th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS) as a tenant unit at Griffiss AFB for the defense of the northeastern United States. On July 1, 1954, AMC resumed command of the base (Kaye 1993:3).
The fighter force was augmented in 1955 with the arrival of the 465th FIS. Both the 27th and 465th FIS were relocated off Griffiss AFB in 1959 with the arrival of the 49th FIS, a major Tactical Air Command (TAC) tenant at Griffiss AFB until 1987. Air defense of the northeastern United States was the primary mission of the 49th FIS, including the interception, identification, and destruction of enemy aircraft across 400,000 mi of airspace covering nine northern states and Nova Scotia.
2
Headquarters for the Ground Electronics Engineering Installation Agency (GEEIA) was established at Griffiss AFB in June 1958. This agency directed the engineering and installation of Air Force ground communications equipment around the world.
SAC activated the 4039th Strategic Wing (SW) as a tenant unit at Griffiss AFB in August 1959. The 41st AREFS was activated under the 4039th SW in January 1959. The 4039th SW and 41st AREFS utilized the B-52 bomber and the KC-135 refueler to carry out their mission: "primarily to organize and train a force capable of immediate and sustained long-range offensive bombardment and air-to-air refueling operations in any part of the world" (Schubert 1959:1). The 75th
Bombardment Squadron (BMS) was assigned from Loring AFB, Maine, to Griffiss AFB in October 1959 and awaited the arrival of their aircraft. The first B-52G arrived at Griffiss AFB the following January and was christened the "Mohawk Valley." This aircraft is the second of two static displays at Griffiss AFB, mounted near the golf course and Mohawk Gate entrance on base (Kaye 1993:4; Stanley 1994:9; Wing History Office, Griffiss AFB 1992:22-23).
17
Griffiss AFB was still a part of AMC in 1961, when AMC was redesignated as Air Force Logistics Command (AFLC), in charge of logistics, maintenance, and supply of R&D programs. Griffiss AFB was now a part of AFLC.
The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis precipitated a heightened alert at Griffiss AFB. President Kennedy ordered an increased alert posture in effect throughout the Air Force (Lewis et al. 1995), and B-52 and KC-135 aircraft were launched for airborne alert missions from the 4039th SW at Griffiss AFB from September through November 1962. These airborne missions were flown under two different names: "Hard Head," which flew over the north Atlantic, and "Chrome Dome," which flew over the Mediterranean. The standard alert duty time at the base was 50% duty, 50% off. However, during the Cuban crisis, nearly everyone was on increased alert posture (SSgt Mark Stanley, personal communication, August 4, 1994).
The 4039th SW was deactivated in February 1963 and the 416th Bombardment Wing (BMW) was activated in its place. Similarly, the 75th BMS was deactivated and the 668th BMS, assigned to the 416th BMW, was activated. The 41st AREFS, formerly assigned to the 4039th SW, was
reassigned to the 416th BMW and retained its designations.
The 416th BMW retained its global bombing and refueling objectives and capabilities, though the Wing had acquired Hound Dog and Quail missiles (Lewis et al. 1995). In June 1963, the 668th BMS had eight bombers and crews and 11 tankers and crews standing alert cycles. There were 12 Hound Dog and 24 Quail missiles on alert at this time (Hazard 1963:1,9-11).
In 1968, the 49th FIS acquired the F-106 Delta Dart to carry out its mission. Capable of twice the speed of sound and altitudes in excess of 65,000 ft (19,812 m), the F-106 was the TAC workhorse in the air defense of the northeastern United States (Environmental Office, Griffiss AFB 1982:3-4; Kaye 1993:4; Schubert 1959:ii; Stanley 1994:8-9).
18
In 1968, GEEIA replaced RADC as the base host (Kaye 1993:4-5; Stanley 1994:2,9; Wing History Office, Griffiss AFB 1992:2,25). At this time, the base was still a part of AFLC. In 1970, SAC assumed control of the base and the 416th BMW acquired the base host responsibilities.
GEEIA merged with Air Force Communications Service (AFCS) in 1970 to form a single organization under AFCS. AFCS then activated the Northern Communications Agency (NCA) at Griffiss AFB as one of two regional Air Force communications agencies responsible for the continental United States.
RADC developed the "Upside-Down Air Force" in 1971.
The Newport Test Annex and
Stockbridge Test Annex, both located near Rome, positioned aircraft upside-down on pedestals and conducted tests to determine the effectiveness of various radar and electronic jamming devices on the plane and its electronic equipment. This was thought to be more cost effective than having aircraft continually flying overhead to accomplish the same objective. The aircraft mounted at Newport included the F-4 Phantom and the F-15 Eagle; those at Stockbridge included the B-52 and C-130 Hercules (Smith and Byrd 1992:118, 125, 135).
The 416th BMW received its first Short Range Attack Missile (SRAM) for deployment in November 1972, and on January 9, 1973, it launched its first B-52 bomber carrying 12 SRAMs (Kaye 1993:5; Wing History Office, Griffiss AFB 1992:29, 31). Congress announced in May 1979 that the 416th BMW would receive the country's first Air-Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM). The missiles arrived at Griffiss AFB in early 1981. Initial launch capability of the ALCM was reached in December 1982 (Kaye 1993:5-6; Stanley 1994:9; Wing History Office, Griffiss AFB 1992:2).
In 1981 NCA, which was still under AFCS, merged with two other organizations to form the Continental Communications Division (CCD) at Griffiss AFB. CCD was deactivated at Griffiss AFB on January 1, 1986 when the Air Force restructured from a regional to a command support
19
management philosophy. CCD was reactivated the following November at Randolph AFB, Texas, as Headquarters Air Training Communications Division. Meanwhile, AFCS became the Air Force Communications Command (AFCC) (Kaye 1993:3-4; Stanley 1994:7; Wing History Office, Griffiss AFB 1992:2).
The 485th EIG is another important tenant organization at Griffiss AFB. Activated at Griffiss in 1972 following six years service in South Vietnam, the 485th EIG provides the AFCC with program management, engineering, and installation of Air Force communication-computer systems worldwide, especially in the eastern United States and Europe (Kaye 1993:14; Public Affairs Office, Griffiss AFB 1992a:1; Stanley 1994:8).
The NEADS was established in July 1987, and is responsible for the sovereignty of the air space over the northeastern United States. It conducts operations through the SOCC, established at Griffiss AFB that same year, and is an integral part of the air defense network. During the latter years of the Cold War, the primary mission at NEADS/SOCC was to provide National Command Authorities with the earliest possible tactical warning and assessment of Soviet bomber and missile threats. The function of NEADS/SOCC is unique within the Air Force in that its mode of operation remains the same during peace or in a war situation: it monitors all aircraft entering U.S. airspace and, when called upon, challenges unidentified aircraft (Public Affairs Office, Griffiss AFB 1993:1-3).
In July 1987, the 49th FIS was deactivated and its air defense mission was transferred to other TAC bases in the northeastern United States (Wing History Office, Griffiss AFB 1992:39-40). Following the end of the Cold War, this mission was reassigned to six Air National Guard bases in the northeast, five of which have the F-16 Fighting Falcon (Wing History Office, Griffiss AFB 1992:39-40). Meanwhile, the 509th AREFS was activated at Griffiss AFB in July 1990 to augment the refueling capabilities at the base.
20
In 1992, Griffiss AFB was still under SAC and the 416th BMW was the base host. With the restructuring of the Air Force, Griffiss AFB fell under ACC and the 416th BMW, retaining its responsibilities as base host, was redesignated the 416th BW of the Ninth Air Force (Stanley 1994:9; Wing History Office, Griffiss AFB 1992:2). As part of the restructuring of the Air Force and the creation of ACC, the 41st AREFS and its KC-135 tanker assets were transferred to Plattsburgh AFB, New York (Kaye 1993:6,13). The 485th EIG, a subordinate unit under the new Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC), remains at Griffiss AFB as a tenant, serving the Air Force's communications and electronics needs. Rome Laboratory, the new name of RADC since 1991, and NEADS/SOCC also remain at Griffiss AFB.
The mission at Griffiss AFB during the post-Cold War era has remained much the same as before 1989. Maintaining the capability to sustain long-range bombing and refueling operations on a global scale, R&D, and the protection of U.S. air space remain the responsibility of the 416th BW, Rome Laboratory, and NEADS/SOCC respectively. Planning for the closure of Griffiss AFB in September 1995 is currently underway. The airfield, the Bomber Alert Facility, and the NEADS facility will be utilized by the Air National Guard, Rome Laboratory will remain indefinitely as a stand alone facility, and most of the recreational facilities including the golf course and club house will be utilized by Oneida County. Final decisions concerning other facilities on base are pending (Mike Bamberger, personal communication, July 6, 1994; Dr. Thomas Thompson, personal communication, July 11, 1994). [Editor's Note: Griffiss AFB was closed September 30, 1995. It is currently still under USAF control and is managed by the Air Force Base Conversion Agency.]
Initial construction of Rome Air Depot began in August 1941, and the three sided, triangularshaped runway was completed in 1942. Construction proceeded on various facilities until 1944, and all were built south of the east-west runway, including maintenance hangars and base operations, maintenance and warehouse storage facilities, initial sewage and electrical stations and
21
systems, wing and group headquarters, and equipment and electronic research labs (Figure 3.1). These facilities were built to sustain Rome Air Depot's mission of storage, shipment, maintenance, and aircraft engine overhaul for the Army Air Force during World War II. This initial construction prohibited Griffiss AFB from developing along the standard SAC base design.
RADC was approved in 1948 and officially established in 1951. construction on the base in the early 1950s.
This precipitated further
The existing northwest-southeast runway was
expanded and completed in 1952 (Figure 3.2). RADC headquarters was opened in 1952 and other RADC facilities were completed by 1955. A new officer's club and dining hall were also
completed in 1955. These facilities were all located south of the original runway, and many still comprise the heart of the mission and industrial area at Griffiss AFB today.
Major expansion occurred at Griffiss AFB in the late 1950s. The deployment of the B-52 at SAC bases throughout the United States, the 1956 directive by the USAF for concrete runways, and the TAC aircraft stationed at Griffiss AFB required the construction and completion of a new, concrete runway on base. Construction began in 1957 and the 2.25 mi (3.6 km) long runway was completed in 1958. The Bomber Alert Facility and maintenance hangars for the B-52 bombers and KC-135 tankers were constructed in 1959 at the southeastern end of the runway. Other support facilities were built in the vicinity of SAC Hill between 1959-1960, including wing headquarters and squadron operations. The base expanded to the south with the construction of a tank farm to supply jet fuel to the base from the New York Barge Canal and New York Central Railroad. Weapons storage facilities, missile assembly shops, and sewage treatment facilities were constructed northeast of the central portion of the new runway during the late 1950s. In 1957, construction of the first Capehart Housing Act project began, located in the southern portion of the base, east of the south entrance. An additional 270 Capehart units were completed in 1960. Known as the
Woodhaven family housing area, this development is located on the western side of the base, south of Floyd Road.
24
Griffiss AFB expanded little during the 1960s and 1970s, although the nine hole golf course was completed in 1964 and the family camping area was completed in 1970 (Figure 3.3). The golf course is located west of the old runways, and the family camping area is north of the golf course.
During the 1970s and early 1980s, the weapons storage area was increased in size to accommodate additional storage igloos and missile assembly shops. Missile assembly shops related to the SRAM were constructed in 1973 and 1976, and an additional missile assembly shop was built in 1982 to facilitate the arrival at Griffiss AFB of the ALCM (Figure 3.4).
These are the major expansion periods and programs that occurred at Griffiss AFB during the Cold War era. However, it must be noted that renovation and construction of individual buildings and facilities have continued to the present in all areas of the base.
27
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the reconnaissance inventory of Griffiss 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
28
As part of the reconnaissance inventory of Griffiss 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 Griffiss 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.
29
historical perspective due 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).
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; or
30
d) Have yielded or be likely to yield information of importance to United States Cold War history.
31
32
Upon arrival at Griffiss AFB the Mariah team met with their point of contact, Mr. Mike Bamberger, Chief of Natural Resources at the base. Following a discussion of their objectives and needs for completing the base material culture inventory, Mr. Bamberger provided office space in proximity to the Real Property and Civil Engineering offices. The field team was introduced to office personnel and visited the Historian's Office at Rome Laboratory. Mr. Bamberger then took the field team on a tour of the base. The team photographed all representative architecture on the base, including the flight line and secured mission areas with a cleared escort (Mr. Bamberger).
Team members divided tasks to research and inventory documentary resources located in the offices mentioned above. Property Change Lists, Inventory Codes, and cards from the Real Property Office were used to determine the location, current use, date of construction, and building materials of the facilities on base. The Drafting Office in Civil Engineering provided computer files of base maps which depict base layout, building numbers, runways, and roads. Representative base layout maps by decade were obtained from the Civil Engineering Office, and
33
its flat file collection was inventoried. The Environmental Office provided research material, including a recent Base Comprehensive Plan (Environmental Office, Griffiss AFB 1989). The Wing Historian's Office was inventoried, the Historian interviewed, and research material pertinent to the mission and history of the base obtained. The Office of History at Rome Laboratory was inventoried, and the Historian provided research material and was interviewed. Material researched included a photo archive and yearly histories of the research activities at Rome Lab. The Public Affairs Office provided additional information and literature. The team was also provided with a briefing and tour of the NEADS/SOCC facility toward the end of the visit.
After research was completed, individual resources were selected for further documentation and evaluation, and a Property Management form was completed for each.
34
During the reconnaissance inventory of Griffiss AFB, 136 resources were inventoried. Appendix A lists the inventoried resources, and Appendix B shows their locations on the base. Photographs of inventoried resources are presented in Appendix C.
35
Three resources were evaluated at Griffiss 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, affecting determinations of integrity.
6.1.1 Base and Command Centers
6.1.1.1 Command Center (Resource No. 8029, Real Property No. 700)
The Command Center is the headquarters for NEADS in general and SOCC in particular at Griffiss AFB. The resource is a building specifically designed for use as the Command Center and it continues in this use. Built in 1982, this permanent, 31,500 ft (2,926 m ) building is located on a hill just south of the main mission and industrial area, and west of SAC Hill. The most notable characteristic of the building is its roof, which is elongated and curved with skylights. The majority of the building is below ground level with an earthen berm sloping up to the entrance. Exterior walls are of thick, reinforced concrete. The interior contains status boards, internal backup power units, and multiple communication systems. All of these features speak to the protection and survival of the occupants during attack, and the survivability of the center to perform its mission. Due to the sole and continuous use of this building as the NEADS/SOCC Command Center, and partial observation, the integrity of the building is determined to be
2 2
37
intact. Although Griffiss AFB is scheduled for closure in 1995, this facility will remain in operation, continuing its original function as the NEADS/SOCC Command Center.
The mission of the NEADS/SOCC facility, one of four air defense sectors established in 1987, is: to provide the earliest possible tactical warning and assessment to national command authorities against the manned bomber and cruise missile threats . . . . The Sector defends the National Command Authorities strategic military, civil and industrial centers in the northeast against air attack (Kaye 1993:11-12; Public Affairs Office, Griffiss AFB 1993:1). This facility is not only extremely important to the base's Cold War context, but also to the history of the Cold War at a national level. Its importance lies in its continued use as the Command Center for the protection and survivability of the strategically important northeastern section of the country. Due to its mission, the facility figured prominently in the deterrence of enemy aggression during the closing years of the Cold War. This building performed this role during Phase IV of the Cold War era, and meets NRHP criterion (a).
The Bomber Alert Facility is located on the southeastern corner of the alert apron.
2 2
This
18,318 ft (1,702 m ) facility, constructed in 1959, is a permanent, semisubterranean, two story building. The facility is characterized by the large, corrugated metal tubes which cover the ramp entrances/exits of the building and are designed to keep snow and ice off of the ramps during winter weather and to facilitate rapid egress during an alert situation or Operation Readiness Inspection (ORI) drill. During the Cold War, this facility was under heavy security with armed guards and razor wire on the fences. These security measures no longer exist. The integrity of
38
the facility's exterior appears intact; however, since the field team was unable to gain access to the building, the integrity of its interior remains unknown.
This facility was used during the Cold War for aircrews and aircraft that directly supported the National Emergency War Order and were in a perpetual ready-to-go status. Because the facility was used to house B-52 aircrews and was located close to the planes, it facilitated rapid deployment of the B-52 bomber force. It allowed for maximum readiness to deter enemy aggression and embodied the SAC strategy of rapid deployment, deterrence, and strike capabilities in a national emergency situation.
The Bomber Alert Facility is extremely important to Griffiss AFB's Cold War context and to the Cold War history of the nation. It 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 National Security Council document 68, in support of the concept of deterrence through a survivable force, and following the recommendations of the Killian Report for the dispersion of bombers across the country (Lewis et al. 1995). The B-52 force was an integral part of DoD's defense triad and was relied on as the United States's primary manned bomber for over 30 years. This facility fulfilled this role during Phases II through IV and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
6.3.1 Research Laboratories
6.3.1.1 Rome Laboratory Headquarters (Resource No. 8010, Real Property No. 106)
The Rome Laboratory Headquarters at Griffiss AFB is a permanent, three story, red brick building utilized by Rome Laboratory for R&D. This 194,840 ft (18,101 m ) facility was completed in 1943. It is the headquarters of Rome Laboratory and has been utilized primarily for
2 2
39
surveillance work associated with radar development. One of the original buildings at Griffiss AFB, this facility also houses a technical and professional library to assist in the research conducted at Rome Laboratory. This facility, associated with other Rome Laboratory research and storage buildings, as well as various research annexes and antennae, was singled out for evaluation due to its headquarters function.
The Rome Laboratory research complex is unique because it was established by Congress in 1950. Known as RADC until 1991, it was under the auspices of the Air Force Systems
3 3
Command (AFSC) and responsible for C I R&D. Rome Laboratory is currently managed by AFMC. Over the years, the laboratory's technical achievements in C I have provided the Air Force with a vast array of warning, communication, and guidance systems needed to deter or wage global war. Rome Laboratory was also responsible for the first transmission of a voice message from the Echo 1 balloon satellite in 1960. Rome Laboratory figured significantly in all four temporal phases of the Cold War with technological developments that included BMEWS, the DEW Line, the SAGE system, the OTH-B radar, and AWACS (Kaye 1993:12-13; Public Affairs Office, Griffiss AFB 1992b:1-2; Thompson and Scott 1986:iv; Wing History Office, Griffiss AFB 1992:1-2).
The integrity of the building could not be assessed since the field team was not allowed access to the facility. However, as the facility continues in its R&D function, the integrity of the building is determined to be intact.
The exceptional importance of this facility to the base's Cold War context and to the national Cold War history lies in the technological developments which were made therein. In addition to contributing to national defense and the exploration of outer space, these developments have provided the U.S. military in general, and the USAF in particular, with technological advantages over the Soviet Union in communication, radar, and weapons guidance systems. The
developments have provided the United States with the means to either deter or wage global war
40
because the facility has continued its function of electronic R&D to the present day. This facility has fulfilled this role during all four phases of the Cold War era and meets NRHP criterion (a).
None were evaluated at Griffiss AFB.
None were evaluated at Griffiss AFB.
41
The purpose of the reconnaissance inventory was to provide initial information on the kinds of Cold War resources extant on Griffiss 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 but not inventoried. These resources may contain potentially significant information pertaining to the base's Cold War context in general or to specific properties or activities at Griffiss AFB. comprehensive analyses. These resources should be investigated further for more
Due to an oversight while at the base, the Mariah field team was not able to evaluate the fighter alert facility. Similar fighter alert facilities located on other AFBs in this study have been found to be of exceptional significance with intact integrity, and thus NRHP eligibility was recommended for them. It is recommended that this fighter alert facility be evaluated for NRHP eligibility prior to any undertakings which might affect the facility's integrity.
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 Griffiss AFB revealed approximately 290 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 Griffiss AFB should allot time for researching these documents.
42
Griffiss AFB is scheduled for closure in 1995. As of the date of the field team's visit to Griffiss AFB, no historic preservation plan had been drafted or put into effect to deal with preserving the historic resources on base prior to closure. However, an environmental base line survey is
scheduled for the near future which will determine the scope of work for an evaluation of historic structures, archaeological investigations, and a cultural resource inventory, all of which will determine the focus and outcome of a future historic preservation plan (Mike Bamberger, personal communication, August 1, 1994).
Current plans call for the NEADS/SOCC Command Center to continue to be operated by the Air National Guard, so the threat to that building appears low. The Air National Guard will also utilize and maintain the Bomber Alert Facility, so the threat to that facility likewise appears low.
The Rome Laboratory Headquarters is in no immediate danger as it is presently scheduled to continue its function. However, no final decision has been made for Rome Laboratory to stay at Griffiss AFB. Should Rome Laboratory be moved, the integrity of the headquarters would be in jeopardy. Also, archived resources from the Wing Historian's Office, such as photos, a newspaper collection, and Wing histories, will be deposited at the historian's office at Rome Laboratory. Should the laboratory be moved, these resources may be lost or damaged.
The Environmental Office at Griffiss AFB also expresses concern regarding the fate of the B-52 (Mohawk Valley) static display located near the golf course. This aircraft was the first B-52 to arrive at Griffiss AFB in 1960 and utilized the latest USAF weapons arsenal (SRAMs and ALCMs) until its retirement in May 1991.
43
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 Griffiss 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.
44
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 Griffiss 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 Griffiss AFB have not been evaluated, and thus must be considered and treated as eligible until an evaluation and determination of eligibility are made.
45
These
46
Recommendations for the evaluated resources at Griffiss AFB are presented below. Table 9.1 summarizes these recommendations. More than one recommendation may apply to a given
48
9.2.1 Command Center (Resource No. 8029, Real Property No. 700)
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phase IV. It meets NRHP criterion (a) based on its role in detecting and warning of any enemy incursion into United States air space and the protection of the northeastern section of the country. The integrity of the building is determined to be intact based upon the sole and
continuous use of the building as the NEADS/SOCC Command Center and partial observation. Therefore, this building is recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Recommendations include stewardship to maintain the current level of integrity of the building and further documentation to nominate this resource to the NRHP.
49
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important to the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II through IV. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) due to 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. However, the integrity of the interior of the building remains unknown. Therefore, this building is recommended as potentially eligible to the NRHP. Recommendations include further
documentation to determine the level of integrity and to explore NRHP eligibility. Stewardship of the building to retain its current level of integrity is recommended in the interim during this evaluation.
9.2.3 Rome Laboratory Headquarters (Resource No. 8010, Real Property No. 106)
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during all four Phases. It meets NRHP criterion (a) based upon the technological research and developments made at the facility which strengthened the country's deterrent forces. The integrity of the building is determined to be intact based upon the sole and continued use of the building for R&D. 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 PENDING BASE CLOSURE
There is no immediate threat to any of the three evaluated facilities on Griffiss AFB. However, the base is scheduled for closure in 1995, with the subsequent transfer of buildings and properties out of Air Force control. These actions constitute a federal undertaking that may have an effect on potentially NRHP-eligible properties. It is therefore recommended, per Section 106 of the NHPA, that the eligibility of the three properties be determined prior to transfer of the buildings
50
out of USAF control. [Editor's Note: As of this publication, the properties at Griffiss AFB remain under the control of the USAF and are managed by the Air Force Base Conversion Agency.]
51
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. Department of Defense 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. Environmental Office, Griffiss Air Force Base 1982 Griffiss AFB PAT Study. Planning Assistance Team (PAT) Study. On file, Environmental Office, Griffiss Air Force Base, New York. 1989 Base Comprehensive Plan, Griffiss Air Force Base, New York. On file, Environmental Office, Griffiss Air Force Base, New York. Fenneman, N. M. 1938 Physiography of Eastern United States. McGraw-Hill, New York and London. Hazard, C. I. TSgt 1963 416th Bombardment Wing, 1-30 June 1963. On file, Wing Historian's Office, Griffiss Air Force Base, New York. Kaye, T. SSgt, editor 1993 Griffiss Air Force Base. Rome Area Chamber of Commerce, Rome, New York. Law Environmental, Inc. 1994 Remedial Investigation Technical Memorandum No. 3 Cultural Resources Study, Griffiss Air Force Base, New York. Law Environmental, Inc., Kennesaw, Georgia. 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.
52
Mueller, R. 1989 Air Force Bases: Active Air Force Bases Within the United States of America on 17 September 1982, Vol. 1. Office of Air Force History, United States Air Force, Washington, D.C. 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. Public Affairs Office, Griffiss Air Force Base 1992a Fact Sheet: 485th Engineering Installation Group. On file, Public Affairs Office, 416th Bomb Wing (Air Combat Command), Griffiss Air Force Base, New York. 1992b Fact Sheet: Rome Laboratory. On file, Public Affairs Office, 416th Bomb Wing (Air Combat Command), Griffiss Air Force Base, New York. 1993 Northeast Air Defense Sector, Griffiss AFB, Rome, NY. On file, Public Affairs Office, 416th Bomb Wing (Air Combat Command), Griffiss Air Force Base, New York. Schubert, J.A. 1959 History of the 4039th Strategic Wing, 1 August 1958 through 28 February 1959. On file, Wing History Office, Griffiss Air Force Base, New York. Smith, J., and D. Byrd 1992 Forty Years of Research and Development at Griffiss Air Force Base, June 1951-June 1991. Rome Laboratory History Office, Griffiss Air Force Base, New York. Stanley, M. SSgt 1994 A Brief History of the 416th Bomb Wing and Griffiss Air Force Base, New York. On file, Wing History Office, Griffiss Air Force Base, New York. Thompson, T., and SSgt C. A. Scott 1986 RADC History Highlights, 1951-1986. Rome Air Development Center, Air Force Systems Command, Griffiss Air Force Base, New York. United States Air Force 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.
53
Wing History Office, Griffiss Air Force Base 1992 50 Years of Excellence: Griffiss Air Force Base, Rome, New York. Steffen Printing, Holland Patent, New York.
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 Griffiss AFB, and to provide research materials for this study:
Mike Bamberger Chief of Natural Resources 416 CES/CEV 153 Brooks Road Griffiss AFB, New York 13441-4105 (315) 330-2098 Sgt Kevin Call Facility Security Officer 416 BW/CCEA Griffiss AFB, New York 13441 (315) 330-2943/7603 MSgt Jackson Facility Security Officer 416 SPS/SPAI 592 Market Street Suite 108 Griffiss AFB, New York 13441-4614 (315) 330-2943/7603 Captain Mary Beth Jarvis Public Affairs Officer 416 BW/PA 325 Brooks Road Suite 201 Griffiss AFB, New York 13441-4150 (315) 330-3057 Helen Makswmicz 416 CES/CEOL-2 Griffiss AFB, New York 13441 (315) 330-1348
E-2
SSgt Mark Manning AutoCAD 416 CES/CEV 153 Brooks Road Griffiss AFB, New York 13441-4105 (315) 330-4704 Bruce Mero Chief of Environmental Management Flight 416 CES/CEV 153 Brooks Road Griffiss AFB, New York 13441-4105 (315) 330-2098 SSgt Mark Stanley Wing Historian 416 BW/HO 325 Brooks Road Suite 202 Griffiss AFB, New York 13441-4105 (315) 330-2931 Dr. Thomas Thompson Rome Laboratory Historian RL/HO Corridor A, Suite 107 26 Electronic Parkway Griffiss AFB, New York 13441-4514 (315) 330-2757 Paul Vanderhoff Real Property Officer 416 CES 153 Brooks Road Griffiss AFB, New York 13441-4105 (315) 330-4014
E-3
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 Griffiss AFB history and Cold War context.
Mike Bamberger, Chief of Natural Resources, July 6, 1994 Bruce Mero, Chief of Environmental Management Flight, July 6, 1994 Dr. Thomas Thompson, Rome Laboratory Historian, July 11, 1994 SSgt Mark Stanley, Wing Historian, July 12,1994
VOLUME II-10: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE AT HOLLOMAN AIR FORCE BASE
Prepared by Karen Lewis David P. Staley Katherine J. Roxlau
October 1997
Volume II-10: Holloman Air Force Base
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Holloman Air Force Base was inventoried by Karen Lewis and David P. Staley of Mariah Associates, Inc. between March 16 and March 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. Information was gathered at the base from the Archaeologist,
Community Planner, Engineering Flight, and Drawing Room staff; the Real Property Office; Public Affairs; and from on-site inspections. During this research and inventory, property types were identified and then photographed. Eleven properties were evaluated as important properties within the base Cold War context. The majority of these are related to research and development, and testing conducted between 1947 and 1968. For the most part, these correspond to Phase I (19451953) and Phase II (1953-1963) as described in the Air Combat Command Cold War Context and Methodology document. However, some properties are related to the two subsequent phases of the Cold War.
Few documents or objects were discovered during the reconnaissance visit. Architectural drawing files were noted as a resource in the inventory. Most of the important originals have been copied into an archival system by the base archaeologist. Several missiles were located and documented in a fenced storage area near the base stables. These missiles were originally on static display near the base entrance; however, when Tactical Air Command became the base host, these missiles were moved to their current location.
ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACC ACHP AFB AFSC AGE AMC ARDC CASF CES CIGTF CRS DoD EMS FTD GAPA HABS HPP HQ ICBM LOX MAC Mariah NCO NHPA NORAD NPS NRHP OCONUS POL POW RATSCAT SAC SALT SDI SHPO START TAC TACAN USAF WRSK
Air Combat Command Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Air Force Base Air Force Systems Command Air Ground Equipment Air Materiel Command Air Research and Development Command Composite Air Strike Forces Civil Engineering Squadron Central Inertial Guidance Test Facility Component Repair Squadron Department of Defense Equipment Maintenance Squadron Field Training Detachment Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft Historic American Buildings Survey Historic Preservation Plan Headquarters Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Liquid Oxygen Military Airlift Command Mariah Associates, Inc. Noncommissioned Officer National Historic Preservation Act North American Aerospace Defense National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Off the Continental United States Petroleum, Oil and Lubricants Prisoner of War Radar Test Scatter Division Strategic Air Command Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty Strategic Defense Initiative State Historic Preservation Officer Strategic Arms Reduction Talks Tactical Air Command Tactical Air Navigation Station United States Air Force War Readiness Spares Kit
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. Bare Base - 49th Bare Base Systems Group provides personnel for the deployment, setup, operation, maintenance, and tear down of equipment in support of contingencies, exercises, counter-drug operations, and headquarters directed requirements. Bare Base can provide a functional base in any area possessing a usable runway and water resources. California Policy - Also known as dispersal policy. A policy passed by Congress that required military research and development to be dispersed and conducted away from the coasts. 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. Flexible Response - Also known as symmetrical response. Allowed for multiple levels of response giving policy makers wider choices than those of aggressor escalation. The United States has never been able to support this policy over an extended period of time. 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.
iv
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. Manhigh - A project which used balloons to test human physiology at high altitudes. 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. North American Aerospace Defense Command - a joint U.S.-Canadian installation, located inside a mountain in Colorado Springs, Colorado, that links a variety of radar and satellite monitoring systems and is alerted immediately of potential enemy attack. The facility then alerts the President and Secretary of Defense directly and coordinates efforts to determine an appropriate response. Operation Paperclip - Post World War II direct recruiting of European military scientists. Peenemunde - A World War II rocket facility in Germany. Many of the Operation Paperclip scientists were at Peenemunde, including Dr. Wernher von Braun. 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. Snark - A missile developed during Phases I and II. The missile was never capable of penetrating enemy defenses, and the program was cancelled early in the Kennedy administration. 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 deterioration 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.
vi
3.0 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 11 3.1 BASE HISTORY .................................................................................................................. 11 3.2 BASE COLD WAR CONTEXT .......................................................................................... 13 3.3 BASE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................... 15 4.0 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 20 4.1 INVENTORY ........................................................................................................................ 20 4.2 EVALUATION OF IMPORTANT RESOURCES ............................................................. 21 4.2.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 21 4.2.2 Evaluation of Importance ............................................................................................. 21 4.2.2.1 Cold War Context ............................................................................................... 21 4.2.2.2 NRHP Criteria..................................................................................................... 22 4.2.2.3 Exceptional Importance ...................................................................................... 23 4.2.3 Evaluation of Integrity.................................................................................................. 23 4.2.4 Priority Matrix .............................................................................................................. 24 4.2.5 Resource Organization ................................................................................................. 25 5.0 RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY RESULTS ..................................................................... 26 6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS......................................................................................................... 27 6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS ........................................................ 27 6.1.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 27 6.1.1.1 Architectural Drawing Files ............................................................................... 27 6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS ......................................................... 30 6.2.1 Alert Facilities .............................................................................................................. 30 6.2.1.1 Fighter Alert Facility........................................................................................... 30
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.2.2 Ground Vehicles and Equipment ................................................................................. 30 6.2.2.1 Bare Base Installation ......................................................................................... 30 6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES ..................................................................... 31 6.3.1 Research Laboratories .................................................................................................. 31 6.3.1.1 Medical Science Laboratories............................................................................. 31 6.3.1.2 Weapons Guidance Laboratory .......................................................................... 32 6.3.2 Test Sites ...................................................................................................................... 32 6.3.2.1 Tracking and Documentation ............................................................................. 32 6.3.2.2 Launch Ramp ...................................................................................................... 33 6.3.2.3 Blockhouses ........................................................................................................ 34 6.3.2.4 Test Track and Blockhouse ................................................................................ 35 6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES...................................................................................................... 36 6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES ............................................................................................ 37 6.5.1 Spy Satellites ................................................................................................................ 37 6.5.1.1 Deployable Warning Complex ........................................................................... 37 7.0 UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 38 8.0 FUTURE THREATS TO RESOURCES ................................................................................... 40 9.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 41 9.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY ............................................................................................................ 41 9.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility.................................................... 41 9.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility ................................................................................ 43 9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 44 9.2.1 Architectural Drawing Files ......................................................................................... 46 9.2.2 Fighter Alert Facility .................................................................................................... 46 9.2.3 Bare Base Installation................................................................................................... 47 9.2.4 Medical Science Laboratories ...................................................................................... 47 9.2.5 Weapons Guidance Laboratory.................................................................................... 47 9.2.6 Tracking and Documentation....................................................................................... 48 9.2.7 Launch Ramp ............................................................................................................... 48 9.2.8 Blockhouses ................................................................................................................. 48 9.2.9 Test Track and Blockhouse.......................................................................................... 48 9.2.10 Deployable Warning Complex .................................................................................. 49 10.0 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................. 50
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D: APPENDIX E: APPENDIX F: RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY BASE LAYOUT MAPS SHOWING INVENTORIED RESOURCES PHOTOGRAPHS OF INVENTORIED RESOURCES DATA BASE DOCUMENTATION FOR EVALUATED RESOURCES EXTANT SOURCES OF INFORMATION ADDITIONAL RESOURCES AND ASSOCIATED OBJECTS AND LITERARY MATERIAL
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4
Bases Selected for the Air Combat Command Cold War Study .............................. 2 Location of Holloman Air Force Base ...................................................................... 5 Standard Tactical Air Command Base Layout.......................................................... 7 Holloman Air Force Base Land Use Diagram ............................................................ 9 Standard Tactical Air Command Base Land Use Diagram ...................................... 10 Holloman Air Force Base, 1943 ................................................................................ 16 Holloman Air Force Base, 1952 ................................................................................ 17 Holloman Air Force Base, 1967-1985 ...................................................................... 18 Holloman Air Force Base, 1994 ................................................................................ 19
ix
LIST OF TABLES Page Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 9.1 Evaluated Resource Prioritization by Air Force Group and Subgroup .................... 28 Evaluated Resource Prioritization by Priority Rank ................................................. 29 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 resources inventoried and will assess 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 to assess Cold War related 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 properties. 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 Alamogordo, 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 coexistence, and a condition of detente was born.
This report is a reconnaissance inventory of Cold War related resources on Holloman Air Force Base (AFB). Holloman AFB, a former Tactical Air Command (TAC) installation, is one of the bases being evaluated in the attempt to determine the extent of the ACC Cold War cultural resources nationwide. As mentioned earlier, a final report will synthesize the individual base reports and provide initial management recommendations for evaluated resources.
Holloman AFB is the home of the 49th Fighter Wing which supports national security objectives as directed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The wing can rapidly mobilize and deploy F-117 Stealth fighter aircraft and personnel worldwide to meet peacetime and wartime contingencies. The wing also trains German air crews with the F-4E Phantom and Taiwan air crews with the AT-38B Talon. The 49th Wing maintains over 6,000 assigned personnel.
Holloman AFB is also home to the 4th Space Warning Squadron whose mission is to provide immediate, worldwide missile, space launch, and nuclear detonation warning to the North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD) Command, unified and specified commands, in-theater commanders, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the National Command Authorities (United States Air Force [USAF] 1993a). Another tenant unit is the 46th Test Group out of Eglin AFB, Florida, which operates the High Speed Test Track at Holloman AFB.
Holloman AFB is located in the Tularosa Basin of south-central New Mexico, approximately 7 mi (11 km) southwest of Alamogordo (Figure 2.1). The Tularosa Basin is a closed alluvial landform surrounded by the Sacramento Mountains on the east, the San Andreas and Organ Mountains on the west, and the Oscura Mountains and Chupadera Mesa on the north. No major streams or rivers exit the basin. The terrain of Holloman AFB is fairly flat with elevations ranging between 4,050 and 4,100 ft (1,234 and 1,250 m), with the exception of Tularosa Peak, which is 4,350 ft (1,326 m) above mean sea level (amsl). Tularosa Peak is at the northern end of the test track and east of the track terminus. The base shares borders with White Sands National Monument and White Sands Missile Range. White Sands Missile Range extends 100 mi (160 km) north-south and has a width of 40 mi (64 km).
Holloman AFB has a layout similar to a standard TAC base layout, including the airfield (Figure 2.2). Two major runways, constructed in 1943, run north-south and east-west and intersect at 90, and a taxiway encircles the airfield. An additional 1955 runway, located northwest of the main base, runs northeast to southwest. The original taxiway, which connects with the southern portion of the original runways, also connects with the main portion of the base. The mission related buildings and aprons run along the southern side of the connecting taxiway, providing a buffer to the main base. The industrial area is east of the mission area. Unaccompanied housing is located south of the mission structures, and community buildings are along the eastern edge of the unaccompanied housing and are oriented south and east. Headquarters (HQ) is at the center of the main base and is surrounded by mission, industrial, and community buildings. The main housing area (accompanied) is located farthest from the runway and adjacent to the entrance gate. There are open recreation areas in both the housing and community areas, and a golf course is located to the west. The area around the runways and taxiways is considered open space, where development may not occur.Holloman AFB differs from a standard TAC layout, in that it has a three area plan. The main base area discussed above is similar to the standard TAC plan, while the other two are individual. The north area is currently used as tenant space, and the west area consists of Bare Base, Administration, and the Stealth Fighter Mission.
2.4 BASE LAND USE
The following is a list of the standard TAC land use categories: Accompanied Housing - accommodations for married personnel and families, including temporary housing. Administrative - facilities that house administrative functions.
Community - facilities such as shopping areas, medical, and family support. Headquarters - buildings that houses administration for base wing. Industrial - facilities for the storage of supplies and maintenance operations for base facilities and utility systems, and 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. 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 between base facilities, safety clearances, secure areas, utility easements, and environmentally sensitive areas.
Base land use at Holloman AFB (Figure 2.3) generally resembles the standard TAC land use plan (Figure 2.4), but there are deviations. The most significant difference is the use of a three area layout. There is the main base and mission area, and then two remote mission areas along the taxiway. Currently the north area is occupied by tenants, and the west area is occupied by the F-117 hangars and operations, as well as Bare Base facilities. The main base area is similar to the typical TAC land use plan, with the mission, headquarters, and unaccompanied housing close to the airfield and aprons, and the recreational areas and housing on the entrance side of the base. The community area separates the housing from the mission activities, and the industrial area runs from the apron away from the main base, parallel with the main runway.
11
3.1 BASE HISTORY
The Alamogordo Bombing and Gunnery Range, a temporary wartime installation, was in use in 1941. Within months, the installation was elevated to Army Air Field status and was christened Alamogordo Army Air Field. The air field was originally planned as a British Overseas Training Program base. The base arrangement reflects the original three main areas (two separate
hangar/mission areas on the circular taxiway and a main base with housing and administration) typical of Royal Air Force base design (Mattson n.d. b). However, the British never arrived to train at Alamogordo. Between 1942 and 1946, the base was primarily used as a training base for B-24, B-17 Flying Fortress, and later B-29 Superfortress aircraft. The unique facilities,
environment, and isolated nature of the base drew attention for a possible missile development base in 1943; however, Alamogordo Army Air Field was passed over, and early missile development was begun at Wendover AFB, Utah. On February 28, 1946, the Alamogordo field was temporarily deactivated (Department of the Air Force 1986:3; Meeter 1967:185; USAF 1989).
The base was reopened in April of 1946 as an operational base for the Strategic Air Command (SAC). During 1946, the post was first commanded by the 15th Air Force followed by the 8th Air Force (Department of the Air Force 1986:3). The Air Force became a separate military branch in 1947, and the base was renamed Alamogordo AFB (Meeter 1967:186).
Air Materiel Command (AMC) (later Air Force Logistics Command) acquired the base from SAC in March 1947 for use as the Air Force's Guided Missile Test Range. The mission of the base was to support the AMC Research and Development Program by providing facilities to develop and test pilotless aircraft, guided missiles, and associated systems and equipment. Missile research began immediately upon AMC's assumption of command. Many of the
facilities and personnel from Wendover, Utah were transferred to Alamogordo AFB. The first
12
missile, a Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft (GAPA), was launched on July 23, 1947. The GAPA ultimately evolved into the Bomarc missile (Department of the Air Force 1986:3; Mattson n.d. b; Meeter 1967:185-186; Mueller 1989:248; USAF 1950).
The base was renamed Holloman AFB in honor of Colonel George Vernon Holloman in September 1948. Col. Holloman was an aviation instrument inventor and a pioneer in the development of guided missiles. In 1937, Holloman, Captain Carl Crane, and Raymond Stout developed the automatic landing system. He received the Distinguished Flying Cross for conducting the first instrument-only landing of aircraft. Holloman died in a B-17 crash on Formosa on March 19, 1946 (Holmes and Narver, Inc. 1965; Mueller 1989:245).
In April 1951, the base came under the jurisdiction of the newly formed Air Research and Development Command (ARDC) with the designation of 6540th Missile Test Wing. At first a satellite of the Air Force Missile Test Center at Patrick AFB, Florida, Holloman AFB became a separate center in September 1952. The missile facilities at Holloman AFB were renamed the Holloman Air Development Center in October 1952 under the command of the ARDC. The facilities were again renamed in September 1957 as the Air Force Missile Development Center. The ARDC was redesignated the Air Force Systems Command (AFSC) in 1961 (Department of the Air Force 1986:3; Meeter 1967:185-186). AFSC is currently an active tenant of the base.
After the dedication of Patrick AFB in 1950, many of the missile programs initially tested at Holloman AFB--Matador, Rascal, Snark, and Navajo--were transferred to that base (United States Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory 1994). Holloman AFB programs were
integrated into those of the White Sands Proving Ground in 1952 when the Proving Ground was redesignated the Integrated White Sands Missile Range (Eidenbach 1994:3).
The base mission did not change between 1957-1970 while under the command of AFSC. Other technical programs were added to the base mission including the inertial guidance laboratories and the aeromedical field laboratories. The high speed test track was extended and gained national
13
recognition.
This track was instrumental in the advancement of missile flight technology
(Department of the Air Force 1986:3).
Holloman AFB remained active in guided missile and space research and development until 1968, when the 49th Tactical Fighter Wing was assigned to the base. The Air Force Missile Development Center was deactivated in 1970, and the 49th Wing assumed host responsibilities for the base. In 1971, TAC assumed command of the base.
3.2 BASE COLD WAR CONTEXT
Holloman AFB has been significantly shaped by various political policies, military policies, defense strategies, and technological developments that are aspects of the ACC Cold War context. Several properties at the base represent aspects of these contextual themes. Perhaps the most obvious part Holloman AFB played in the history of the Cold War relates to technological developments that were driven by political and military policies. Holloman AFB contributed to the sense of national security by being at the forefront of developing ever greater technical expertise and "bigger and better" weapons systems.
Holloman's relationship to technological development is clearest during the earliest phases of the Cold War--Phase I (1945-1953) and Phase II (1953-1963). The base's use by SAC was primarily for research and development and the testing of missiles. Holloman AFB saw the advancement of missiles and rockets from the inclined launch to vertical launches. Numerous missiles were developed and tested at the base. These include the Snark, Matador, Mace, Falcon, Aerobee, JB-2 Loon, and Firebee. High altitude weather and research balloons were launched from Holloman AFB. The Manhigh project used balloons to test human physiology at high altitude. The
Aeromedical Research Laboratory conducted a wide array of tests on the High Speed Test Track, the Daisy Track, and other shorter tracks. One of these experiments made Colonel John P. Stapp the "fastest man alive" and another tested Captain Eli J. Breeding, Jr. at a sustained force of 83 g's. The Primate Research Facility at the Aeromedical Research Laboratory trained HAM, the first
14
chimpanzee in suborbital flight, and Enos, the first chimpanzee in orbit.
Other complexes
supporting important research at the base included the Central Inertial Guidance Test Facility (CIGTF) and the Radar Target Scatter Test Facility (Department of the Air Force 1986:3; Mattson n.d. b; Meeter 1967:185-186; Mueller 1989:248).
Many of the researchers at Holloman AFB were scientists recruited from post-World War II Germany under Operation Paperclip. Operation Paperclip was an early Cold War political and military strategy to ensure scientific and military superiority. In one of the earliest manifestations in the Cold War arms race, the United States and the Soviet Union fiercely competed for the Peenemunde rocket scientists. The earliest missile tests and prototypes were based on the German V-2 rocket. Much of the early rocket testing and tracking equipment was of German make or design. Also, the architecture of some of the early rocket test facilities carries a German style.
Another political policy and military strategy with direct links to Holloman AFB is the Killian Report of 1954. This report strongly supported the development of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), particularly the development of the Atlas. In 1955, President Eisenhower gave his highest priority to the development of Atlas. Simultaneously, the Eisenhower administration was supporting the "dispersal" or "California" policy which required that research and development be conducted away from the seacoasts for defensive, and probably economic and political reasons. Much of the fiscal support of the Snark testing at Holloman AFB is a result of Eisenhower's support of ICBMs and the Atlas. The construction of several other test facilities at Holloman AFB is related to the rush to develop the Atlas at a noncoastal location.
In Phase III (1963-1981), Holloman AFB continued many aspects of missile research and became a tactical fighter base and later a TAC base. Many of the Bare Base (post 1972) and alert facilities (1976) were constructed during this phase. The concept of a TAC force rapidly deployable to locations throughout the world is an outgrowth of the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the Domino principle. The Soviet Union was not risking an all-out war with the United States, but draining resources through a series of smaller wars. In response to this, the United States developed TAC
15
Composite Air Strike Forces (CASF) designed to operate with minimal support at any distance from the United States. Since it's development, the rapid deployment of CASF has been thought of as a deterrent to limited wars (USAF 1961:318-323).
The base remained a TAC base throughout Phase IV (1981-1989). During this phase, the base began support of the 4th Space Warning Squadron which continues to provide instantaneous worldwide missile warning and functions as a critical link in the command, control, communication, and intelligence system.
In 1943, the base had a three area layout with the area named the "main base" the largest. This area included mission facilities and housing; two smaller areas (north and west) were solely mission related (Figure 3.1). By 1952, the base had spread to the south primarily with the development of housing (Figure 3.2). This expansion was likely related to the National Housing Act (WherrySpence Act) of 1949 and the chronic housing shortage suffered by the USAF after World War II. In 1967, the main base was expanded on the southwest and southeast, with more housing. Outer areas were also developed including expansion in the western area and the fuel area on the eastern side of the base (Figure 3.3). These construction projects were probably related to the military buildup during the Vietnam War and the adaptations by the Air Force to the political/military policy of Flexible Response. There was no physical expansion of the base up through 1985, but by 1994, the main base had been enlarged, the western area grew substantially and the northern area received pockets of development associated with the 4th Space Warning Squadron. The last surge of development is linked to the Carter and Reagan administrations requirements for command, control, communication, and intelligence improvements and the acquisition of the Stealth Fighter (Figure 3.4).
20
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the reconnaissance inventory of Holloman AFB was developed to help ACC meet 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
21
As part of the reconnaissance inventory of Holloman 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 Holloman 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.
22
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 1993b) 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;
23
24
25
26
During the reconnaissance inventory of Holloman AFB, 116 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.
27
Eleven resources were evaluated at Holloman AFB, 10 of them falling under the DoD category of real property and one under records/documents. Each resource is discussed below 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.
6.1.1 Documentation
The architectural drawing files are located in the 49th Civil Engineering Squadron's (CES) Engineering Flight drawing vault. There are six, floor to ceiling rows of flat files filled with mylar and linen originals, sepias, and blueprints of construction documents and as-builts. The files are arranged by building number for the most part, but some are arranged by property type, such as taxiways and runway lighting. Some of the more important historic originals have been pulled from the files by the CES Archaeologist. It is intended to develop a system to archivally store the historic drawing file documents. Also located in the drawing room are project files (8 x 11) for construction projects on base.
30
The fighter alert complex, built in 1976, consists of a three-stall aircraft hangar, crew house, an administrative facility, vehicles, and ground equipment that supports the active air defense alert mission. The complex remains actively used, and crews are on 24-hour alert. This is an example of a TAC defensive alert or intercept complex with integrity of setting, location, and association. It is exceptionally significant for its role in deterrence during Phases III and IV and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
6.2.2 Ground Vehicles and Equipment
6.2.2.1 Bare Base Installation (Resource Nos. 1012, Real Property Nos. 901 and 902)
The 449th Mobility Support squadron was formed at Holloman AFB in March 1972. This mission is now undertaken by the 49th Bare Base Systems Group. Bare Base is the only unit in the Air Force to maintain support equipment to establish a tactical base of operations at any remote location in the world (Department of the Air Force 1986:4). The Bare Base installation is located in Holloman's western area, occupies a large number of buildings including two warehouses (901, 902) built in 1959, and has a taxiway and aprons connecting to the installation for ease of loading and unloading materiel and equipment into the warehouses. There are stacks of equipment and canvas quonset huts around the compound which are ready to move out at a moment's notice.
The Bare Base Installation that occupies the western area of Holloman AFB, includes a large number of buildings, a taxiway, and aprons. Because the compound is operational, all elements of
31
its integrity are intact. The site is important for its relationship to the concept of Global Reach and mobility. The capability of tactical air power to rapidly deploy worldwide contributed to overall deterrence during the Cold War. The Bare Base Installation has been functional during Phases III and IV of the Cold War and meets NRHP criterion (a).
6.3.1 Research Laboratories
6.3.1.1 Medical Science Laboratories (Resource No. 1014, Real Property Nos. 1200-1207)
The historic aeromedical research facilities are located in the vicinity of buildings 1200-1207 which are named Medical Science Laboratories on the real property inventory. Construction in this area began as early as 1951. Improvements to these facilities were made in 1961 and 1963 with larger cages for the chimpanzees and larger offices for the humans (Cornett 1963). The modern
aeromedical science labs are now run by the New Mexico State University and are located north of the old labs. The modern complex includes laboratories, a clean room, animal holding areas, and a chimpanzee consortium to support research.
The original laboratory was used for animal tests to determine the effects of space environments, both physiologically and psychologically, as well as to train the lab's two most famous chimpanzees, Enos and HAM, for the project Mercury space flight during the early 1960s (Cornett 1962). The lab also housed the Daisy Test Track, which was a pneumatically propelled
deceleration test track, named after the Daisy compressed air BB gun. The track, first used in 1955, tested human tolerances, prototype restraint systems, and equipment and animal tolerances. There were six different sleds designed for different types of tests (Mattson n.d. a). The original buildings are concrete block, are painted a tan color, and have slightly curved parapets, similar to an adobe building. They retain their integrity. They are the only buildings on base with a southwestern
32
regional style. The buildings have functioned as medical science laboratories during all four Phases of the Cold War and meet NRHP criterion (a).
6.3.1.2 Weapons Guidance Laboratory (Resource No. 1018, Real Property No. 1264)
The Weapons Guidance Laboratory, more specifically the CIGTF, was established to consolidate manpower and equipment required to test precision inertial navigation and guidance systems. Subsequently, the CIGTF has also become the test agency for all aircraft inertial navigators prior to selection in the DoD inventory. The CIGTF tests and evaluates gyroscopes, accelerometers, aircraft navigation systems, and missile guidance systems (Department of the Air Force 1986:11).
The complex consists of two large span, two story buildings and a one story long, horizontal building. These buildings housed and continue to support research on guidance and navigation systems. These systems were integral to the evolution of ICBMs and other aeronautical weapons. The complex conveys its significance through its location, setting, and association. This laboratory was used for this function during Phases II through IV and meets NRHP criterion (a).
6.3.2 Test Sites
6.3.2.1 Tracking and Documentation (Resource No. 1001, Real Property Nos. 900, 1133, and 1249)
These installations, also known as "Askania" Towers, were once used to track and document the trajectory of test missiles with theodolites and cameras. Twelve of these towers were constructed in 1954, laid out in a staggered parallel array. Three of the towers are on Holloman AFB, while nine others are on the White Sands Missile Range. The theodolite towers are poured concrete structures with retracting metal roofs. The buildings are approximately 12 ft (3.7 m) wide by 2.5 stories tall. The metal roof panels retract along small metal I-beams to expose platforms that
33
once held theodolites and cameras. The cameras, made by the Askania Company of Germany (and thus the name Askania Towers), were revealed when the roof was retracted by a concrete counterweight. The buildings originally had associated outhouses and generator shelters, as well as the name of the site written with stones on the northern side of the buildings. It is believed that "Paperclip" scientists may have been involved in the tower design. By 1986, one of the theodolite towers was being used as a Defense Mapping Agency instrument station in support of the High Speed Test Track (Department of the Air Force 1986:14). The stone names are still onsite at three of the buildings and an Askania film reader is on display at the Space Center in Alamogordo.
The "Askania" Towers were used to track and document the trajectory of test missiles. Many of the associated structures and some elements of the towers, cooling systems, and gas tanks, are missing, but even without them the tower structures convey meaning through their design, materials, location, and association. The towers have both architectural and technological importance in that they are unique architectural entities that tracked and aided in the research and development of missiles. This resource was used for this function during Phases II and III of the Cold War and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
6.3.2.2 Launch Ramp (Resource No. 1003)
This missile, the JB-2 Loon, was a variation of the German V-1, or buzz bomb. The JB portion of its name stands for jet bomb. The missile was employed during the late 1940s as a vehicle to test instrumentation equipment and also to refine methods of missile study. The 400 ft (122 m) long, two-railed, earthen inclined launching ramp for the JB-2 was completed at Holloman AFB in February 1948. The first inclined, metal rail test launches occurred during that year (Bushnell 1959:9; USAF 1948:35)
Many elements of the original launch facility are eroding and decomposing. The remaining earthen ramp, concrete cap, iron rails, crumbling concrete tanks, stairs and walkways, and wooden stairs
34
and platforms still possess integrity and convey the launch facility's meaning through the design, materials, location, and association. The launch site has both architectural and technological importance, in that the ramp is a unique representation of an earthen, inclined launch track associated with early research on guided missiles.
This same launch track was previously used at Wendover AFB, Utah. The track was moved from Utah and reassembled in New Mexico as the Air Force transferred it's early guided missile program from Wendover to Holloman AFB. The track was never used for any other purpose than to test launch the JB-2. However, additions to the track, such as concrete stairs and pads, were added for use by the Falcon missile program. By 1959, the track was abandoned and overgrown with
tumbleweeds (Bushnell 1959:9). This exceptionally important resource was used for this function during Phases I and II of the Cold Was and meets NRHP criterion (a).
6.3.2.3 Blockhouses (Resource No. 1004, Real Property Nos. 1116, 1139, and 1142)
Near the JB-2 Loon launch ramp site are a group of poured concrete blockhouses and associated concrete launch pads that were used for Aerobee and NATIV research missiles, currently referred to as Non-Appropriated Fund Central Storage. Aerobee missiles were used as the "workhorses of high-altitude research" (USAF 1961:17). The Aerobee was unique in that it had no external guidance controls. The NATIV was a winged surface to surface missile. The three blockhouses were used to guide the launches and protect the scientists from heat and the potential for an explosive accident, and are similar in design. These exceptionally important resources were used as blockhouses during Phases II and III of the Cold War and meet NRHP criteria (a) and (c). The concrete is approximately 2 ft (0.6 m) thick, including the walls, hipped roof, and lean-to entry. Each building has a series of steel rod access steps, called "manhole steps," to the roof, with a kind of "widow's walk." Although each building's window details are slightly different, the basic design is the same. The windows are set back from the main facade by a series of 0.5 ft (0.2 m) recesses. The glazing is approximately two inches thick, constructed of four to five layers of bullet-proof glass, greenish in color due to the lead content. The exterior trim is -inch steel
35
plate, angled in elevation, and set into the final concrete recess. A photograph of a Holloman AFB Aerobee launch, including the tower, can be seen in Fundamentals of Aerospace Weapon Systems (USAF 1961:18).
Although none of the electronic launch or monitoring equipment remains on the interior and the buildings are now used for the storage of sports equipment, the structures themselves visually convey their original use from the exterior. The launch sites or concrete firing aprons are
contributing elements but do not individually convey their meaning. The NATIV launch site has some of the remains of the concrete slab that originally supported the tilted, 18 steel launch tower. The type of construction may have the potential to reveal some information about the launch site engineering.
6.3.2.4 Test Track and Blockhouse (Resource Nos. 1009 and 1010, Real Property Nos. 39710 and 1175)
The High Speed Test Track became operational in 1950 and has continued operation through all Phases of the Cold War. The track has evolved into the longest (9.8 mi [16 km]) most precisely surveyed, most accurately aligned, and best instrumented test facility of its kind in the United States. The track simulates various portions of flight trajectories under closely controlled and monitored conditions. Test vehicles are mounted on sleds propelled by liquid or solid rockets. Sled speeds often reach 7,000 ft (2,134 m) per second and speeds up to 8,200 ft (2,500 m) per second have been demonstrated (Department of the Air Force 1986:11; Mattson n.d. c). The current goal of the test track is to attain Mach 10 (approximately 11,000 ft (3,350 m) per second at sea level), as evidenced by the signs near the test track, "Think Mach 10!" This test track is a scientific property that has been in continual use since its inception and conveys its meaning through location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
The test track has been used for a wide variety of experiments involving rockets, engines, fuselage design, and aeromedical research. One of the earliest and most famous of rockets
36
launched from the track was the Snark, an intercontinental cruise missile, between 1950 and 1952. The Matador recovery system was tested between 1953 and 1956 (Bushnell 1959). Aeromedical research on ejection seats and human responses to wind blast was conducted at the track. The most famous experiment involved Lt. Col. John P. Stapp who rode a rocket-propelled sled at a record speed of 632 mi (1,017 km) per hour in December of 1954. The experiment proved a pilot could withstand the blast received by ejecting from a jet at 35,000 ft (10,668 m) and at twice the speed of sound. The experiment justified the continued use of an ejector seat (Goldberg 1957:206; Meeter 1967:1).
Support and technical facilities are located at the southeastern end of the track. Blockhouses, called test track buildings in the real property inventory, are positioned along the western side of the track at various positions along the length of the track. The Alpha Blockhouse is primarily underground with a periscope observation window facing the southern end of the track. A Central Control building is located at the midway point. Running parallel to the track are a series of instrumentation and camera stations. Across the street, to the southeast of Alpha Blockhouse, is a test sled "bone yard" (open storage of sled frames used on the test track) which contains a wide variety of sled frames used at the track. These exceptionally important resources meet NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
None were evaluated at Holloman AFB.
6.5.1 Spy Satellites
6.5.1.1 Deployable Warning Complex (Resource No. 1015, Real Property Nos. 1062 and 1065)
The mission of this tenant unit is to provide immediate, worldwide missile warning, space launch,
37
and nuclear detonation detection to NORAD, various commands, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and National Command authorities. The 4th Satellite Communications Squadron arrived at Holloman AFB in 1983 as a tenant reporting to the Air Force Space Command and provided a critical link in the command, control, communication, and intelligence system that is part of the overall nuclear deterrent (USAF 1993a). The unit uses the only deployable satellite communications ground system in the continental United States. The deployable system guarantees survivability of the detection and communication system in case of attack. The unit was declassified in 1992 and renamed the 4th Space Warning Squadron (Romain 1993:6-7). The complex continues to be operational and its integrity is intact. It is exceptionally important for its relationship to the expansion of command, control, communications, and intelligence systems initiated during the Carter administration. The continued improvement by this system contributed to the nation's deterrent ability. This resource provided this deterrence during Phase IV of the Cold War and meets NRHP criterion (a).
38
During the fieldwork at the base, the field team could not inventory all the resources available to them due to time limitations. One area that should be investigated further is the International Space Hall of Fame (Space Center). The Space Center in Alamogordo, New Mexico, has a wealth of information about Holloman AFB during the Cold War, as well as some of the material culture. Some of the properties on display or in curation, have been accessioned by the museum through Air Force channels and others are on loan. One important property that the museum has recently acquired is the Daisy Test Track and some of the original sleds. Examples of important properties on loan are the Sonic Wind I Rocket Sled, JB-2 Loon Rocket, X-8 Aerobee, and various LIFE magazines with covers and articles about Cold War related events. An International Space Hall of Fame property accession list and a listing of the oral histories conducted and on file at this institution are included in Appendix F.
Several missiles are located within a fenced storage area near the base stables. The missiles are dumped within the storage area and exact types and numbers could not be ascertained. These missiles were originally on static display near the base entrance. They were placed in storage subsequent to TAC becoming base host. These missiles are now in storage at the International Space Hall of Fame.
The Air Force Historical Research Agency at Maxwell AFB, Alabama is the repository for all Air Force Historical documents. A computerized search for materials related to Holloman AFB revealed over 1200 citations. Most of these are unit histories and special collections. More specific topics include the histories of aeromedical research, aerospace research, technical studies at the high speed sled track, and other highly technical scientific reports. The vast majority of these documents are available on microfilm. Any further and more comprehensive studies of Cold War history at Holloman should allot more time and energy to researching these documents. As of the writing of this report, researchers at Holloman are in the process of gathering several of these documents from Maxwell to be curated at Holloman for future research.
39
The purpose of the reconnaissance inventory was to provide initial information on the kinds of Cold War resources extant on Holloman AFB. As part of the process, various people at the base were contacted. A list of these contacts, plus a list of informal interviews conducted by the field team at the base, are presented in Appendix E.
40
The base is planning to reduce spatial and energy inefficiencies through consolidating uses and rehabilitating or demolishing pre-1951 structures. The base also has a Historic Preservation Plan (Eidenbach 1994) and a cultural resource manager to aid in the Section 106 process, with respect to structures, that may be eligible for the NRHP. The base planning office has also determined types of land use on base to aid in efforts to make the base more efficient. The list of capital
improvement projects currently planned that may impact important historic properties and resources include the following:
Addition to Test Track Mission Control-Alpha Blockhouse (noted as exceptionally important in the present inventory) Replace Small Aircraft Maintenance Dock, Real Property No. 500 (noted as important in inventory) Replace World War II Maintenance Aircraft Hangars (noted in inventory) Capehart and Wherry Housing Upgrade (ongoing) Dormitory Alterations (ongoing)
There are several ongoing Legacy funded studies at Holloman AFB that are related to the Cold War. One is a study of military architecture of the 1940s and 1950s, and the other is a
documentation of early missile and rocket development sites. These studies will provide detailed, comprehensive investigations and preservation recommendations at both the local and national levels.
41
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 Holloman 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.
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, because the resources that were evaluated achieved importance during the Cold War era, thus are currently less than 50 years old. Finally, resources must possess
42
integrity of at least two of the following: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
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 Holloman 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
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 Holloman AFB have not been evaluated, and thus must be considered and treated as eligible until an evaluation and determination of eligibility are made.
43
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 predetermined eligibility. Therefore, it is necessary to reevaluate unlisted historic properties periodically.
44
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.
Recommendations for the evaluated resources at Holloman AFB are presented below. Table 9.1 summarizes these recommendations. More than one recommendation may apply to a given
46
The architectural drawing files include mylar and linen originals, sepias, and blueprints of Holloman AFB. Efforts are already underway by the base archaeologist to archivally store some of the historic documents. Stewardship of the files is recommended, along with continuance of the preservation and documentation efforts.
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases III and IV. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) based on its role to intercept any incursion into U.S. airspace by the enemy 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 remains intact. Therefore, this building is recommended as eligible to the NRHP.
47
9.2.3 Bare Base Installation (Resource No. 1012, Real Property Nos. 901 and 902)
This installation is evaluated as important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases III and IV. It meets NRHP criterion (a) based on its role in global reach and mobility. The integrity of the installation is determined to be intact based upon its continued use as a Bare Base Installation. However, this facility does not meet the 50-year criterion for NRHP eligibility. Therefore, it is not recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Stewardship to retain its integrity and further documentation to reevaluate the facility when it reaches the 50-year criterion are recommended.
9.2.4 Medical Science Laboratories (Resource No. 1014, Real Property Nos. 1200-1207)
This complex is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during all four Phases. It meets NRHP criterion (a) based on its association with the space program and specifically the training of the chimpanzees used in the Mercury space flight. The integrity of the complex is determined to be intact. Therefore, these buildings are recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Recommendations include stewardship to retain the integrity of the complex and further documentation to nominate this resource to the NRHP.
9.2.5 Weapons Guidance Laboratory (Resource No. 1018, Real Property No. 1264)
This resource is determined to be exceptionally important to the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II through IV. It meets NRHP criterion (a) and maintains its integrity. Therefore, this resource is recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Stewardship to maintain the integrity and further documentation to nominate the resource to the NRHP are also recommended.
48
9.2.6 Tracking and Documentation (Resource No. 1001, Real Property Nos. 900, 1133, and 1249)
This resource is determined to be exceptionally important to the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II and III. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) and maintains its integrity. Therefore, this resource is recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Stewardship to maintain its integrity and further documentation to nominate the resource to the NRHP are also recommended.
9.2.7 Launch Ramp (Resource No. 1003)
This launch ramp is determined to be exceptionally important to the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases I and II. It meets NRHP criterion (a) and maintains its integrity. Therefore, this launch ramp is recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Stewardship to maintain its integrity, conservation to prevent and repair any decomposition, and further documentation to nominate the resource to the NRHP are also recommended.
9.2.8 Blockhouses (Resource No. 1004, Real Property Nos. 1116, 1139, and 1142)
These blockhouses are determined to be exceptionally important to the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II and III. They meet NRHP criteria (a) and (c) and maintain their integrity. Therefore, they are recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Stewardship to maintain their integrity and further documentation to nominate the resources to the NRHP are also recommended.
9.2.9 Test Track and Blockhouse (Resource Nos. 1009 and 1010, Real Property Nos. 39710 and 1175)
49
These resources are determined to be exceptionally important to the base and national Cold War contexts during all Phases, meet NRHP criteria (a) and (c), and maintain their integrity. Therefore, these resources are recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Stewardship to maintain their integrity and further documentation to nominate the resources to the NRHP are also recommended.
9.2.10 Deployable Warning Complex (Resource No. 1015, Real Property Nos. 1062, 1065)
This resource is exceptionally important to the base and national Cold War contexts during Phase IV. It meets NRHP criterion (a) and retains its integrity. recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Therefore, this resource is
Stewardship to maintain the integrity and further
documentation to nominate the resource to the NRHP are also recommended.
50
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. Bushnell, D. 1959 Origin and Operation of the First Holloman Track. Volume I. History of Tracks and Track Testing at the Air Force Missile Development Center, Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico 1949-1956. Historical Branch, Office of Information, Air Force Missile Development Center, Air Research and Development Command, United States Air Force. Cornett, L. H., Jr. 1962 History of the 6571st Aeromedical Research Laboratory, AMD January 1962 - June 1962. Historical Division, Office of Information, Air Force Missile Development Center, Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. 1963 History of the 6571st Aeromedical Research Laboratory, AMD July 1962 - December 1963. Historical Division, Office of Information, Air Force Missile Development Center, Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. Department of the Air Force 1986 Installation Survey Report. Holloman Air Force Base. Alamogordo, New Mexico. GSA Control Number 5700-24422. Office, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Installations). Department of Defense 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. Eidenbach, P. L. 1994 Historic Preservation Plan, Final. United States Air Force, Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. Prepared by Human Systems Research, Inc. for Holloman Air Force Base and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque District. Goldberg, A. (editor) 1957 A History of the United States Air Force 1907-1957. D. Van Nostrand. Princeton, New Jersey.
51
Holmes and Narver, Inc. 1965 Master Plan for Air Force Missile Development Center Phase II Report. Prepared Under Contract AF 29(600)-5222 for Holloman Air Force Base, Air Force Systems Command, September 16, 1965. 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. Mattson, Col. W. n.d. a Daisy Track. In We Develop Missiles, Not Air. Holloman AFB Cultural Resources Publication No. 2. Alamogordo, New Mexico. n.d. b Holloman Air Force Base. In We Develop Missiles, Not Air. Holloman AFB Cultural Resources Publication No. 2. Alamogordo, New Mexico. n.d. c Test Tracks. In We Develop Missiles, Not Air. Holloman AFB Cultural Resources Publication No. 2. Alamogordo, New Mexico. Meeter, G. F. 1967 The Holloman Story. The University of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque, New Mexico. Mueller, R. 1989 Air Force Bases, Vol. I, Active Air Force Bases Within the United States of America on 17 September 1982. Office of Air Force History: Washington, D.C. 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. Neufeld, J. 1990 The Development of Ballistic Missiles in the United States Air Force 1945-1960. Office of Air Force History: Washington, D.C.
52
Romain, A., Sr. 1993 Mobile Eyes . . . . Guardian. November 1993. 21st Space Wing: Public Affairs. United States Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory 1994 Draft Report - Historical and Architectural Documentation Reports of Patrick Air Force Base, Cocoa Beach, Florida. Tri-Services Cultural Resources Research Center. Champaign, Illinois. United States Air Force 1948 Historical Study, United States Air Force Guided Missile Test Program, Holloman Air Force Base, 1 January 1948 - 30 June 1948. Alamogordo, New Mexico. 1950 GAPA Holloman's First Missile Program, 1947-1950. Historical Branch Office of Information Services. Air Force Missile Development Center.
1961 Fundamentals of Aerospace Weapon Systems. Air Force ROTC. Air University. United States Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. 1989 Horizons 2000, Holloman Air Force Base Commander's Long-Range Facility Improvement Plan. Headquarters 833D Air Division, Tactical Air Command. Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. 1993a Welcome to . . . Holloman Air Force Base New Mexico. Public Affairs Office, 49th Fighter Wing, Holloman Air Force Base. MARCOA Publishing Incorporated, 1993. 1993b 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.
Volume II-10 : Holloman Air Force Base
E-1
BASE/COMMUNITY CONTACTS The following people were contacted during the base visit by the field team to help identify Cold War material culture extant on Holloman AFB and to provide research materials for this study: Martyn Tagg, Archaeologist Environmental Flight 49CES/CEV Holloman AFB, NM 88330-8458 (505) 475-3931 Sgt. Person, Drafting Room Environmental Flight 49 CES/CEV Holloman AFB, NM 88330-8458 (505) 475-7869 Sam Sandoval, Community Planner Environmental Flight 49 CES/CEV Holloman AFB, NM 88330-8458 (505) 475-3497 Diana Moya, Real Property Manager Facility Office Holloman AFB, NM 88330-8458 (505) 475-3498 MSgt. Albert Mack, Wing Historian (on leave during inventory) 49th FW Headquarters 490 First Street, Ste. 1300 Holloman AFB, NM 88330-8458 (505) 475-7908
E-2
J.R. Gomalack 4th Space Command Holloman AFB, NM 88330-8458 (505) 475-1517 Peter L. Eidenbach Box 174 High Rolls, NM 88325-0174 (505) 682-2010 George M. House, Curator Space Center P.O. Box 533 Alamogordo, NM 88311-0533 (505) 437-2840 Col. Wayne Mattson, USAF (Ret.) Volunteer, Space Center P.O. Box 533 Alamogordo, NM 88311-0533 (505) 437-2840
E-3
The following individuals were identified during our investigations as people with some knowledge of base history during the Cold War. They were either unavailable during the investigation or possess much more information than could be documented during this preliminary survey.
Mr. Ron Shotter Anderson AFB Guam DSN 88-366-5087 (671) 632-3271 Col. John P. Stapp 1413 Rockwood Drive Alamogordo, NM 88311-0533 (505) 437-3645 Mr. Dee Gragg Sr. Analyst High Speed Test Track Holloman AFB, NM 88330-8458 (505) 679-2502 Mr. Gragg is reported to possess large inventory of documentary materials and film footage.
E-4
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 Holloman AFB history and Cold War context.
George House, Director, Space Center, March 21, 1994 Diana Moya, Real Property, March 17, 18, and 21, 1994 Sam Sandoval, Community Planner, March 18 and 21, 1994 J.R. Gomalak, 4th Space Warning Squadron, Environmental Scientist, March 18 and 21, 1994 Mike Galifano, High Speed Test Track Manager, March 18, 1994
APPENDIX F:
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES AND ASSOCIATED OBJECTS AND LITERARY MATERIAL
F-1
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
RADAR TEST SCATTER DIVISION
The Radar Test Scatter Division (RATSCAT) is designed to measure the radar cross sections and antenna patterns of aircraft and other systems. Although associated with other test facilities located on the base, this system is located on White Sands Missile Range and was not documented during this inventory. These test facilities may be significant in the development of radar and radar evasion technologies. The test site continues to be used.
ASSOCIATED OBJECTS AND LITERARY MATERIAL
The Space Center and International Space Hall of Fame in Alamogordo have vast holdings of objects and documents within their study files. Finding guides have been developed to assist research. Additionally, the facility holds over 5,000 uncatalogued and unidentified photographs, various films and videotapes of experiments, and a collection of oral history tapes and transcripts. Table F.1 provides a list of oral history transcripts and Table F.2 presents a list of the museums holdings.
Additional historic photographs are reported to be in the possession of several individuals. Base aerial photographs dating to the 1960s and 1970s may be available from a Mr. Robert Schaeffer, an employee of Base Operations. Sam Sandoval, of Community Planning, has June 14, 1990 aerials by Thomas Mann & Associates, Inc. (DACA47-89-D-0015).
F-2
Table F.1
Last Name Curatolo Dittmer Douglas Fulwyler Haney Hess Hessburg Jaenke
Space Center Oral History Interviews.

First Name Lou Ed William K. Niles J. Paul Ulysses W. Rufus Martin G. Rank or Title Mr. SMSgt. USAF (Ret.) Col., MC, USAF (Ret.) Dr. Maj. Gen Us Army (Ret.) Mr. Lt. Col., USAF (Ret.) Dr. Dr. General Subject Index NASA, WSSH Manhigh, HAM Project Mercury M.D. Former WSMR Commander NASA's "voice of mission control" HAFB History Aeromed Pioneer Former Head CIGTF Editorial Restrictions Open Public Open Public Public Open Public Perm. to Quote/ Site/ Reproduce Open Public Public Perm. to Quote/ Site/ Reproduce Open Open Public Public Public Permission required to access Media Available
Audiotape/ Transcript Audiotape/ Transcript Audiotape/ Transcript Video/Audio/Tra nscript Interview being transcribed Audiotape/ Transcript Audiotape/ Transcript Video/Audio/Tra nscript Audiotape/ Transcript Audiotape/ Transcript Audiotape/ Transcript Audiotape/ Transcript Audiotape/ Transcript Audiotape/ Transcript Audiotape/ Transcript Audiotape/ Transcript Audiotape/ Transcript Audiotape/ Transcript
Mattson McClure Mullane Orbison
Wayne O. Clifton M. Richard (Mike) James J.
Lt. Col., USAF (Ret.) Mr. USAF (Ret.) SMSgt. USAF (Ret.) MSgt. USAF (Ret.) Major USAF (Ret.) Dr. Col., USAF (Ret.) Dr. Mr. Mrs.
Sounding Rockets Project Manhigh Shuttle Astronaut Space Probes, Shuttle
Poitra Reiners Simon Simmons Snow Sommers
Albert Art George W. David G. Louis L. Cynthia
Early History Holloman AFB Aerospace Technology Sunspot, Spacelab Project Manhigh Minitrack Engineer Payload Recovery, WSMR
F-3
Last Name Stapp Strang Tombaugh
First Name John Paul William C. Clyde
Rank or Title Col., MC USAF (Ret.) MD Mr. Dr.
General Subject Index Aeromed Pioneer NATIV Project Discoverer of Pluto
Editorial Restrictions Public Public Open
Media Available Video/Audio/Tra nscript Interview being transcribed Video/Audio/Tra nscript
F- 4
Table F.2
Loan No. L.002.001 L.003.001 L.003.002 L.003.003 L.003.004 L.003.006 L.003.007 L.003.009 L.003.010 L.003.011 L.003.012 L.003.013 L.003.014 L.003.015 L.003.016 L.003.018 L.003.019 L.003.020 L.017.001 L.018.001 L.019.001 L.021.001 L.025.001 L.026.001 L.026.002 L.026.003 L.026.004 L.026.005 L.026.006
Space Center Artifact Loans.

Category Ground Support Equipment Models Rockets Rockets Ground Support Equipment Manned Spacecraft Models Rockets Rockets Rockets Rockets Rockets Rockets Rockets Unmanned Earth-Orbiting Spacecraft Personal Equipment Unmanned Earth-Orbiting Spacecraft Models Memorabilia Models Manned Spacecraft Models Models Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Object Lunar Rover Trainer Mercury Capsule, _ Scale XLR-11 Engine Fuel Injector Head Sonic Wind I Rocket Sled Mercury Primate Capsule Tiros Satellite Model Little Joe Rocket Fin Assembly Fin Assembly Fin Assembly Fin Assembly Engine, RL-10 Turbopump, Vanguard Satellite, Explorer I Skylab Spacesuit Satellite, Meteorite Technological Model, Spacecraft, Vostok I Lunar Sample Astronaut/Manned Maneuvering Unit Skylab Toilet Mockup Surveyor Spacecraft, 1:5 Scale Space Shuttle Stack, 1:50 Scale Lunar Visor Assembly Portable Life Support System Remote Control Unit, PLSS Covering for PLSS, Apollo Air Bag Component, PLSS Spacesuit, Mercury
F- 5
Table F.2
Loan No. L.026.007 L.026.008 L.026.009 L.026.010 L.026.011 L.026.012 L.026.014 L.026.015 L.026.016 L.026.017 L.026.018 L.028.001 L.030.001 L.031.001 L.035.001 L.035.002 L.035.003 L.035.004 L.035.005 L.035.006 L.035.007 L.035.008 L.035.009 L.035.010 L.035.011 L.035.012 L.035.013 L.035.014

Category Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Rockets Rockets Rockets Ground Support Equipment Rockets Memorabilia Rockets Rockets Rockets Rockets Rockets Models Models Models Rockets Rockets Memorabilia Memorabilia Models Rockets Rockets Object Boot, Mercury Spacesuit Boot, Mercury Spacesuit Glove, Mercury Spacesuit Glove, Mercury Spacesuit Helmet, Mercury Glove, LEVA, Apollo Inflight Coveralls, Apollo V-2 Guidance Platform F-1 Rocket Engine J-2 Rocket Engine Rocket Sled with Rails and Ejection Seat Nike Cajun Rocket Association of Space Exploration Poster Apollo SPS Engine Orion Rocket Motor Arcas Rocket Motor Arcas Rocket Motor (Cut-a-way) Loki Rocket Mercury Capsule, Full-Size Mockup Viking Spacecraft Model, 1:20 Scale Mariner II Spacecraft Model Syncom Apogee Kick Motor Javelin Nose Cone Salescasters Hot Lines Exhibit Apollo Command Module Instrument Panel (Mockup) Castor Fins (4 ct.) Nike Fins (9 ct.)
F- 6
Table F.2

Category Astronomy Memorabilia Manned Spacecraft Unmanned Earth-Orbiting Spacecraft Unmanned Earth-Orbiting Spacecraft Unmanned Earth-Orbiting Spacecraft Unmanned Earth-Orbiting Spacecraft Unmanned Earth-Orbiting Spacecraft Unmanned Earth-Orbiting Spacecraft Unmanned Earth-Orbiting Spacecraft Unmanned Earth-Orbiting Spacecraft Unmanned Earth-Orbiting Spacecraft Unmanned Earth-Orbiting Spacecraft Unmanned Earth-Orbiting Spacecraft Memorabilia Unmanned Earth-Orbiting Spacecraft Rockets Rockets Models Unmanned Earth-Orbiting Spacecraft Unmanned Earth-Orbiting Spacecraft Rockets Unmanned Earth-Orbiting Spacecraft Rockets Rockets Rockets Rockets Rockets Rockets Object Meteorite (Nickel-Iron) Stone Tool-Native American Artifact Thermal Protection Tiles (11 ct.) Explorer 50 Satellite Alouette I Satellite Landsat 4 Satellite Model Syncom I Satellite Model Vanguard II Instruments Prototype Vanguard Satellite Vanguard II Satellite San Marco I Satellite Model Explorer 10 Satellite Echo II and Data Capsule UK II/ARIEL II Satellite Hot Line Accessories UK-2 Solar Panels Lunar Module Ascent Engine Delta Engine (Cut-a-way) Scout Model and Launcher TIROS Spacecraft Model Syncom Spacecraft Aerobee Pointing Control System TIROS Full-Scale Mockup Apache/Cajun Motors (3) Nike-Smoke Nose Cones (3) Nike-Smoke Adapter Rings (4) Arcas Boosters (4) Apache/Cajun Fin Assembly (4) Scout Filament Wound Motors (2)
F- 7
Table F.2

Category Rockets Rockets Rockets Models Models Models Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Manned Spacecraft Models Models Models Models Manned Spacecraft Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Object Astrobee D Fins (2) Standard Arcas (4) Cajun Motor with Fins and Adapter Titan II, 1/144 Scale Soyuz SL-4, 1/144 Scale Saturn V, 1/144 Scale Cheese Spread Pecan Cookies Tea with Lemon and Sugar Cream of Mushroom Soup Shuttle Thermal Tile Apollo L.E.M., _ Scale Apollo C.M., _ Scale Gemini Spacecraft, Scale Saturn IB Rocket, 1/48 Scale Lunar Sample Return Container Tea with Lemon and Sugar Spaghetti with Meat Sauce Rye Bread Butterscotch Pudding Black Coffee Cheddar Cheese Crackers Vanilla Ice Cream Creamed Peas Sleep Kit-Eyecovers Sleep Kit-Earplugs (8 ct.) Sleep Kit-Eyecovers Sleep Kit-Earplugs (8 ct.) Personal Hygiene Kit-Soap
F- 8
Table F.2

Category Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Models Models Personal Equipment Personal Equipment Object Covered Soap Dish Keri Cream Crest Toothpaste Nail Clippers Shaving Gel Shaving Razor Styptic Stick Razor Blade Packet Dental Floss Tooth Brush Hair Brush Plastic Gloves (2 ct.) Dial Solid Antiperspirant Chapstick Dial Solid Antiperspirant Keri Cream Dental Floss Plastic Gloves (2 ct.) Toothbrush Chapstick Toothpaste Nail Clippers Styptic Pencil Soap Dish Soap Bar Space Station Model Skylab Model, 1/48 Scale PGA-ITMG-Spacesuit (Pogue) Egress Breathing Apparatus
F- 9
Table F.2
Loan No. L.055.053 L.055.054 L.056.001 L.057.001 L.059.001 L.061.001 L.061.002 L.062.001 L.062.002 L.062.003 L.063.001 L.064.001 L.064.002 L.065.001 L.065.002 L.066.001 L.067.001 L.068.001 L.069.001 L.071.001 L.072.001 L.072.002 L.072.003 L.072.004 L.072.005 L.072.006 L.072.007

Category Personal Equipment Manned Spacecraft Unmanned Planetary Spacecraft Models Models Rockets Rockets Rockets Rockets Rockets Memorabilia Astronomy Astronomy Memorabilia Memorabilia Ground Support Equipment Rockets Models Art Rockets Memorabilia Memorabilia Memorabilia Memorabilia Memorabilia Memorabilia Memorabilia Object Stowage Cabinet Optics Shroud Assembly Viking Lander Camera TDRSS No. 2 Ground Station Model TDRS Satellite Model Hawk Missile Nike Ajax Missile JB-2 Loon X-8 Aerobee X-7 Missile Newspaper Clipping/Letter Solar X-ray Spectroheliograph EUV and Soft X-ray Spectroheliograph Test Track Films (19 ct.) Test Track Photos (59 ct.) Cockpit Trainer Delta Rocket Engine All-American Alpha Painting-Defense Support Program Satellite Ion Engine Watercolor LIFE Magazine LIFE Magazine LIFE Magazine Apollo-Soyuz Patch Lithograph Lithograph
VOLUME II-11: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE AT HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE
Prepared by Patience Elizabeth Patterson David P. Staley Katherine J. Roxlau Mariah Associates, Inc. Albuquerque, New Mexico MAI Project 735-15
June 1997
Volume II-11: Homestead Air Force Base
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Homestead Air Force Base was inventoried by David P. Staley and Patience Elizabeth Patterson, of Mariah Associates, Inc., between May 23 and 30, 1994, as part of the Air Combat Command Cold War study for the ongoing Department of Defense Legacy Program. Information was gathered on site from the files of the Real Property Office, the Drawing Office, the Base Conversion Agency, the acting Historian, and the Public Affairs Office.
An initial reconnaissance of the base was accomplished with Major Francis "Fuzzy" Zeller, who is a remaining member of the 31st Tactical Fighter Wing and a coordinating member of the Base Conversion Agency. This initial orientation enabled the team to become familiar with the base and determine what resources were extant on base. Homestead Air Force Base is unique in that many resources on the base were destroyed by Hurricane Andrew in 1992. The eye of the hurricane, which sustained winds of 150 miles per hour, passed directly over the base, leaving a large number of base facilities dysfunctional. The base was determine unable to support its mission (United States Air Force 1993a). Cleanup and recovery still continue on the base during its transition and "draw down" from Air Force Base to Air Reserve Station. As of April 1, 1994, Homestead Air Force Base was officially designated Homestead Air Reserve Station.
The reconnaissance inventory documented specific resources and property types which would likely be relevant to the Cold War study. These resources are representative of the different types and styles of facilities on the base.
From the inventory, on-site inspection, and research, three resources were determined to be important to the base's Cold War history. Two of the resources are buildings, and one is a set of architectural diagrams. Temporal Phases II through IV, as described in the historic context and methodology document written for this project (Lewis et al. 1995), are represented. Recommendations for the resources include stewardship, further documentation, and National Register of Historic Places eligibility for the United States Air Force Conference Center; further
ii
documentation for the Bomber Alert Facility; and stewardship, further documentation, and conservation of the Documentary Collection.
iii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AAF ACC ACHP AFB AFRES AGE amsl ANG ARS BMW BRAC CES CRS DEW DoD EMS FTD HABS IAAFA LOX MAC Mariah NCO NHPA NPS NRHP OCONUS POL SAC SALT SDI SHPO START TAC TACAN TFW TTW USAF WRSK
Army Air Field Air Combat Command Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Air Force Base Air Force Reserves Air Ground Equipment above mean sea level Air National Guard Air Reserve Station Bombardment Wing Base Realignment and Closure Civil Engineering Squadron Component Repair Squadron Distant Early Warning Department of Defense Equipment Maintenance Squadron Field Training Detachment Historic American Buildings Survey Inter-American Air Force Academy Liquid Oxygen Military Airlift Command Mariah Associates, Inc. Noncommissioned Officer National Historic Preservation Act National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Off the Continental United States Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Strategic Air Command Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty Strategic Defense Initiative State Historic Preservation Officer Strategic Arms Reduction Talks Tactical Air Command Tactical Air Navigation Station Tactical Fighter Wing Tactical Training Wing United States Air Force War Readiness Spares Kit
iv
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. Corona South - a planning and strategy meeting held every February at the USAF Conference Center for four-star Generals and their Chiefs of Staff. This meeting is now held at Eglin AFB at the new USAF Conference Center. 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. Distant Early Warning Line - developed in response to the Killian Report, this early warning detection system was designed to track enemy bombers and missiles travelling over the Arctic Circle towards the United States. This line consists of over 50 radar stations stretching across the Arctic Circle from the Aleutian Islands of Alaska to Iceland. 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 longrange 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 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.
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 deterioration 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.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... i LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................. iii GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................................. iv 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 9
5.0 RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY RESULTS ................................................................ 29 6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS ................................................................................................... 6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS .................................................... 6.1.1 Base and Command Centers .................................................................................. 6.1.1.1 USAF Conference Center .............................................................................. 6.1.2 Documentation ....................................................................................................... 6.1.2.1 Documentary Collection................................................................................ 6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS .................................................... 30 30 30 30 33 33 33
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page 6.2.1 Alert Facilities ........................................................................................................ 6.2.1.1 Bomber Alert Facility.................................................................................... 6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES ................................................................ 6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES ................................................................................................ 6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES....................................................................................... 33 33 34 34 34
7.0 UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 35 8.0 FUTURE THREATS TO RESOURCES .............................................................................. 37 9.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 9.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY ...................................................................................................... 9.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility............................................... 9.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility ........................................................................... 9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 9.2.1 USAF Conference Center....................................................................................... 9.2.2 Documentary Collection......................................................................................... 9.2.3 Bomber Alert Facility............................................................................................. 39 39 39 41 42 44 45 45
viii
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Bases Selected for the Air Combat Command Cold War Study ........................... 2 Location of Homestead Air Force Base ................................................................ 5 Homestead Air Force Base Layout ........................................................................ 7 Standard Tactical Air Command Base Layout ...................................................... 8 Homestead Air Force Base Land Use Diagram (prehurricane) ............................ 10 Standard Tactical Air Command Base Land Use Diagram .................................. 11 Homestead Army Air Field in 1943 ..................................................................... 17 Homestead Air Force Base 1960s ........................................................................ 19 Homestead Air Force Base 1990 .......................................................................... 20 Homestead Air Force Base Land Use Diagram (posthurricane) .......................... 21 LIST OF TABLES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is a reconnaissance inventory of Cold War related resources on Homestead Air Force Base (AFB). Homestead AFB, a former Tactical Air Command (TAC) 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.
After Hurricane Andrew on August 24, 1992, Homestead AFB was unable to support its mission. The host unit, the 31st Tactical Fighter Wing (TFW), was reassigned to Aviano, Italy, and other tenant units were reassigned and deployed to other bases.
Currently the recommendations of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission are being carried through, and Homestead AFB is in transition. The base was realigned to an Air Reserve Station (ARS) in 1994, supporting the flying missions of the 482nd Fighter Wing and the 301st Air Rescue Squadron. The Florida Air National Guard (ANG) and the U.S. Customs Service are to be supported within the ARS cantonment. Because this study is concerned with the role the installation served as an air force base, it will be referred to as Homestead AFB throughout this report.
Metropolitan-Dade County is the reuse authority for the area of the base not within the cantonment. Portions of this area will be used for aviation and aviation-related industries, education, housing, parks, and recreation. The runway, taxiways, etc. will be dual-use
components for both the ARS and Metropolitan-Dade County.
Homestead AFB is located in southern Dade County, Florida, approximately 5 mi (8 km) northnortheast of Homestead and Florida City, 30 mi (48 km) northeast of Key Largo, and about 20 mi (32 km) south of Miami in an urban area known as South Dade (Figure 2.1). The base is situated on the coastal plain. The climate of the area is considered to be tropical and humid, but with defined wet and dry seasons. The base is located on 2,940 acres (1,190 ha) of relatively flat topography, with the old control tower on the runway at an elevation of 7 ft (2 m) above mean
sea level (amsl). The installation is approximately 2 mi (3.2 km) from the Biscayne Bay Seashore within the South Dade Wildlife Conservation Area. southernmost Air Force installation in the continental United States. Homestead AFB is the
Homestead AFB's present runway configuration is on a northeast/southwest axis and is situated along the southeastern boundary of the installation (Figure 2.2). The base layout is similar to other TAC base layouts (Figure 2.3), with individual characteristics created through the exigencies of geography and topography. The flight apron and mission-related buildings run along the northwestern side of the main runway. A taxiway intersects the south end of the runway at 90 degrees and lies between maintenance hangars and mission-related buildings on the northeastern side and the Ordnance Storage Igloos on the southwestern side. A tenant unit, U.S. Customs, lies at the northern end of the northwest/southeast axis of the taxiway. At the southern end of the taxiway lie the maintenance test cells or hush houses.
Remnants of the older Homestead Army Air Field (AAF) runways and taxiways can be detected at the southern end of the base. The northwest/southeast runway can be seen between the U.S. Customs installation on the northwest and the test cells or hush houses on the southeast. The northeast/southwest runway lies under the apron in front of the old alert facility and buildings to the northeast and the southern portion of the Ordnance Depot and the storage igloos. The remnants of an east/west runway are present on the western end of the base within the storage igloos in the Ordnance Depot.
The hospital and family housing areas are located at the northern end of the base away from the runway and munitions storage areas. Support groups, headquarters, tenant organizations, and unaccompanied housing are located at the center of the base.
The boundaries for the base, especially along the southern edges, are demarcated by canals that are cut into the bedrock. These are for drainage and also serve as an effective boundary in those areas. Ditches and drainage canals are dug out of the rock along the roadways on the base. These can be seen easily and serve as effective drainage for the street system.
2.4 BASE LAND USE
The following is a list of standard TAC land use categories: Base Support Facilities - facilities for base support functions and supplies. 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. 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.
Figure 2.4 is a diagrammatic land use plan of Homestead AFB prior to Hurricane Andrew and Figure 2.5 is a diagrammatic land use plan of a standard TAC base. In comparison, the two are very similar in that the mission areas are along the flight line, the family housing is farthest from
12
the flight line, and in between are the industrial, community, administrative, and unaccompanied housing areas. Homestead AFB differs only slightly from the standard plan in that some mission areas are south and west of the runway and taxiway and well away from the other mission areas on the base. fragmented. Also, the administrative and industrial areas at Homestead AFB are more
13
In September 1942, the Army Air Corps took control of an isolated air strip on 600 acres (243 ha) of land previously owned by Pan American Ferries, Inc. An additional 648 acres (262 ha) was acquired bringing the total acreage to a little more than 1,248 acres (505 ha). During its first six months in operation, Homestead AAF served as a scheduled stop on a welltraveled air route from the northeastern United States to the Caribbean and Africa (Weed, Russell, Johnson Associates 1957).
The mission of the airfield changed in a vital way when the 2nd Operational Training Unit of the War Department's Air Transport Command was activated in 1942 and began providing advanced training for air crew members. In 1943, the single mission at Homestead AAF was to prepare C54 Skymaster air crews to fly the famous route from Burma to China (United States Air Force [USAF] 1993b:3-1).
In 1945, Homestead AAF represented the largest four-engine transport training operation in the entire Air Transport Command. On September 15, 1945, three years after its founding, a hurricane hit Homestead AAF and severely damaged the installation. Officials announced the complete closure of the air field by December 1945. By the time the USAF was created in 1947, Homestead AAF lay in ruins.
The National Security Council in 1950 identified a severe threat from the Soviet Union and recommended that the United States embark on a massive program to rebuild its conventional military capabilities. The following summer saw South Korea invaded by North Korea, thereby confirming the Soviet threat in the minds of Americans. This released many budget constraints and defense spending tripled. The USAF entered a time of expansion, with growth planned from
14
48 to 143 wings. The construction of new bases and the expansion and modernization of existing bases became a major priority (Lewis et al. 1995).
In early 1954, the Killian Panel recommended that the SAC bomber force be dispersed to more bases across the country, making the weapons system more survivable in the event of a firststrike (Knaack 1988:252). It was determined that this dispersal strategy required more bases than were in existence.
These policies and military strategies resulted in the redesignation of Homestead AAF as an air force base. In 1954, Homestead AAF was assigned to Strategic Air Command (SAC) for use in the bomber dispersal plan. Clean-up crews arrived to ready the installation for reactivation as Homestead AFB, and an additional 1,295 acres (524 ha) were acquired for the construction of a new northeast-southwest primary runway.
Homestead AFB was significantly shaped by events, defense strategies, and political as well as military policies of the Cold War. As a SAC base, the mission of Homestead AFB was to provide operational and maintenance facilities for multiple components of SAC. The
components consisted of two medium bomber wings, the 379th and 19th Bombardment Wings (BMW), jet tankers, one air base group, air division headquarters, a USAF hospital, an air and airways communications squadron, a weather squadron, and other smaller units. Construction of a 1,255 unit Capehart Housing area for the increased number of personnel was begun in 1958. The principal aircraft first assigned was the B-47 Stratojet medium bomber, supported by KC-97 Stratofreighter aerial refueling tankers. The mission of the two BMWs was to supplement the alert force in Africa and train new crews. The mission was named "Reflex." Each of the two wings would dispatch a combat-ready aircraft weekly on a rotational basis (Mills 1993).
By 1960, there were 6,000 permanently assigned personnel at Homestead AFB. The 379th BMW was transferred to another base, leaving the 19th BMW as the host, and, in June of 1960, the B52 Stratofortress and KC-135 Stratotanker replaced the B-47 and KC-97 aircraft at the base. A
15
Bomber Alert Facility was added in 1959 and was the most obvious physical aspect of the effect of Cold War policy and strategy on the base. During the 1950s, the 19th BMW was assigned duty to fly the Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line in northern Canada and Alaska. The bomber crews were assigned alert status for seven days and the B-52s were to be airborne within 15 minutes. Two combat-ready aircraft launched every day to fly a 24-hour mission without landing. They did not land until their replacement aircraft had departed and were in the air (Mills 1993).
The next significant event in the Cold War which shaped Homestead AFB's mission occurred in the Fall of 1962, when it was discovered that the Soviet Union was deploying missiles in Cuba. Homestead AFB's Bomber Alert Facility was continuing its mission of strategic deterrence and was most certainly in a high level defense posture. In direct response to the growing threat, the 31st TFW, with its F-100 Super Sabre fighter aircraft, was assigned and deployed to Homestead AFB from George AFB, California. Troops and aircraft were rushed to Homestead AFB. The base's population exploded from 6,000 to more than 10,000. Army troops were bivouacked in tents throughout the base. Two other wings were also deployed to Homestead AFB. Cuban targets were identified, and the United States was prepared to strike at a moment's notice. Its geographical location placed the base at the very center of the Cuban Missile Crisis, supporting F-100 and B-52 operations.
After several weeks the crisis was over, but the changes at the base spawned by the Soviet threat remained. Although Homestead AFB was a SAC base, it now had a two-fold mission: through SAC, it was to stand ready and alert to project a global defense power; through TAC, it was to maintain a fighter force in operational readiness (Mills 1993).
During the period between 1963 and 1969-70, the Army Air Defense Command maintained numerous Nike, Hercules, and Hawk missile launch sites in the vicinity. The 31st Civil
Engineering Squadron (CES) had the responsibility of constructing and maintaining these facilities.
16
TAC's role at Homestead AFB was solidified through the permanent assignment of the 31st TFW. In late 1966, the 31st TFW was deployed to Vietnam and the 4531st Tactical Wing was activated on the base in their absence. Homestead AFB was reassigned to TAC in July of 1968. In 1970, the 31st TFW returned from Southeast Asia and became the host unit.
In March of 1981, the 31st TFW became the 31st Tactical Training Wing (TTW) and began their new mission of training F-4 Phantom air crews. Training remained the primary mission of the base until the arrival of the F-16 Fighting Falcon in 1985. At that time, the 31st TTW again became the 31st TFW, maintaining an operationally ready fighter force.
In June 1992, Homestead AFB was reassigned to ACC. The following August, the base was hit by Hurricane Andrew. It was determined that the base could no longer fulfill its mission, and the 31st TFW and the other tenant units were reassigned and deployed to other bases. The base was officially designated an ARS in April 1994, supporting the flying missions of the 482nd Fighter Wing and the 301st Air Rescue Squadron. The Florida ANG and the U.S. Customs Service are also supported within the ARS.
In 1943, Homestead AAF had a vital training role with the Air Transport Command. At its deactivation in 1945, Homestead AAF had 1,248 acres (505 ha) which reverted to Dade County Port Authority control. Most mission and other buildings were on the northern side of the runways. Some facilities were located southwest of the runway and taxiways (Figure 3.1).
Homestead was reactivated in 1955, and 1957 data indicate the presence of two runways. The northeast/southwest instrument runway was 200 ft (61 m) wide by 11,200 ft (3,414 m) long, not including overruns. The northwest/southeast crosswind taxiway was 150 ft (46 m) wide by 6,000 ft (1,829 m) long. A primary taxiway serviced the entire instrument runway with holding pads at each end (Weed, Russell, Johnson Associates 1957).
18
Many of the mission-related buildings were constructed during the late 1950s and early 1960s (Figure 3.2). Capehart Housing units were completed in 1958. An additional 360 housing units, including family housing and dormitories, were completed in 1972. In 1973, the USAF
Conference Center at Ramey AFB, Puerto Rico, was closed, and Homestead AFB was chosen as the new conference site due to its favorable and consistent weather and the ancillary facilities. In 1974, the new USAF Conference Center at Homestead AFB was completed. It was used by the highest ranking generals in the Air Force for meetings on military policy and strategy. Rehabilitation projects of the runway and enlisted men's quarters were completed in 1979 and 1980.
Additional tenant organizations were established on the base. The U.S. Navy began its tenancy in 1969, the USAF Conference Center in 1974, and U.S. Customs in 1977. In 1986, there were 39 assigned and tenant units with designated missions at Homestead AFB. Fifteen were Host Tenant agreements and 24 were Inter-Service Support agreements (Homestead AFB 1986). In 1989-1990, the Inter-American Air Force Academy (IAAFA) was moved from Howard AFB, Panama, to Homestead AFB and became one of the last new organizations on the base (Figure 3.3) (Homestead AFB 1991; USAF 1993b).
Personnel at Homestead AFB have been involved in hurricane recovery since September 1992. The Air Force has identified and converted a portion of the base into a dedicated ARS cantonment area to "bed down" the Air Force Reserve units and the Florida ANG (Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence 1993) (Figure 3.4). Property not dedicated to the
cantonment has been turned over to the Air Force Base Conversion Agency. Metropolitan-Dade County will become the re-use authority for this property. The County's re-use strategy includes plans for aviation and aviation-related industry, education, housing, parks, and recreation on the former base site.
22
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the reconnaissance inventory of Homestead 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
records/documents (USAF 1993c: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,
23
As part of the reconnaissance inventory of Homestead 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 The
4.2.1 Documentation
The evaluated resources at Homestead 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.
24
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 (1993c) 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
26
27
The USAF Interim Guidance (1993c) 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.
Upon arrival at Homestead AFB, the field team met their point of contact, Mr. Bill Kwalick of the Real Property Office. They discussed the objectives and needs for accomplishing the base inventory. Mr. Kwalick introduced the team to Major Francis "Fuzzy" Zeller, the former
Operations Commander of the 31st TFW and member of the Transition Coordination Team of the Base Conversion Agency. He accompanied them on a thorough tour of the base, and the team began to familiarize themselves with the base layout and the types of facilities present. They established themselves in an office in order to have a contact point and working space. Mr. Kwalick then introduced them to other points of contact within Civil Engineering, such as the Drafting Section personnel. The field team presented their needs to these personnel in regard to computerized and earlier Property Change lists and cards, planning documents and maps, and base layout plans, maps, and drawings from each decade of the base.
A review of the property change list, base maps, and the first reconnaissance with Major Zeller was used to assemble a "first priority" list of resources to be inventoried and evaluated. Visits with the interim Base Historian and the Public Affairs Officer were undertaken and needs were
28
established with those offices.
Conducted concurrently with other tasks, the photographic
inventory of resources on the base was a continuous undertaking after the first day. The field team notified the appropriate personnel of the time frame needed for photography in areas where clearance might be necessary. The last task was to inquire if a debriefing session was necessary or requested by the Base Commander or Base Engineer. It was not, and the team left with both the team and the base committing to continued, follow-up contact.
29
During the reconnaissance inventory of Homestead AFB, 70 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
Three resources were evaluated at Homestead AFB, two of them falling under the DoD category of real property and one under records/documents. 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.
An important caveat should be noted for Homestead AFB. Hurricane Andrew on August 24, 1992, had devastating impacts on most of the structures at Homestead AFB. For months, many structures were open to the elements and subjected to further destructive actions, until they were, in some cases, beyond prudent economic rehabilitation. For the purposes of this study, resources were selected for evaluation based on their importance to base Cold War history, regardless of their condition.
6.1.1.1 USAF Conference Center (Resource No. 4006, Real Property No. 931)
The USAF Conference Center, referred to as Air Force Headquarters on the base's real property list, was a major tenant on Homestead AFB. This permanent, one-story, flat-roofed facility of concrete masonry construction is located in the north-central part of the base, outside the current ARS cantonment area. Built in 1974, the 9,234 ft Center is of relatively low elevation, has few windows, and has landscaped berms sloping up against its walls. All of these characteristics suggest a concern for the safety and security of the occupants, and were evidently an attempt to provide protection in case of attack.
2
32
This facility has played host to political and military leaders attending high-level national and international conferences. Participants at these conferences included the Secretary of the Air Force, Chief of Staff, Vice Chief of Staff, Major Command commanders, Deputy Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and Latin American ambassadors (USAF 1974). Each year during the Corona South meeting, every high-ranking General in the USAF visited this facility. It is more than likely that numerous important Cold War-related policy and strategy decisions were developed and announced in this building. The main conference room is a large, well-appointed room with state-of-the-art multi-media equipment. The acoustics are designed to be perfect. The furniture is plush and speaks to the ranks of its occupants.
The Center was one of the few buildings that suffered little damage during Hurricane Andrew and it has retained its integrity. As a result, it was utilized as a base headquarters and "sleeping quarters" for those at the base immediately after the hurricane. The only operational telephone line at Homestead AFB was in this building. It is presently being used as the offices for the Base Conversion Agency. Since it is outside the ARS cantonment area, it is scheduled to be
transferred out of Air Force control and taken over by Metropolitan-Dade County, and its future use is not known at this time.
The exceptional importance of the USAF Conference Center lies in the conferences themselves and the Cold War policy and strategy decisions made during these conferences. These decisions went on to affect the Air Force, and ramifications were probably felt across the country as well as in Washington, D.C. These decisions were certainly partially the result of events of the Cold War; however, they may also have influenced the path of later Cold War events. The importance of the conferences and their participants is illustrated by the Center's protective architecture. This building was used as the USAF Conference Center during Phases III and IV of the Cold War, and meets NRHP criterion (a).
33
6.1.2 Documentation
This Documentary Collection survived Hurricane Andrew and was located in the files of the Drawing Room of the 482nd CES. Over 100 drawings of various construction projects regarding the Nike, Hercules, and Hawk missile installations and their attendant support systems around the Homestead AFB area were noted in the collection. The missiles were the property of the Army Air Defense Command, but Civil Engineering on Homestead AFB had the responsibility for the construction and maintenance of the launch installations. These mylar documents date from 1963 to 1969. They are located in flat files filled with other mylar, linen, and blueprint drawings and photographs of other construction projects on the base. These files provide
valuable documentation of base development throughout the Cold War era, illustrating the effect of the Cold War on base expansion.
This Bomber Alert Facility was built in 1959 when Homestead AFB was under SAC. This permanent, two-story, concrete masonry structure is meant to be semi-subterranean. However, the rock stratum underlying the area is known as Miami Oolite, and there is little soil mantle which actually covers the area (in some places it is only 4 inches deep) (Weed, Russell, Johnson Associates 1957). Due to this, the facility is actually built above ground and the bottom floor is covered with sloping berms on all sides. The ramped entry/exits for rapid egress are part of this facility's functional characteristics. continuous ready-to-go status. The building was for bomber alert crews who were in
34
The facility is situated immediately to the southwest of Base Operations within the ARS cantonment area. It sits at the apex of the once active runway and taxiway. Since the facility ended its alert function in 1968, the cordoned off flight apron and security fences and systems are no longer extant. After 1968, it was designated a Special Operations Facility and used by President Richard Nixon as a waiting area while in transit to and from his Key Biscayne residence. The last function this facility served was as an office for Safety Education. Although this facility has all the architectural elements of an alert facility, it has lost its integrity through natural disaster. Hurricane Andrew left it structurally unsound and dangerous. Now it is abandoned and scheduled for demolition during Phase III of Homestead AFB's Rebuilding Plan. As an alert facility, this building allowed for maximum readiness and rapid deployment of air crews and aircraft in response to enemy aggression, and thereby embodied SAC's strategy of deterrence. It 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 the Killian Report, meeting the concept of deterrence through a survivable force and the dispersion of bombers across the country (Lewis et al. 1995). This exceptionally important facility was used for this purpose during Phases II and III, and meets NRHP criterion (a). 6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES None were evaluated at Homestead AFB. 6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES None were evaluated at Homestead AFB. 6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES None were evaluated at Homestead AFB.
35
The purpose of the reconnaissance inventory was to provide initial information on the kinds of Cold War resources extant on Homestead 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, many 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 Homestead AFB. These resources should be investigated further for more comprehensive analyses.
With the destruction of Homestead AFB by Hurricane Andrew, the 31st TFW was deployed to Aviano, Italy, taking the wing history with them. During the clean-up after the storm, the only secure area available to the base was the vault in the USAF Conference Center. A cardboard carton containing 80 rolls of microfilm was salvaged from the Wing Historian's Office and placed in this vault. The various rolls are mixed, some marked SECRET and some
UNCLASSIFIED. The rolls range in date from 1966 to the 1980s, with most dating to the 1970s, indicating their relevancy to the Cold War era. It appears that they are wing histories. A spot check of four labelled rolls against the document list from the USAF Historical Research Agency at Maxwell AFB strongly suggests that the contents of this collection may be unique. Only one roll out of the four checked was on the Agency's list. Unfortunately, no microfilm viewer was available to study the microfilm or assess its condition. The outside labels and cartridges appear water damaged. It is recommended that these documents undergo stewardship, further
documentation, and curation into a permanent repository.
Photographs, dating from 1940 to after Hurricane Andrew, of every building are in the possession of Connie Farrow, former Real Property Officer at Homestead AFB. She is now the Real Property Officer at MacDill AFB, Florida. These photographs should be studied for their relationship to Homestead AFB's Cold War context.
36
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 Homestead AFB revealed over 600 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 Homestead AFB should allot time to researching these documents.
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 potential future contacts, is presented in Appendix E.
37
Current improvements at Homestead AFB tend to focus on the dramatic events of August 24, 1992, when the base was virtually destroyed by Hurricane Andrew. The base was recommended for closure by the Air Force to the BRAC Commission, due to the significant cost of reconstruction. The BRAC Commission, however, recommended that the base be realigned for use as an ARS. Since the hurricane, the base has not had a flying mission and has operated with a very reduced personnel contingent.
It has been calculated that when Hurricane Andrew hit Homestead AFB, over 35% of the structures at the base were more than 50% destroyed. After two years, recovery initiatives still continue. Structures on base were categorized by the BRAC Commission as requiring one of four actions: demolish, clean and leave, weatherproof, or repair. Clean and leave entails removing debris and leaving the structure in a condition from which it will not deteriorate further. Weatherproofing involves roofing, repair, boarding windows and doors, and removal of loose or damaged components such as awnings or air conditioners. Repair involves the full restoration of the structure and interior systems to original condition for functional operation (Metropolitan-Dade County 1994).
Demolition of damaged facilities on the base is continuing where necessary, and some shells and remnants of buildings are being cleaned and left for the next tenant. Real Property Nos. 360, 346, 402, and 434, all of which were inventoried in this study, are scheduled to be renovated and reused within the ARS cantonment. Real Property No. 360 will be used as 482nd Wing
Headquarters, No. 346 will become a training facility, No. 402 will be a Support Group building, and No. 434 will be used for a medical clinic.
Real Property No. 701, the Bomber Alert Facility, was documented and evaluated during this study as important to Homestead AFB's Cold War history. It was damaged beyond repair and is scheduled for demolition during Phase III of the Rebuilding Plan.
38
It is interesting to note that past environmental assessments and surveys which have been conducted show that the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has concluded that there are no properties on Homestead AFB which are eligible for the NRHP (USAF 1993b). However, the methodology of those projects may not have considered the Cold War significance of the buildings inventoried.
39
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 Homestead 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.
40
It is the
responsibility of the federal agency to make the determination of eligibility in consultation with the 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 Homestead 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 Homestead AFB have not been evaluated, and thus must be considered and treated as eligible until an evaluation and determination of eligibility are made.
41
42
Recommendations for the evaluated resources at Homestead 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:
44
9.2.1 USAF Conference Center (Resource No. 4006, Real Property No. 931)
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases III and IV, and meets NRHP criterion (a) based on its role in the development of national military policy and strategy. The integrity of the building and its features is intact. Therefore, this building is recommended as eligible to the NRHP.
Since this building is located outside the ARS cantonment, it is scheduled to be turned over to Metropolitan-Dade County. It is recommended that Homestead ARS retain control of this building and maintain the integrity of it and its features, while further documentation is conducted to nominate the resource to the NRHP.
45
This collection of drawings and photographs of base construction projects is currently in good condition. It is recommended that this collection be inventoried and duplicated. It is further recommended that the ARS retain the copies for its use, and that the originals be sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II and III, and meets NRHP criterion (a) based on its role in sustaining a survivable force to meet the needs of deterrence. However, the integrity of the building has been adversely affected. Therefore, this building is recommended as ineligible to the NRHP. Further documentation is recommended to assemble documents, photographs, and other information concerning the building to record its significant Cold War function.
46
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. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence 1993 Installation Comprehensive Development Plan. Homestead Air Reserve Station Homestead, Florida. Air Force Design Group, Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas. Department of Defense 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. Homestead Air Force Base 1986 Real Property Survey. Executive Order 12512. 1991 Commander's Long Range Facility Improvement Plan. Homestead Air Force Base, Florida. Knaack, M. S. 1988 Encyclopedia of U.S. Air Force Aircraft and Missile Systems, Volume 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 Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. Metropolitan-Dade County 1994 Homestead Air force Base Re-Use and Economic Redevelopment Implementation Plan. Prepared by The Beacon Council, in association with Arthur Andersen & Co., Miami.
47
Mills, H. A. 1993 History of Homestead Air Force Base (draft). On file, Base Conversion Agency, Homestead Air Reserve Station, Florida. 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. United States Air Force 1974 Air Force Regulation 11-22: Use of USAF Conference Center at Homestead AFB, Florida. Headquarters, U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. 1993a Draft Basewide Environmental Baseline Survey. Homestead Air Force Base, Florida. 1993b Environmental Assessment in Support of the Realignment of the 482nd Fighter Wing. Homestead Air Reserve Station. Headquarters, Air Force Reserve, Robbins Air Force Base, Georgia. 1993c Interim Guidance: Treatment of Cold War Historic Properties for U.S. Air Force Installations. Report prepared by Dr. Paul Green, United States Air Force, Washington, D.C. Weed, Russell, Johnson Associates 1957 Master Plan Homestead Air Force Base, Homestead, Florida. Prepared under Contract No. AF25(600)-313 for Assistant Chief of Staff/Installations. Washington D.C.
E-1
BASE CONTACTS
The following individuals were identified during the investigations at Homestead AFB and informally interviewed about base history:
Bill Kwalick, Real Property Office 482nd SPTG Civil Engineering Homestead ARS, FL 33039-1299
Richard Meeks, Drafting Section 482nd SPTG Civil Engineering Homestead ARS, FL 33039-1299
Sharon Keifer, Interim Historian 482nd Wing Headquarters, Bldg. 360 Homestead ARS, FL 33039
Major Bobby D'Angelo, Public Affairs Officer 482nd Tactical Fighter Wing, Bldg. 360 Homestead ARS, FL 33039
Major Francis "Fuzzy" Zeller Base Transition Coordination Team, Bldg. 931 Homestead ARS, FL 33039
Michael Richardson, Base Transition Coordinator Base Conversion Agency, Bldg. 931 Homestead ARS, FL 33039
Michael Reardon, Site Manager Base Conversion Agency, Bldg. 931 Homestead ARS, FL 33039
E-2
The following contacts were identified as possessing knowledge about base Cold War history. They were either unavailable for interview during the investigation or possess much more information than could be documented during this preliminary survey.
Connie Farrow, Real Property Officer 6 CES/CERR 7615 Hillsborough Loop Drive MacDill AFB, Fl 33621-5207
Mike Adams, LTC (Ret) 31st Fighter Group Officers Association 3929 Venetian Drive Tampa, FL 33634
Ernie Davis, MAJ (Ret)
Char Gardner (was Commander's Secretary)
Bill Comber, Air Field Manager Bldg. 718 Homestead ARS, FL 33039
Fred E. Bamberger, Jr. Gold Coast Chapter #351 Air Force Association 7331 Fairfax Drive Tamarac, FL 33321
Robert M. Rawls Aviation Historian P.O. Drawer 24885 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33307
E-3
Brig. Gen. Steve Plummer Air Div. Wing Commander Luke AFB, AZ
Col. Jack McDougal Air National Guard Homestead ARS, FL 33039
Mr. Suarez Transient Maintenance Homestead ARS, FL 33039
Maj. Gen. Dave Stanford (Ret) Key Largo, FL
Mrs. Jeanette Belcher 31st TFW Historian (Ret) 7600 SW 21st Street
CWO Larry Carrier, (Ret) Naval Security Activity Group (Last Commander of NSG) Local Director of USO
Joseph A. Martin Div. 5 - 5th Trustee Air Force Reserve Affairs, Air National Guard 29845 SW 168th CT Homestead, FL 33030
VOLUME II-12: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE AT HOWARD AIR FORCE BASE
Prepared by David P. Staley Patience Elizabeth Patterson Katherine J. Roxlau
July 1997
Volume II-12: Howard Air Force Base
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Mariah Associates, Inc. environmental scientists Patience E. Patterson and David P. Staley inventoried Howard Air Force Base and Albrook Air Force Station, Republic of Panama, from November 28 to December 6, 1994 as part of the Air Combat Command Cold War study for the ongoing Department of Defense Legacy Program. Information was gathered on site from the files of the Real Property Office, Drafting Office, Environmental Office, Community Planning Office, Public Affairs Office, and Wing History Office.
An initial reconnaissance of the base and station was accomplished with Mr. James Chavers, the Natural and Cultural Resources Officer. This initial orientation enabled the team to become familiar with the layout and determine what property types were extant. It also allowed for the determination of specific properties which would likely be relevant to the Cold War study. Photographs were taken of resources that were representative of the different types and styles of facilities on the base and station.
From the inventory, research, and on-site inspection, three resources were determined to be significant to the Cold War history of the base and station. Temporal phases I through IV, as described in the historic context and methodology document written for this project (Lewis et al. 1995), are represented. Recommendations for the Inter-American Air Force Academy
Headquarters include potential NRHP eligibility, further documentation, and stewardship. Further documentation, stewardship, and conservation are recommended for two Documentary Collections.
ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACC ACHP AFB AFRES AFS AGE AMC AMSS ANG BX CAirC CES CINC CRS DoD EMS FTD HABS IAAFA JCS LOX MAC Mariah NCO NHPA NPS NRHP OCONUS POL SAC SALT SDI SHPO START TAC TACAN USACOM USAF USAFSO USCINCSO USSOUTHAF
Air Combat Command Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Air Force Base Air Force Reserves Air Force Station Air Ground Equipment Air Mobility Command Air Mobility Support Squadron Air National Guard Base Exchange Caribbean Air Command Civil Engineering Squadron Commander in Chief Component Repair Squadron Department of Defense Equipment Maintenance Squadron Field Training Detachment Historic American Buildings Survey Inter-American Air Force Academy Joint Chiefs of Staff Liquid Oxygen Military Airlift Command Mariah Associates, Inc. Noncommissioned Officer National Historic Preservation Act National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Off the Continental United States Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Strategic Air Command Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty Strategic Defense Initiative State Historic Preservation Officer Strategic Arms Reduction Talks Tactical Air Command Tactical Air Navigation Station U.S. Atlantic Command United States Air Force United States Air Force Southern Command United States Commander in Chief of Southern Operations United States Southern Command Air Forces
iii
USSOUTHCOM - United States Southern Command WRSK - War Readiness Spares Kit
iv
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 Soviet Union to one each. 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. 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. 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. 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 to 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 weapon 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.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page MANAGEMENT SUMMARY .................................................................................................... i LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................. ii GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................. iv 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 6 6 12
5.0 RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY RESULTS ................................................................ 33 6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS ................................................................................................... 6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS .................................................... 6.1.1 Documentation ....................................................................................................... 6.1.1.1 Documentary Collection................................................................................ 6.1.1.2 Documentary Collection................................................................................ 6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS .................................................... 6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES ................................................................ 34 34 34 34 36 36 36
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES ................................................................................................ 6.4.1 Combat Support Training ....................................................................................... 6.4.1.1 IAAFA Headquarters..................................................................................... 6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES....................................................................................... 37 37 37 38
7.0 UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 39 8.0 FUTURE THREATS TO RESOURCES .............................................................................. 40 9.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 9.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY ...................................................................................................... 9.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility............................................... 9.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility ........................................................................... 9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 9.2.1 Documentary Collection......................................................................................... 9.2.2 Documentary Collection......................................................................................... 9.2.3 IAAFA Headquarters.............................................................................................. 41 41 41 43 44 46 46 47
10.0 REFERENCES CITED ....................................................................................................... 48 APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY BASE AND STATION LAYOUT MAPS SHOWING INVENTORIED RESOURCES PHOTOGRAPHS OF INVENTORIED RESOURCES DATA BASE DOCUMENTATION FOR EVALUATED RESOURCES ADDITIONAL DATA ON EVALUATED RESOURCES EXTANT SOURCES OF INFORMATION
APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D:
APPENDIX E: APPENDIX F:
viii
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Bases Selected for the Air Combat Command Cold War Study .......................... 2 Location of Howard Air Force Base, Albrook Air Force Station, and Balboa West Bombing Range........................................................................ 7 Howard Air Force Base Layout ............................................................................ 8 Standard Tactical Air Command Base Layout .................................................... 10 Albrook Air Force Station Layout ........................................................................ 11 Howard Air Force Base Land Use Diagram ......................................................... 14 Standard Tactical Air Command Base Land Use Diagram .................................. 15 Albrook Air Force Station Land Use Diagram..................................................... 16
Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 2.6 Figure 2.7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 6.1
Evaluated Resource Prioritization by Air Force Group and Subgroup. ............................................................................................................. 35 Evaluated Resource Prioritization by Priority Rank. ........................................... 35 Recommendations for Evaluated Resources. ....................................................... 45
Table 6.2 Table 9.1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is a reconnaissance inventory of Cold War related resources on Howard Air Force Base (AFB), Albrook Air Force Station (AFS), and Balboa West Bombing Range. Howard AFB, a former Tactical Air Command (TAC) installation, is one of the bases being evaluated in the attempt to determine the extent of ACC Cold War cultural resources nationwide. Albrook AFS and Balboa West Bombing Range are considered to be a part of Howard AFB, thus are included in this study. As described above, a final report will synthesize the individual base reports and provide initial management recommendations for evaluated resources.
The 24th Wing, "Los Profesionales", is the host unit at Howard AFB. The current mission for the 24th Wing has several facets, including counter-narcotics operations, air operations, intratheater airlift, security assistance, and defense of the Panama Canal (Public Affairs Office, 24th Wing 1994:3-6). As the senior Air Force organization in Panama, the wing's overall mission is to promote U. S. interests in and around Latin America by providing, employing, and supporting air power.
The 24th Wing reports to Headquarters, Twelfth Air Force at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona. The wing is made up of four groups, the 24th Operations Group, 24th Logistics Group, 24th Support Group, and 24th Medical Group. The 24th Operations Group is composed of the following squadrons: Operations Support Squadron, Air Intelligence Squadron, Weather
Squadron, Air Support Operations Squadron, and Detachment 1 Honduras. The 24th Logistics Group is composed of the Maintenance Squadron, Supply Squadron, Transportation Squadron, Contracting Squadron, and Logistic Support Flight. The 24th Support Group contains the
Mission Support Squadron, Civil Engineering Squadron, Security Police Squadron, Communications Squadron, Services Squadron, and Air Postal Squadron. The 24th Medical Group has two squadrons, the Medical Operations Squadron and the Medical Support Squadron. All of these elements of the 24th Wing provide, control, and support multi-service units directed by U.S. Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM), a unified command, and U.S. Southern Command Air Forces (USSOUTHAF), the air assets of USSOUTHCOM.
Two rotational contingents of the Air National Guard (ANG) and Air Force Reserve (AFRES) operate out of Howard AFB as tenant units and are tasked with providing theater airlift for Central and South America. This operation is called Coronet Oak. It is a rotational mission with participating ANG and AFRES units providing their own aircraft (C-130 Hercules), equipment,
supplies, aircrews, maintenance, and support during an overlapping two week cycle. Coronet Oak provides transport of cargo and personnel throughout Central and South America, airdrop of cargo and personnel, joint operations and exercises, search and rescue, aeromedical evacuation, and disaster relief. Coronet Oak maintains aircraft on alert at all times, capable of taking off within three hours of notification (Public Affairs Office, 24th Wing 1994:5).
The ANG Bureau was tasked in 1990 to maintain a fighter detachment at Howard AFB in support of U.S. Atlantic Command (USACOM). This operation, known as Coronet Nighthawk, uses F-15 Eagle and F-16 Falcon units on a rotational basis. Coronet Nighthawk units deploy four to six aircraft, pilots, support personnel, and equipment to Howard AFB for four weeks, with personnel rotating every two weeks (Public Affairs Office, 24th Wing 1994:5).
Another tenant unit is the 640th Air Mobility Support Squadron (AMSS) of Air Mobility Command (AMC). The mission of the 640th AMSS includes a theater of operations which extends from Mexico to the tip of Chile, and encompasses seven million square miles of sea. The 640th AMSS provides maintenance support for AMC aircraft located at Howard AFB or at other airfields in the same theater as directed by the 21st Air Force Logistics Readiness Center. The 640th AMSS also provides elements in support of U.S. Commander in Chief of Southern Operations (USCINCSO) for the defense of the Panama Canal, evacuation of U.S. nationals, disaster relief, and search and rescue (Public Affairs Office, 24th Wing 1994:6).
All land within what was formerly the Canal Zone is controlled by the U. S. government through the agency now known as the Panama Canal Commission. Many areas of land within this zone were set apart and assigned to the Army, Navy, and Air Force by the original Canal Zone Orders. Howard AFB was authorized under Canal Zone Order No. 28, dated November 8, 1952.
A geographic description of Howard AFB requires a close look at the geographic situation of the Republic of Panama (Figure 2.1). Panama, the "Crossroads of the Americas," is a small country of approximately 1.9 million people. The country is an isthmus, running in an S-shape about 385 mi (620 km) long and from 32 to 113 mi (51 to 182 km) wide. Its total area is 31,993 mi
2 2
(82,855 km ). Panama is bounded on the west by Costa Rica and by Columbia on the east. The Caribbean Sea is on the north, and the Pacific Ocean is located to the south.
The Panama Canal does not run east-west as might be expected. From its Atlantic side terminal, Cristobal, the canal runs southeast to its Pacific side terminal, Balboa (Sullivan 1994:57). Howard AFB is located on the western bank of the Pacific terminal of the Panama Canal. Across the canal and approximately 4 mi (6 km) northeast is Panama City, the capital of the Republic of Panama. Albrook AFS is adjacent to the western side of Panama City and on the eastern bank of the Panama Canal. Balboa West Bombing Range is located approximately 16 mi (26 km) northwest of Howard AFB on the western side of the Panama Canal (Hartrampf Engineering, Inc. 1988). It contains 8,814 unimproved acres (3,567 ha) with no facilities and provides a jungle combat training environment for aircrews.
The climate of the area is characteristic of low latitudes in the inner tropics, with moderately high temperatures and humidity throughout the year. Abundant rainfall in the area is typical, with an average of approximately 70 inches (178 cm) on the Pacific side and 130 inches (330 cm) on the Atlantic side. The wet months are from May through December (Howard AFB 1975:13-14; 1965:4-5).
The central feature of Howard AFB, like all bases, is the airfield portion of the base (Figure 2.2). The two main runways are oriented north-south. The eastern-most runway is 7,000 ft long and
150 ft wide and the western runway is 5,000 ft long and 150 ft wide. Both of these runways have been operational since 1941, with major renovations occurring in the 1970s.
The majority of the base buildings are located east of the runways toward the southern end of the base. The overall plan or layout of flight line hangars and buildings is configured as a chevron pointing toward the west. Aprons and taxiways lie between base buildings and the runways. A central corridor of open space and community buildings extends eastward from the apex of the chevron. The majority of base buildings are located east of the chevron. However, weapons storage structures are located west of the flight line, and a group of buildings is located at the northern end of the base, away from the flight line and the main base development area.
The layout of Howard AFB generally resembles the standard TAC base layout (Figure 2.3). The major differences include the placement of structures at Howard AFB on the side of the flight line opposite of the main base development. Also unlike the standard layout, Howard AFB has an area of development located away from the flight line and main base development. Finally, the chevron layout of the flight line buildings is very different from the standard layout which has these buildings in a straight line.
The dramatic changes in function and ownership over the years have made the Albrook AFS layout (Figure 2.4) very dissimilar to the standard TAC base layout (Figure 2.3). Primarily, the transfer of the runway and all the facilities east of the runway out of USAF control has skewed any standard comparison. A small portion of the northeast-southwest apron is operated by the U.S. Army for helicopter support. The old north-south runway is now used by the Panamanians as an automotive racetrack. Also, the shift of USAF flight activities to Howard AFB has precluded the need for many of the standard buildings and structures.
Albrook AFS is bounded on the south and east by Republic of Panama property and shares northern and western boundaries with the U.S. Army's Fort Clayton. The two main gates into the station are located at the northern and southern ends of the station. The overall plan or design of
12
the station appears to be unrelated to the runway configuration. As the major building type found on the station is housing, the majority of station development is spread out, resulting in a low density of buildings. The dispersed buildings and a layout that disregards the flight line make this layout very different from the standard one.
There are no permanent buildings, structures, or facilities at Balboa West Bombing Range. Currently, portions of the range are being used as a tent camp for Cuban refugees. The only edifice denoting the range's prior function is a pock-marked target of bermed concentric circles.
2.4 BASE LAND USE
The following is a list of standard TAC land use categories: Base Support Facilities - house base support functions and supplies. 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. Weapon 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
13
Figure 2.5 is a diagrammatic land use plan for Howard AFB, and Figure 2.6 is a diagrammatic land use plan of a standard TAC base. Howard AFB is very similar to the standard TAC base. Like the standard land use plan, Howard AFB mission oriented facilities are located along the flight line, with a mixture of base support, unaccompanied housing, community, and headquarters facilities located immediately east. Industrial areas, such as the waste water
treatment facility and the weapons storage area, are located on the outskirts of the base. Family housing is located farthest from the flight line and mission related areas. A large recreation area is found next to the main base development. Open spaces and recreational areas are found throughout the base. Differences between the two land use diagrams stem from the layout of Howard AFB, which has land use areas scattered over the entire base.
Figure 2.7 is a diagrammatic land use plan for Albrook AFS. Albrook AFS land use is very different from the standard TAC base land use pattern (Figure 2.6). Obviously, the transfer of the runway and much of the flying mission over the years changed the requirements for land use. At present, the vast majority of the buildings are oriented toward housing, base support, recreation, and community. This reflects the primary mission of Albrook AFS to support
personnel and their families stationed at Howard AFB. Beyond this, Albrook AFS is different from the standard in that family housing areas abutted the old runway at the northern end rather than being separated from the flight line by other land use areas. Base support functions are found along the old flight line, with community, headquarters, recreation, and unaccompanied housing somewhat centralized. A second area of unaccompanied housing is found within the vast family housing area. The last remaining mission buildings along the southern end of the runway are actually leased to the Army for use in support of helicopters.
17
The history of Howard AFB is inextricably linked with the history of the Panama Canal. In 1904, the United States, having signed a treaty with Panama, took over construction of the canal from the French. Ten years later, on August 15, 1914, the SS Ancon made the first official oceanto-ocean transit through the Panama Canal (Public Affairs Office, Panama Canal Commission 1994). The area under U.S. jurisdiction, established as the Canal Zone, was 10 mi (16 km) wide and ran from Cristobal and Colon on the Atlantic side to Balboa and Fort Amador on the Pacific side. The Canal Zone was considered a government entity and had its own local Canal Zone Government which was considered an independent agency of the United States with a complete infrastructure (Canal Zone Government 1964; Howard AFB 1965:1).
U.S. military defense of the Panama Canal was originally considered from naval and ground force perspectives only. In 1913, a photographer flew the length of the Canal and photographed all the vital installations and locks (Public Affairs Office, 24th Wing 1994:1). In response to this, military strategists decided that air defense was vital to the overall defense of the canal. In 1917, Captain H. "Hap" Arnold commanded the first air contingent, 7th Aero Squadron, at France Field on the Atlantic side of the canal. This squadron patrolled the Atlantic coastal waters during the final days of World War I (Public Affairs Office, 24th Wing 1994:1).
After World War I, aviation activity shifted to the Pacific side of the canal. An airfield was built there as part of the Panama Canal defense system and as a facility for use by the nearby city of Balboa, the site of the Panama Canal administration (Sullivan 1994:53). Begun in 1922, the field was placed on a spoil dredge area and early on was called the Balboa Fill Landing Field. Lieutenant Frank P. Albrook was the first commander of the 8th Air Park and of the field. In May 1924, Lt. Albrook was reassigned to Chanute Field, Illinois. He was injured on August 12, 1924 in an air crash and died September 17, 1924. On November 11, 1924, Balboa Fill Landing
18
Field was officially renamed Albrook Field in honor of its first commander (United States Air Force [USAF] 1985a).
Work at the airfield continued for many years. Dry fill was placed on top of hydraulic fill taken from the canal. These series of hydraulic and dry fill episodes were completed along with a series of grated box culverts, drains, and junction boxes which were designed to deal with the heavy soaking rains so that airplanes could land within an hour after a heavy downpour (Mittag 1934:340-344). Albrook Field was not only a fighter base, but for many years it served also as the principal commercial airport for the Canal Zone. By 1940, the field was the primary station for Pan American Airways as well as other airlines (Sullivan 1994:53).
It had become apparent during the early days of planning for the defense of the Canal Zone that another air base on the Pacific side would be necessary. General Arnold, Chief of the Air Corps, visited the Canal Zone in May of 1939 to discuss and view the planned expansion. The site chosen was Bruja Point, which adjoined Fort Kobbe Military Reservation on the western side of the Pacific terminal of the canal. Official construction of Bruja Point Field started in July of 1939. Bruja Point Field presented none of the engineering problems that had made Albrook Field such a major undertaking. The impetus for finishing the new field was the outbreak of World War II in Europe (Historical Division, Headquarters, Caribbean Air Command [CAirC] 1961:1-2). On December 1, 1939, at the request of General Arnold, the official designation of Bruja Point Field was changed to Howard Field in honor of Major Charles H. Howard, a pilot who had seen service in the Canal Zone from 1926 to 1929. He had served with then Captain Arnold and the 7th and 25th Observations Squadrons. Major Howard had died in an aircraft accident near Bryan Mills, Texas on October 25, 1936 (USAF 1985b).
On November 20, 1940, the Panama Canal Air Force was activated at Albrook Field to increase U.S. air defense activity in the Caribbean area. It became the first major air command in U.S. military history (Sullivan 1994:8). By April 1941, the first troops were assigned to Howard Field (Historical Division, Headquarters, CAirC 1961:3). Administrative and manning problems were
19
present from the start because Howard Field was part of Fort Kobbe, which was itself a sub-post of Fort Amador (Historical Division, Headquarters, CAirC 1961:3-6). By December 8, 1941 a physical separation of headquarters was made. Howard Field was designated as an air base and established its own headquarters independent of Fort Kobbe, which was also deemed necessarily independent from Fort Amador, all in accordance with directives from the War Department and the U.S. Army Command in Balboa (Historical Division, Headquarters CAirC 1961:6,9). In March 1943, the Air Force School of the Military Training Center of the Panama Canal Department began training operations at Albrook Field with a class of Peruvian students (Sullivan 1994:9).
With the end of World War II, the Sixth Air Force was reorganized as the CAirC. CAirC, headquartered at Albrook Field, had a diversified mission. It operated from Guatemala to Cape Horn primarily lending assistance to the Latin American air forces through a system of air missions and the promotion of friendly relations with other American republics (Recruiting Publicity Center 1956a:2).
In 1947, the National Security Act created the Department of Defense and an independent USAF. Shortly after that time, Howard Field became officially known as Howard AFB and Albrook Field became Albrook AFB. Howard AFB served as a replacement control depot, and later, engineer troops trained at the base. By the end of 1948, Howard AFB had lost most of its tactical units (Sullivan 1994:55). Effective October 11, 1949, all operations and training were terminated at Howard AFB except for those operations incidental to the deactivation of the base. Howard AFB was deactivated on January 1, 1950, and its existing real estate was "loaned" to the U.S. Army as a result of an agreement between the Departments of the Army and the Air Force (Historical Division, Headquarters, CAirC 1961:7). At the time when the order to deactivate the base was received by CAirC, the Panama Canal Administration proposed that the order be revised to permit the deactivation of Albrook AFB instead, with transfer of all Air Force activities to Howard AFB. The administration further suggested that Albrook AFB be turned over to them to provide for badly needed housing and warehouse space. The proposal was turned
20
down and Albrook AFB remained the active base (Historical Division, Headquarters, CAirC 1961:8).
For many years the Armed Forces provided for military missions to countries in Latin America. Part of this mission program was training, through which persons from cooperating Central and South American nations received complete instruction by USAF personnel in a number of technical fields (Recruiting Publicity Center 1956b:7). The most unique segment of this program was the USAF School for Latin America. It was a technical school operated at Albrook AFB exclusively for the benefit of Latin American airmen. It was officially organized and named on October 31, 1948. All instruction was given in Spanish by bilingual USAF commissioned and enlisted airmen (Recruiting Publicity Center 1956b:6-9). On July 25, 1949, the Headquarters of the School for Latin America relocated to Real Property No. 812 at Albrook AFB. This training program was the precursor to the Inter-American Air Force Academy (IAAFA). IAAFA became the official name of the USAF School for Latin America on September 8, 1966. Until its reassignment in 1989 to Homestead AFB, Florida, IAAFA remained a fixture at Albrook AFB/AFS for 41 years (Hartrampf Engineering, Inc. 1988).
Relations between Albrook AFB and Balboa, Panama City, and the Panama Canal Administration were strained due to the approaching and departing aircraft over the Community Center, housing area, school, church, and Panama Canal Administration building in Balboa (Sullivan 1994:54). There had been a public movement to close the field as early as 1946, however, these initial pressures to close Albrook AFB were thwarted. In 1949, the Governor of the Canal Zone supported the base's closure. Pressure to close the base was again renewed in 1955. Meanwhile, Howard AFB was reestablished as an auxiliary airfield in October 1954. Regular flying operations resumed one year later under a joint agreement between the Army and Air Force (Sullivan 1994:55). Finally, in 1961, the Air Force moved its Albrook AFB flying activities to Howard AFB on the western side of the canal, although the U.S. Army continued to use the Albrook AFB runway for helicopters and light aircraft (as it does today).
21
In November 1959, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) published a special message on military activities during the Cold War. It had become apparent that the security of the Western
Hemisphere was threatened not only by general war, but by a continued increase in subversive insurgency by the Communist Bloc of nations into Latin America (Young 1966:9-10; Young and Kirk 1960). The JCS message directed military commands to create a program of military actions to counteract the insurgency. The JCS set forth six objectives of the program as follows (Young and Kirk 1960:221-222): (1) To secure greater friendship, mutual respect, and a sense of interdependence among the governments and peoples of the American republics; (2) to promote greater Latin American understanding and support of U.S. world policies as well as greater recognition of the constructive U.S. interest in Latin American aspirations; (3) to develop sound and growing economies capable of providing rising living standards within the general framework of the free enterprise system; (4) to effect the maximum limitation on Communist and Soviet-Sino Bloc influence in Latin America and a greater awareness of the nature and threat of international Communism in the area; (5) to assist in the emergence of Latin America as a strong component part of the western community of nations; and (6) to gain acceptance of the concept that each of the republics was responsible for its own internal security and for providing a contribution to the defense of the hemisphere.
In February 1960, the Vice Chief of Staff, USAF, General Curtis E. LeMay, dispatched a letter on the same subject regarding Air Force participation in the program. On May 16, 1960, CAirC published its Cold War Operation Plan in accordance with requirements set forth in LeMay's letter. The initial message from the JCS listed 30 suggested actions for meeting the six program objectives (Young and Kirk 1960:222-227). Most of the suggestions offered followed a pattern long established by the CAirC in its efforts to develop friendly attitudes and mutual trust throughout Latin America and to improve community relations in the various countries where it operated (Young and Kirk 1960:227-228). The CAirC staff "interpreted its role in the cold war program as merely a placing of greater emphasis on its normal operations. The important change was that those extra military programs which the command had continued in order to facilitate the achievement of its missions now became important missions in themselves" (Young and Kirk
22
1960:268). These programs included indoctrination of U.S. personnel to the local culture; exposure of the local populace to U.S. culture; participation of the military in local events; utilization of locally produced products and services; employment of military facilities to support local authorities in emergency situations such as search and rescue, refugee evacuation, disaster relief, and other humane missions; and provision of instructional and training programs to indigenous military commanders.
In 1962, due to the Cuban Missile Crisis, Howard AFB was activated for contingency planning of U.S. policy in Latin America (Hartrampf Engineering, Inc., 1988). In April of 1962, the C-130 rotational concept was implemented with the arrival at Howard AFB of a TAC C-130 unit from Sewart AFB, Tennessee (Sullivan 1994:11). In April 1963, Headquarters USAF, under Special Order G-41, designated Howard AFB as a primary installation capable of supporting tactical fighter and reconnaissance operations (Howard AFB 1965:2).
In June 1963, the CAirC was redesignated United States Air Force Southern Command (USAFSO). Howard AFB undertook the principal flying operations, while Albrook AFB served as the command and wing headquarters and training base (Sullivan 1994:56). The 24th
Composite Wing was activated at Albrook AFB at the end of October 1967, with flying operations conducted at Howard AFB, and served as the chief subordinate unit under USAFSO. The 24th Composite Wing moved its headquarters to Howard AFB in January 1968.
In 1975, Albrook AFB was redesignated AFS due to consolidation of installations and reductions in military resources. Since then, Albrook AFS has been used primarily for housing and support services (Sullivan 1994:54). USAFSO was inactivated on January 1, 1976, and the USAF Southern Air Division was activated, keeping the same acronym USAFSO. Early in 1978, USAFSO also moved its headquarters from Albrook AFS to Howard AFB. USAFSO continued to carry out the mission of air defense of the Panama Canal and to represent USAF policies in Latin America. IAAFA continued to operate at Albrook AFS (Sullivan 1994:56).
23
Two new treaties between Panama and the United States were established in 1977, and they were enacted in 1979. One deals with the operation and defense of the canal. The United States maintains operational control over all lands, waters, and installations, including military bases, necessary to manage, operate, and defend the canal until noon on December 31, 1999. The other treaty guarantees the canal permanent neutrality (Public Affairs Office, Panama Canal Commission n.d.:4). As a result of the treaties, the names of both Howard AFB and Albrook AFS, Canal Zone were redesignated as Howard AFB and Albrook AFS, Republic of Panama (Sullivan 1994:56).
During the 1980s, USAFSO and the 24th Composite Wing continued their varied missions of organizing, training, equipping, administering, and maintaining assigned or attached forces for the air defense of the Panama Canal area; conducting evacuation of U.S. nationals, theater search and rescue, civic action, and disaster relief; providing security for USAF installations; operating IAAFA; supporting the Deputy Commander in Chief (CINC) of USSOUTHCOM in his role as the designated representative of the Chief-of-Staff of the USAF to the Latin American Air Forces; and exercising operational control of rotational and deployed forces and supporting their assigned missions. Since the early 1980s, drug interdiction has continued to be a major part of the mission (Hartrampf Engineering, Inc. 1988). This mission serves not only to help stem the flow of drugs to the United States, but also to aid the Latin American countries with the problems of drug cartels.
Throughout the 1980s, political tensions within Panama mounted and came to a head in 1988 and 1989 when General Manuel Antonio Noriega was implicated in drug trafficking through unsealed indictments from U.S. federal grand juries in Miami and Tampa, Florida. In response, the United States imposed economic sanctions against Panama. The death of one U.S. serviceman, the wounding of another, and the torture of still another serviceman combined with harassment of his wife heightened tensions between Panama and the U.S. These incidents, combined with 240 other documented cases of harassment of U.S. personnel in Panama, prompted President Bush to order a large-scale invasion of Panama on December 16, 1989. Operation Just Cause was
24
directed to neutralize the Panamanian Defense Forces of General Noriega and protect U.S. personnel and treaty rights. Other objectives of the operation were to remove Noriega and his cohorts from power and reestablish a democratic government in Panama. General Noriega took sanctuary in the Vatican Embassy in Panama. By the end of the year, Just Cause objectives had been met and economic recovery became a top priority in Panama. On January 4, 1990, Noriega surrendered to U.S. forces. Operation Just Cause was supported by the USAF at Howard AFB and Albrook AFS (Sullivan 1994:14-22).
In February 1992, the 24th Composite Wing was redesignated the 24th Wing. In June 1992, the base and wing were transferred to the newly established ACC.
Albrook AFS was originally constructed beginning in 1922 when a swampy area near Balboa was filled with spoil dredged from the Canal prism. Subsequent dry and hydraulic fill episodes created the Balboa Fill Landing Field. This eventually became Albrook AFB, then Albrook AFS.
Much of the station's layout and development were set early on in its history. The housing and community areas were constructed during the 1930s and 1940s. Recreation areas and more support facilities were built in the 1950s. Flying operations at Albrook AFB were moved to Howard AFB in 1961. Since then, training, base support, community services, and housing are the primary uses for Albrook AFS.
Initial construction of Howard AFB was accomplished from 1941 to 1943. In 1943, the eastern runway was improved and extended to 7,000 ft. The aircraft maintenance hangars were built in 1941, as was the base theater. Most all of the housing on base was built during the early 1940s. There are both dormitories for unaccompanied personnel and housing units for accompanied officers and enlisted personnel. The hospital was built in 1943. Community facilities such as the Base Exchange (BX), Post Office, Snack Bar and Non-commissioned Officer Service Club,
25
many administrative offices, and the 24th Wing Headquarters are located in refurbished 1941-era dormitories.
The decade of the 1950s at Howard AFB was spent in an inactive and standby status. The base chapel was completed in 1956. In 1963, the runway was again extended, this time to 8,500 ft. That same year the western runway was converted to a parking apron and taxiway. Renovations to many facilities on the base took place during the 1960s. A new base operations building was completed in 1965. A new weapons storage area was completed in 1966. An air freight terminal and gymnasium were completed in 1968. with a visiting airmen's dormitory. Additional family housing was built in 1969, along
The 1970s brought a spate of new community facilities, including a child care center, service station exchange, visiting officer's quarters, and a youth center. The waste treatment plant and sewage treatment and disposal plant were brought on-line in 1974. In contrast, base development during the 1980s was minor. Most projects were alterations and refurbishment to existing facilities, as many facilities were utilized to their fullest extent.
26
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the reconnaissance inventory of Howard AFB and Albrook AFS 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 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 black-and-white 35 mm photographs.
27
As part of the reconnaissance inventory of Howard AFB and Albrook AFS, 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
4.2.1 Documentation
The evaluated resources at Howard AFB and Albrook AFS 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.
28
29
30
31
Between November 29 and December 5, 1994, Mariah field team investigators Patience E. Patterson and David P. Staley conducted a base inventory at Howard AFB, Albrook AFS, and Balboa West Bombing Range. Upon arrival, Mr. James Chavers, the Natural and Cultural Resources Officer within the 24th Civil Engineering Squadron (CES), organized an in-briefing meeting attended by himself, Mr. Maximo Abad, Real Property Officer, Mr. Robert Sullivan, 24th Wing Historian, Capt. Greg Long, Chief of the 24th CES, Mr. William Kludt, Deputy Base Engineer, and the field team. This meeting provided an opportunity to exchange information and advise Howard AFB personnel of the objectives and needs for accomplishing the base inventory.
Mr. Chavers provided tours of Howard AFB and Albrook AFS to familiarize the field team with the layouts and types of facilities present and provide a preliminary assessment of which facilities might be significant within the context of the Cold War. A visit to Semaphore Hill, a remote radar installation, was also conducted. Mr. James Scoggins, contract manager of the site for the Caribbean Basin Radar Network, provided the field team with a tour of this facility and allowed them to take photographs from the tower of the Balboa West Bombing Range.
32
Sgt Joseph Doyle of the CES Drafting Office provided the team with electronic and hard copies of base maps and made the map vault available for inventory. Files associated with buildings of interest and also historic reference drawings and aerial photographs associated with base history and development were noted. The field team also conducted a search of documents in the Real Property Office and received a copy of the Real Property Change List. A cursory inventory of the contents of the Wing History Office was made, and copies of the base history, historical documents, mission statements, and planning documents were provided to the field team by the 24th Wing Historian, Mr. Robert Sullivan. The Public Affairs Office was contacted and queries were made regarding the existence of any mission statements or historical documents in their files. The field team visited the Wing Quality Office and gathered additional mission statements. Throughout the visit, a photographic inventory of property types on the base was conducted between scheduled tours and appointments.
An out-briefing was conducted on December 5. In attendance were Mr. Chavers, Mr. Robert Sullivan, Capt. Greg Long, and Mr. William Kludt. The field team provided a brief synopsis of the findings of the inventory and a description of the reporting and review process for the study.
33
During the reconnaissance inventory of Howard AFB, 123 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.
34
Three resources were evaluated at Howard AFB, one of them falling under the DoD category of real property and two under records/documents. 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 station and their resources, and the missions associated with these resources, access to the evaluated building could not be secured. In this instance, documentation describing any changes to the building was consulted to provide insight into the integrity of the building's interior.
6.1.1 Documentation
This collection of the 24th Wing History Office provides a history of the base and the major contingents at the base. The office holdings include wing histories, reports, newsclippings, slides, and photographs. A cursory inventory is presented in Appendix E. Although generally not focused on buildings, the collection contains unique materials pertinent to people and events at the base throughout the Cold War era. It also contains a record of various orders and plans passed to both Howard AFB and Albrook AFS through the years. Some of the documents and photographs in the collection are likely rare and unique.
The wing histories, reports, and newsclippings are generally in good condition and are well organized. However, some of the documents have been negatively impacted by the humid
36
climate.
Portions of the photographic collection have been sorted and filed by topics or
geography, although the vast majority remain uncatalogued and unorganized.
This documentary collection, located in the Drafting Office of the 24th CES, consists of flat files containing drawings, plans, maps, and photographs pertaining to construction, maintenance, and modifications to Howard AFB and Albrook AFS facilities. The files also contain records of various "off-base" installations belonging to the Panama Canal Commission, the Army, and the Navy. The drawings and plans are on linen, vellum, or mylar and pertain mostly to specific buildings and utility systems dating from the original base construction to the present. The photographs are aerial views of the base and station. A cursory inventory of the files is presented in Appendix E. The collection provides a perspective on the historical development of the base and is a source of detailed supporting information about particular facilities.
The collection is poorly organized and damaged from use and climatic conditions.
The
architectural drawings are an actively used resource, and as such, plans and drawings are pulled and refiled and are subject to continuous wear. The task of organizing these files has been initiated, and plans have been made to scan the documents and computerize the inventory.
None were evaluated at Howard AFB.
37
6.4.1 Combat Support Training
6.4.1.1 IAAFA Headquarters (Resource No. 27081, Real Property No. 812)
Real Property No. 812 on Albrook AFS was built in 1942 as a dormitory. Later, the building housed academic classrooms and the headquarters of the IAAFA between 1949 and 1989. Other buildings associated with IAAFA during this time include Real Property Nos. 808-811, which then functioned as dormitories and classrooms, and Real Property Nos. 449 and 450, which were training hangars.
Real Property No. 812 is a four story building with a stucco exterior and red tile roof. A distinguishing feature of this building as well as the associated buildings is their aquamedias. An aquamedia is a continuous permanent awning surrounding the building just above the windows on each floor. Real Property No. 812 also features an attached covered entrance walkway which distinguishes this building from the rest, and indicates the important headquarters function of the building.
The building is now used as an airmen's dormitory. The exterior has been slightly modified for safety and maintenance. For example, some of the wooden lintels for the aquamedias have been replaced by metal braces. The interior was not inspected; however, its current use as a dormitory may have required some renovation. Thus, the integrity of this building is questionable.
However, the association of this building with the other buildings that were part of IAAFA remains intact.
The predecessor to IAAFA, the Air Force School of the Military Training Center of the Panama Canal Department, was initiated in 1943. This evolved into the USAF School for Latin America in 1948. This organization moved into Real Property No. 812 on July 25, 1949. On
38
September 6, 1966, IAAFA became the official name for the organization. Through the years, the school hosted numerous indigenous military students from all over Central and South America. In 1966, four Cuna Indians from the San Blas Islands of Panama were enrolled. Training operations focused on maintenance and support of aircraft with little emphasis on flying or strategy. IAAFA moved to Homestead AFB on September 30, 1989. Presently, IAAFA is located at Lackland AFB, Texas.
Real Property No. 812 is exceptionally important because it housed the headquarters of important training activities funded and conducted by the United States for all Latin American air forces. Through training programs and military support, the United States maintained positive relations with Latin American allies against communism, and met the goals and objectives set forth by the JCS to counteract insurgency attempts by the Communist Bloc countries. The IAAFA
Headquarters is an exceptional example of the U.S. policy of maintaining good relations with third-world allies in the Western Hemisphere through fully supporting training programs. The importance of IAAFA to Albrook AFS is reflected by the large number of buildings associated with the school. This building was used for this purpose during all four phases of the Cold War, and meets NRHP criterion (a).
39
The purpose of the reconnaissance inventory was to provide initial information on the kinds of Cold War resources extant on Howard AFB and Albrook AFS. 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 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 Howard AFB. These resources should be investigated further for a more comprehensive analysis of the base Cold War context.
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 Howard AFB
revealed approximately 200 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 Howard AFB and Albrook AFS should allot time to researching these documents.
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 is presented in Appendix F.
40
During the base visit, no threats to the IAAFA Headquarters building were identified. The Documentary Collections evaluated are threatened by the humid climate. Measures should be taken to mitigate or remove this threat.
41
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 Howard 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.
42
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 Howard 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
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 Howard AFB have not been evaluated, and thus must be considered and treated as eligible until an evaluation and determination of eligibility are made.
43
44
Recommendations for the evaluated resources at Howard 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:
46
This collection of wing histories, reports, newsclippings, slides, and photographs is only partially organized and has been subject to damage due to climatic conditions. It is recommended that this collection be fully inventoried, organized, and copied. It is further recommended that the base retain the copies for its use, with the originals going to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
This collection of architectural drawings and aerial photographs is poorly organized and damaged as a result of continual use by base engineers and exposure to the humid climatic conditions. It is recommended that the task of inventorying and organizing these files be continued. It is further recommended that the plans for scanning the drawings and computerizing the inventory be
47
recommended that the plans for scanning the drawings and computerizing the inventory be implemented. Once this is complete, it is recommended that the original drawings be sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation. The photographs should be copied, with the copies going to the base for its use, and the originals going to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
9.2.3 IAAFA Headquarters (Resource No. 27081, Real Property No. 812)
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases I through IV, and meets NRHP criterion (a) based on its role in meeting the need for counter-insurgency in Latin America. However, the integrity of the building may have been compromised due to renovations while transforming the building into a dormitory. Therefore, this building is recommended as potentially eligible to the NRHP. Further
documentation to determine the level of integrity and to explore NRHP eligibility is recommended. Stewardship of the building to retain its current level of integrity is recommended in the interim during this evaluation. Because the association of this building with the other buildings used by the IAAFA remains intact, it is further recommended that nomination of this complex of buildings to the NRHP, with Real Property No. 812 as the centerpiece, be explored.
48
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. Canal Zone Government 1964 License No. 1856. Canal Zone Code, Title 2, Section 333. (Military Sites) Licensee: Department of the Air Force. On file, 24th Wing History Office, Howard Air Force Base, Republic of Panama. Department of Defense 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. Hartrampf Engineering, Inc. 1988 Commander's Long Range Facility Improvement Plan, Howard AFB, Republic of Panama. Prepared by Hartrampf Engineering, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia. Historical Division, Headquarters, Caribbean Air Command 1961 Howard Air Force Base. On file, 24th Wing History Office, Howard Air Force Base, Republic of Panama. Howard Air Force Base 1965 Analysis of Facilities and Conditions, Howard Air Force Base, Canal Zone. On file, 24th Wing History Office, Howard Air Force Base, Republic of Panama. 1975 TAB A-1 Environmental Narrative (Phase II), Howard Air Force Base, Canal Zone. On file, 24th Wing History Office, Howard Air Force Base, Republic of Panama. 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
Mittag, A. A. 1934 Albrook Flying Field in the Canal Zone, Origin and Construction of the Government's Airport near Balboa. In Civil Engineering. Vol. 4, No. 7:340-344. On file, 24th Wing History Office, Howard Air Force Base, Republic of Panama. 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. Public Affairs Office, 24th Wing 1994 Assignment Panama An Unofficial Guide for Military Members Assigned to the 24th Wing and Panama. 24th Wing Public Affairs Office, Howard Air Force Base, Republic of Panama. Public Affairs Office, Panama Canal Commission 1994 The Panama Canal. Panama Canal Commission, Panama City, Panama. n.d. The Panama Canal Commission, "Background Information on the Panama Canal." Panama Canal Office of Public Affairs, Balboa Heights, Republic of Panama. Recruiting Publicity Center 1956a Crossroads of the World, The Role CAirC Airmen Play As Goodwill Ambassadors. In Life of the AIRMAN. Recruiting Publicity Center, Governors Island, New York. 1956b Training for Mutual Defense, The Contribution of CAirC's Tech Training and Air Mission Programs. In Life of the AIRMAN. Recruiting Publicity Center, Governor's Island, New York. Sullivan, R. 1994 History 24th Wing, Howard Air Force Base and Albrook Air Force Station. On file, 24th Wing History Office, Howard Air Force Base, Republic of Panama. United States Air Force 1985a Fact Sheet, First Lieutenant Frank P. Albrook. Headquarters, United States Air Force, Southern Air Division, Office of Public Affairs. On file, 24th Wing History Office, Howard Air Force Base, Republic of Panama. 1985b Fact Sheet, Major Charles Harold Howard. Headquarters, United States Air Force, Southern Air Division, Office of Public Affairs. On file, 24th Wing History Office, Howard Air Force Base, Republic of Panama.
50
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. Young, L. F. 1966 History of U.S. Air Forces Southern Command, 1 January - 30 June 1966. Historical Division, Office of Information, Headquarters, United States Air Forces Southern Command. On file, 24th Wing History Office, Howard Air Force Base, Republic of Panama. Young, L. F. and K. M. Kirk 1960 Cold War Activities. In History of the Caribbean Air Command, 1 January - 30 June 1960. Prepared by Historical Division, Office of Information, Headquarters, Caribbean Air Command. On file, 24th Wing History Office, Howard Air Force Base, Republic of Panama.
APPENDIX B: BASE AND STATION LAYOUT MAPS SHOWING INVENTORIED RESOURCES
APPENDIX E: ADDITIONAL DATA ON EVALUATED RESOURCES
E-1
File Cabinets: (2 four-drawer and 1 five-drawer) Historical research and reference Aircraft and dignitary photos Albrook Field and AFB photos, 1909-1960 France Field photos, 1918 - 1961 Howard Field and AFB photos, 1963 - 1969 Commanders and Staff Officers photos, 1942 - 1946 USAF mission photos, 1951 - 1974 Miscellaneous photos, 1900 - 1966 USAFSO reorganization documents Personnel data, 1934 - 1972 Albrook AFB, 1924 -1975 Balboa Fill Landing Field, 1928 - 1955 Howard AFB, 1961 - 1964 France Field, 1921 - 1975 Air Warning Stations at Howard AFB, 1947 - 1948 Howard - Albrook Controversy, 1949 - 1955 Operations and maneuvers, 1960 - 1969 Working papers Historical background/photos Orders and airfield Latin American pilot training Operation Just Cause Agreements, leases, and treaties File Safes: (3 four-drawer and 1 two-drawer) History files, 1966-present Miscellaneous - Treaty Implementation Research and References Special and General Orders, 1932 - 1970 Files regarding 17 off-base defense installations Slide File: Collection of slides portraying activities, awards, personnel, aircraft, exercises, etc. Assorted Holdings on Shelves: Box of unsorted slides of events, people, IAAFA, and buildings Box of videos Box of unsorted prints and slides Bound histories - France AFB, 1917-1949
E-2
- Albrook AFB, 1931-1938, 1951, 1956 - Caribbean Air Force - 19th Wing - Sixth Air Force - Sixth Air Force Weather Squadron - 24th Composite Wing - 776th Air Force Band - Caribbean Air Command - 5700th Air Base Group - USAFSO/USAFS Air Division, 1963-1989 Assorted Reports - Paitilla Point - Airfields: Authority for Abandonment, 1943-1944 - Land acquisition in Panama, chronological history - IAAFA history, 1984 - Agreements - Treaties - Mission Data - Construction Ring Bound Reports - Biographies - Chronologies - Operations - Facilities (includes old photos and chronology) Ring Bound Slide Sets The Runway newspaper, 1944-1946 Set of USAF publications on history Back issues of Airman magazine Assorted Holdings on Floor: 2 boxes unsorted miscellaneous photos, scrapbooks, slides, awards, mission statements Box of videos 1 painted concrete, WWII vintage, Air Corps emblem reportedly recovered from the floor of a hangar
E-3
Approximately 200 flat file drawers containing: 60 files of individual building drawings Files include original vellum, cloth, and blueprint plans and as-builts of individual buildings, as well as subsequent modifications. Notable examples include original drawings and modifications of building Nos. 808-812 (Drawer 88) and those of the 1940's tropical family housing units (Drawer 105). 80 files of general utilities and systems Files include base parking, roads, sewer, water, power, and fuel systems, aprons, and taxiways. Contains plans and as-built drawings on mylar, vellum, and sailcloth. Drawings span base construction to the present. 20 files of miscellaneous subjects Topics or items present in these drawings include layout maps, Treaty Related, Panama Canal, Army, Navy, and Rodman drawings, and standard drawings of barracks. Aerial photographs in these files span the 1960s and 1970s, and others are undated. 20 files associated with current design projects 20 empty files The tops of 5 file cabinets are filled with map tubes, rolls of maps, boxes, etc. of unknown items.
F-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 Howard AFB, and to provide research materials for this study:
Mr. James Chavers Natural and Cultural Resource Manager 24th CES/CEEV APO AA 34001 Howard AFB, Panama (507) 845165 Capt Gregory Long Chief Environmental Flight 24th CES/CEEV APO AA 34001 Howard AFB, Panama (507) 845165 Mr. Maximo Abad Real Property Officer 24th CES Unit 0850 APO AA 34001 Howard AFB, Panama Mr. Robert Sullivan Wing Historian 24th W/HO Unit 0509 APO AA 34001-5000 Howard AFB, Panama MSgt Joseph Doyle CE Drafting Office 24th CES APO AA 34001 Howard AFB, Panama
F-2
Mr. William Kludt Deputy Base Engineer 24th CES APO AA 34001 Howard AFB, Panama
VOLUME II-13: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE AT K. I. SAWYER AIR FORCE BASE
Prepared by R. Blake Roxlau Karen Lewis Katherine J. Roxlau
August 1997
Volume II-13: K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base was inventoried for Cold War resources by Karen Lewis and R. Blake Roxlau of Mariah Associates, Inc., between October 17 and 22, 1994 as part of the Air Combat Command Cold War Study under the ongoing Department of Defense Legacy Program. Information was gathered at the base from the Wing Historian, Drawing Room staff, and Civil Engineering, Real Property, and Public Affairs Offices. On-site inspections of extant Cold War properties were also conducted. photographed. During this research, 130 resources were inventoried and
Based on the inspections and the information gathered, five resources were selected for further documentation and evaluation as important to the base's Cold War context. These resources include the Bomber Alert Facility, Tanker Alert Facility, Fighter Alert Facility, Semi-Automatic Ground Environment Facility, and a Documentary Collection. The majority of properties evaluated correspond to Phase II of the Cold War as described in the historic context and methodology document written for this project (Lewis et al. 1995). To differing degrees, these five resources reflect the role that K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base played in the Cold War.
All three alert facilities are recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places, with further documentation and stewardship also recommended. The Semi-Automatic Ground Environment Facility, which has compromised integrity, is recommended as ineligible to the National Register, with further documentation recommended to record the historic use of the building. Finally, further documentation, stewardship, and conservation are recommended for the Documentary Collection.
ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACC ACHP ADC AFB AGE AMMS AMS AREFS BMS BMW BRACC BS BW DoD FG FIS FMS FTD HABS MAC Mariah MMS NCO NHPA NPS NRHP NSC OCONUS OMS PME RAPCON SAC SAGE SALT SDI SHPO START SW TAC USAF
Air Combat Command Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Air Defense Command Air Force Base Air Ground Equipment Airborne Missile Maintenance Squadron Avionics Maintenance Squadron Air Refueling Squadron Bombardment Squadron Bombardment Wing Base Re-Alignment and Closure Commission Bomb Squadron Bomb Wing Department of Defense Fighter Group Fighter Interceptor Squadron Field Maintenance Squadron Field Training Detachment Historic American Buildings Survey Military Airlift Command Mariah Associates, Inc. Munitions Maintenance Squadron Noncommissioned Officer National Historic Preservation Act National Park Service National Register of Historic Places National Security Council Off the Continental United States Organizational Maintenance Squadron 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 Strategic Arms Reduction Talks Strategic Wing Tactical Air Command United States Air Force
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. 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. Gaither Report - a report concerning the development of the Cold War produced by the Gaither Committee in 1957. It predicted an increase in the arms race and continued escalation of the Cold War. It recommended a drastic increase in military spending and initiation of a multibillion-dollar civil defense system. It also echoed the Killian Report in recommending the dispersal of the bomber force to increase survivability. 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 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.
iv
GLOSSARY (Continued) 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 deterioration 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.
3.0 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 13 3.1 BASE HISTORY AND COLD WAR CONTEXT.............................................................. 13 3.2 BASE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................... 16 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 ..................................................................... 28 6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS......................................................................................................... 29 6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS ........................................................ 29 6.1.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 29 6.1.1.1 Documentary Collection ..................................................................................... 29 6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS ......................................................... 31 6.2.1 Alert Facilities .............................................................................................................. 31 6.2.1.1 Fighter Alert Facility........................................................................................... 31
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.2.1.2 Bomber Alert Facility ......................................................................................... 32 6.2.1.3 Tanker Alert Facility ........................................................................................... 33 6.2.2 Communications .......................................................................................................... 33 6.2.2.1 SAGE Facility ..................................................................................................... 33 6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES ..................................................................... 34 6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES...................................................................................................... 34 6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES ............................................................................................ 35 7.0 UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 36 8.0 FUTURE THREATS TO RESOURCES ................................................................................... 37 9.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 38 9.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY ............................................................................................................ 38 9.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility.................................................... 38 9.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility ................................................................................ 40 9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 41 9.2.1 Documentary Collection .............................................................................................. 43 9.2.2 Fighter Alert Facility .................................................................................................... 43 9.2.3 Bomber Alert Facility................................................................................................... 44 9.2.4 Tanker Alert Facility .................................................................................................... 44 9.2.5 SAGE Facility .............................................................................................................. 45 9.3 PENDING BASE CLOSURE............................................................................................... 45 10.0 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................. 46 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 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Bases Selected for the Air Combat Command Cold War Study .............................. 2 Location of K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base .................................................................. 5 K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base Layout.......................................................................... 6 Standard Strategic Air Command Base Layout ........................................................ 7 K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base Land Use Diagram ...................................................... 10 Standard Strategic Air Command Base Land Use Diagram ..................................... 11 K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base, 1950-1960 .................................................................. 18 K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base, 1960-1970 .................................................................. 19 K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base, 1970-1990 .................................................................. 20 K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base, 1990-Present............................................................... 21 LIST OF TABLES
Evaluated Resource Prioritization by Air Force Group and Subgroup. ................... 30 Evaluated Resource Prioritization by Priority Rank. ................................................ 30 Recommendations for Evaluated Resources. ............................................................ 42
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is a reconnaissance inventory of Cold War related resources on K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base (AFB). K. I. Sawyer 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.
K. I. Sawyer AFB currently consists of the 410th Bomb Wing (BW), which is the base host and directs the 410th Operations Group, 410th Logistics Group, 410th Support Group, and the 410th Medical Group. The 410th BW employed the B-52H Stratofortress bomber and KC-135A
Stratotanker in support of its mission to "deter attacks against the United States and its allies by providing war fighting commanders-in-chief with combat forces ready to fight in-place or forwarddeployed" (United States Air Force [USAF] 1994). K. I. Sawyer AFB is scheduled to close in September 1995. In anticipation of the closure, the KC-135A tankers and squadron were
reassigned in October of 1993, and the B-52H bombers and squadron were reassigned in November of 1994. [Editor's Note: This report is written based upon existing conditions and findings made during the field reconnaissance. Since that time, K. I. Sawyer AFB has been closed by the Base ReAlignment and Closure Commission (BRACC).]
K. I. Sawyer AFB is located on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan approximately 21 mi (34 km) south of Marquette, Michigan and approximately 7 mi (11 km) northeast of the small community of Gwinn (Figure 2.1). The base is located in heavily forested, relatively flat terrain surrounded by gently rolling hills. The climate of the area is dominated by cold winters and cool summers, with heavy precipitation year round. The local economy is dependent on the base, iron ore, and timber industries.
The layout of the buildings and facilities at K. I. Sawyer AFB (Figure 2.2) is very similar to that of the standard SAC layout (Figure 2.3). The base runway and aprons are oriented north/south.
The flight line forms the western edge of the base, with almost all buildings and facilities located to the east of the flight line at its southern half. The buildings closest to the flight line are mission-related facilities. Static displays of aircraft important to base history are located
throughout the mission and mission support area. The displays include a T-33 jet trainer, B-52 bomber, and F-101 Voodoo interceptor. Community, headquarters, industrial, base support, and unaccompanied housing are centrally located next to and east of the mission area. The family housing area is located farthest from the flight line, at the southeastern corner of the base. Located within the housing area are the elementary school, day care center, chapel, and temporary lodging facilities. There is a large open area between the housing and the rest of the base development. This area is heavily forested and contains the base golf course. The main gate is located at the southwestern corner of the base, and the entrance road, which is lined with flagpoles, passes through an open space around the southern end of the runway.
The bomber, tanker, and fighter alert areas are located at the southern end of the runway. The weapon storage area is found just south of the fighter alert facility. The bomber and tanker alert facilities and aprons are the only buildings on the western side of the flight line.
The differences between the layout of K. I. Sawyer AFB and the standard SAC base layout are few. In the standard, the control tower is in the middle of the mission area rather than at one end of the runway, and the main gate is next to family housing rather than in an empty part of the base at one end of the runway. Finally, the standard layout has a different specific configuration for the tanker and bomber alert aprons and has no fighter alert area. However, the location of these three at K. I. Sawyer AFB does generally approximate the layout of the standard SAC base.
2.4 BASE LAND USE
The following is a list of standard SAC land use categories: Alert Facilities - 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. Weapon and Warhead Storage - for nuclear and conventional weapons.
Figure 2.4 is a diagrammatic land use plan of K. I. Sawyer AFB, and Figure 2.5 is a diagrammatic land use plan of a standard SAC base. K. I. Sawyer AFB's land use pattern is similar to that of a standard SAC base; however, there are some land use differences, the most evident of which is the addition of a fighter alert facility to K. I. Sawyer AFB. Also, the tanker alert area on the standard is along the regular runway, whereas the K. I. Sawyer AFB has a separate tanker alert facility and apron. The weapon storage area in the standard is away from the main base development, but at K. I. Sawyer AFB the storage area is immediately adjacent to the main base. Another difference is the placement of K. I. Sawyer AFB's headquarters buildings within the mission area, whereas the standard land use diagram places them farther
12
from the runway within the middle of the base. Finally, the standard land use diagram shows two distinct family housing areas. In contrast, K. I. Sawyer AFB has one large area for family housing.
13
K. I. Sawyer AFB was established in 1956 on the site of the K. I. Sawyer Municipal Airport. Kenneth Ingalls Sawyer, the base's namesake, was a local official and the original proponent for the construction of the airport. The name was retained after the Air Force obtained the property.
The base was conceived as an interceptor base to counter the threat of Soviet trans-polar bomber attack and to improve the United States capability to detect incoming attack and defend the nation. The original realization of a potential bomber threat was in response to the 1953 detonation of a Soviet hydrogen device, and was described in the Killian Report presented to the National Security Council in March of 1954 (Lewis et al. 1995). The report noted that, in spite of the United States advantage in nuclear strike capability, the nation was vulnerable to surprise attack as a result of poor air defense, lack of early warning systems, and an increasing Soviet long-range bomber force.
To remedy the situation, a defense network including early warning devices and interceptor aircraft was planned for the northern United States. Several cities along the northern frontier were
considered as interceptor bases. In January of 1955, Air Force and local officials negotiated a 99year lease of the property for use as K. I. Sawyer AFB (USAF 1993a). Presumably the decision was based on the site's northern location, inexpensive land, flat terrain, relatively few surrounding residents, and existing runway system.
Construction of the base began soon after acquisition, and K. I. Sawyer AFB was activated in January of 1956 as part of the Eastern Air Defense Force of Air Defense Command (ADC) (USAF 1993a). The 473rd Fighter Group (FG) was activated under this command on January 8th, 1956 (Finanger 1994), and 25 F-102 Delta Dagger aircraft were placed on duty in 1958.
14
The 473rd FG was redesignated the 56th FG in 1959. The 62nd Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS), under the 56th FG, was equipped in October of 1959 with F-101 Voodoo supersonic interceptors. The 62nd FIS was responsible for patrol and defense of the Sault Ste. Marie Defense Sector, one of several north-south corridors along the United States-Canadian border.
The defense of Sault Ste. Marie's sector was facilitated by the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) system, which was assigned as another tenant of the base in 1959 (Lewis et al. 1995; Schaffel 1991; USAF 1994). The SAGE system was spread across the northern United States at various air force installations. Each SAGE location included a blast-resistant,
windowless SAGE building that housed two large IBM computers and an array of radar and communications equipment. The computers cycled information received from early warning devices in Canada, calculating the elevation, speed, and distance of incoming targets, then figured the most efficient intercept route, and relayed that information to fighters in its sector (Finanger 1994).
K. I. Sawyer AFB's role as solely a fighter interceptor base was to be short-lived. The Soviet Union's development of the Bear and Bison bombers led to fear of a "bomber gap" between the United States and the Soviet Union (Goldberg 1957), resulting in a call for the production and deployment of more United States long-range bombers. In 1957, the Gaither Report claimed the Soviet Union could possess a first-strike capability against the United States as early as 1959 (Lewis et al. 1995). The report recommended that strategic aircraft be dispersed to numerous bases to help ensure that a substantial portion of the bomber and tanker force would survive a Soviet first strike. K. I. Sawyer AFB was one of the bases chosen to carry out this military strategy of dispersal (Lewis et al. 1995; USAF 1994). The fact that K. I. Sawyer AFB was located in the northern United States and provided a relatively short attack route to the Soviet Union probably contributed to the decision.
The 4042nd Strategic Wing (SW) was activated in 1958 as a SAC tenant on K. I. Sawyer AFB. The wing's mission was to include the operation of KC-135 tankers of the 923rd Air Refueling
15
Squadron (AREFS) and B-52H bombers of the 644th Bombardment Squadron (BMS) (Finanger 1994). The 923rd AREFS was redesignated the 46th AREFS in 1961. In 1963, the 4042nd SW was redesignated the 410th Bombardment Wing (BMW), and the 644th BMS was redesignated the 526th BMS.
In September 1963, the SAGE facility at K. I. Sawyer AFB was deactivated. In January of 1964, K. I. Sawyer AFB was reassigned from ADC to SAC, and the 410th BMW became the base host (USAF 1994). The SAC mission was to maintain "a capability of conducting long-range
bombardment operations . . . and to sustain the capability to engage in effective air refueling operations" (USAF 1994). A number of the base's tankers and bombers were on constant alert in order to respond to any war order or threat situation. With the change in command, the 56th FG was deactivated; however, the 62nd FIS remained on the base as a tenant of SAC.
Over the years, bombers and tankers of the 410th BMW participated in a number of high profile operations. KC-135 crews and aircraft from K. I. Sawyer AFB took part in 1961 in Project Quick Step, a record-setting flight from New York to Paris by a B-58 bomber with in-flight refueling. In 1963, K. I. Sawyer AFB tankers participated in Operation Greased Lightning, a B-58 speed record flight from Tokyo to London. Beginning in 1965, the KC-135s from the base participated in Operation Young Tiger, air refueling operations over Southeast Asia. The 410th BMW aircraft and crews participated in Operation Arc Light, a bombing campaign over Vietnam in 1968 (Finanger 1994; USAF 1994).
In the early 1970s, FB-111 medium bombers were briefly assigned to K. I. Sawyer AFB as part of a satellite basing program. The nuclear bombers' mission was to maintain the capability of global deployment and to conduct bombardment operations with minimal notification. The satellite basing, like the earlier bomber dispersals, was designed to insure a higher survival rate for aircraft in the event of attack.
16
The fighter interceptors of the 62nd FIS continued in service at K. I. Sawyer through 1971. In May 1971, the 62nd FIS was reassigned, and the 87th FIS, equipped with F-106 Delta Darts, was transferred to K. I. Sawyer AFB. Control of the 87th FIS shifted from ADC to Tactical Air Command (TAC) in 1979, but the aircraft continued the same interceptor mission. In October of 1985, the 87th FIS and its F-106 fighter interceptors were removed from K. I. Sawyer AFB (Department of Defense [DoD] 1986), leaving the base with no fighter interceptor mission for the first time.
Several changes have taken place at K. I. Sawyer AFB within the last few years. The 526th BMS and its B-52 bombers were removed from alert in 1991, although they continued to support worldwide United States military operations such as Desert Storm. As part of an Air Force-wide reorganization that same year, the wing was renamed the 410th Wing. K. I. Sawyer AFB and the 410th BMW were reassigned from SAC to ACC in June 1992, and the wing, now named the 410th BW under ACC, continued base host responsibilities (USAF 1994). At this same time, the 46th AREFS was transferred to Air Mobility Command. The 46th AREFS was deactivated at K. I. Sawyer AFB in October of 1993, and its KC-135s were reassigned. The 526th Bomb Squadron (BS) and its B-52s were reassigned in November 1994. The base is currently scheduled to close in September of 1995. [Editor's Note: K. I. Sawyer AFB was closed September 30, 1995. It is currently still under USAF control and is managed by the Air Force Base Conversion Agency.]
K. I. Sawyer AFB was built to carry out operations directly related to the Cold War. The installation was initially designed as a fighter interceptor base, but evolved into a bomber and tanker base within SAC and ACC.
The base was constructed on the site of the K. I. Sawyer Municipal Airport.
Land for
K. I. Sawyer AFB was acquired in 1956 through negotiations between the Air Force and local
17
officials, which resulted in a 99-year lease for one dollar a year. Other land was added through lease in later years (DoD 1973). Construction began immediately on the runway and family housing.
The base was activated on April 8, 1956, and the first few mission-related buildings were officially accepted by the Air Force that same year (Figure 3.1). The runway and the first housing units were finished in 1959 (Mueller 1989). The construction of the SAGE facility to house early warning and command and control systems for interceptors was completed in 1959. This three-story,
windowless building was constructed of heavy reinforced concrete and was designed to withstand a nuclear blast. A large fallout shelter was located in the basement of the building (Finanger 1994; USAF 1994).
The majority of mission, mission support, and family housing facilities were completed in the 1960s (Figure 3.2). A "christmas-tree" alert apron and bomber alert facility were built during this decade for bomber operations, and the weapons storage area was expanded. In the 1970s and 1980s, a tanker alert facility and separate apron were constructed (Figure 3.3), as well as a new regional hospital, a flight simulator facility, and a missile assembly shop. In 1993, a new control tower was built at the northern end of the runway (Figure 3.4).
22
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the reconnaissance inventory of K. I. Sawyer 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
4.1 INVENTORY
The DoD Legacy Program outlines three general categories under which Cold War resources may be included: real property, personal property, and records/documents (USAF 1993b: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).
23
As part of the reconnaissance inventory of K. I. Sawyer 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 K. I. Sawyer 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.
24
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 1993b) 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; or
25
26
27
Staff Sergeant Tami Miller, the 410th BW historian, met with the Mariah field team upon their arrival at K. I. Sawyer AFB and introduced the team to individuals who would provide them with information required to complete the study. These people included Drawing Room staff, Real Property personnel, individuals knowledgeable of base history, and personnel who could provide easy access to facilities. SSgt Miller gave the team a tour of the base, discussed histories, and provided historical photographs. The team was in contact with SSgt Miller on a daily basis.
Fieldwork began by obtaining available background literature on the base and its various Cold War missions. Arrangements were made for personnel to escort the field team on tours of areas with high security, such as the weapons storage area and along the flight line. All other areas were accessible without escort. During these tours, Cold War properties and examples of typical base property types were photographed and inventoried.
Based on the background information gathered and the properties inventoried, resources were selected for further documentation and evaluation for their Cold War importance.
28
During the reconnaissance inventory of K. I. Sawyer AFB, 130 resources were inventoried. Appendix A lists the inventoried resources, and Appendix B shows their locations on the base. Photographs of inventoried resources are presented in Appendix C.
29
Five resources were evaluated at K. I. Sawyer AFB, four of them falling under the DoD category of real property and one under records/documents. 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
6.1.1 Documentation
The K. I. Sawyer AFB architectural files, located in the base engineering building, are housed in four rows of 6 ft tall flat file cabinets. The files contain numerous historical maps, original base master layouts, and construction and utility project drawings of K. I. Sawyer AFB and related facilities. The maps and drawings, which are stored flat, include paper, linen, mylar, vellum, and blue line reproductions. The majority of them are in good condition, but are threatened by frequent or occasional handling and removal from drawers. This collection contains important information about historic structures on base, and illustrates the development of the installation throughout the Cold War era. All of the evaluated buildings at the base have associated drawings in these files.
31
This building was originally the Fighter Alert Facility, and exemplifies the earliest mission of K. I. Sawyer AFB as an interceptor base. Completed in 1956, the Fighter Alert Facility is constructed of a steel frame and contains four aircraft bays along with a day room, bedrooms, and utility area. Fighter interceptor pilots stayed at the facility while on alert, having only minutes to be airborne in response to an incoming bomber attack. The building was used as a Fighter Alert Facility from 1956 through 1985. The building has since been converted to a maintenance shop and is currently used for weapon and release system maintenance.
Two of the four bays have been altered on the interior, and the former bedrooms have been converted into office space. The building appears to be generally in poor condition. Based on these observations, the exterior integrity is intact while the integrity of the interior is questionable.
This building is exceptionally important not only to K. I. Sawyer AFB's Cold War context, but also to Cold War history at the national level. The importance of this facility lies in its sole mission to thwart any surprise attack by the Soviet Union on the United States. It conveys the United States fear of a Soviet bomber attack from the north and the measures taken to ensure that any such attack would be successfully intercepted. It is a direct result of Congressional approval in the 1950s for the construction of interceptor bases and the National Security Council (NSC) 68 recommendations for a massive military build-up to "counteract the increasing threat posed by the Soviet Union" (Lewis et al. 1995). The layout of the facility, with aircrew living quarters within the hangar, speaks to the strategy of rapid deployment, a strategy that was part of the United States deterrent capability. Though this facility was used for this purpose during Phases II
32
through IV, its importance is especially characteristic of the Cold War during Phase II. This facility meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
The Bomber Alert Facility, constructed in 1960 of reinforced concrete, was a self-contained community for B-52 bomber crews who were required to live at the facility for seven-day periods and respond to any drill or war situation at a moment's notice. Bedrooms, dining rooms, a recreation room, and a briefing room are all located in the building. Distinctive external features include several ramp tunnels that lead out to the bomber apron. The alert building is a secure facility surrounded by extant chainlink and barbed wire fence with a security control entry building. A security police tower is located on the adjacent bomber alert apron. An associated building still located outside the alert security perimeter was previously used for marital and family activities.
While major additions doubling the square footage for crew quarters were completed in the past, both the original portion and newer sections maintain the appearance related to their original function. Thus, the integrity of the building is intact.
The Bomber Alert Facility is extremely important to K. I. Sawyer AFB's Cold War context and to Cold War history at the national level. It 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 the Killian Report, meeting the needs of deterrence through a survivable force and the dispersion of bombers across the country (Lewis et al. 1995) The B-52 force was an integral part of the defense triad and was relied upon as the United States' primary manned nuclear bomber force for over 30 years. Though this facility was used for this purpose during Phases II through IV, it especially characterizes the policy and strategy enacted during Phase II of the Cold War. This facility meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
33
This concrete building served solely as a Tanker Alert Facility, housing operational support and recreational functions since 1973. The building is located adjacent to the southern end of the tanker alert apron. Due to the pending base closure, this facility is closed and has been vacant for some time. The building contained crew quarters and other accommodations, allowing aircrews to stay close to their planes and have the capability to be airborne in a short span of time to support bomber activity.
Exterior integrity of the building is intact. Access to the interior of the facility was not available during the field visit. However, based on the singular use of the building for tanker alert crews and the lack of documented major renovations, interior integrity is determined to be intact.
The Tanker Alert Facility is extremely important to the Cold War mission of K. I. Sawyer AFB and to national Cold War history. The facility was constructed in response to NSC-68 and the Killian Report, which recommended the dispersion of bombers across the country (Lewis et al. 1995). The dispersion of bombers requires the dispersion of tankers to support them, thus the facility meets the needs of deterrence through a survivable force. Although this facility was not built until 1973, and was used for this purpose during Phases III and IV, its importance stems from policy and strategy enacted during Phase II. This facility meets NRHP criterion (a).
This communications facility was originally built for the SAGE system, an early warning system that detected incoming enemy aircraft, alerted SAC, and dispatched interceptor fighter aircraft stationed in the base's sector. Built in 1958, the building was used for the SAGE system until 1963. It now houses a variety of offices and communications functions.
34
This building was evaluated because of its exceptionally important Cold War early warning function. The building's remaining Cold War features are its lack of windows and the reinforced concrete construction. However, the exterior has been irreversibly altered by a thick coating of stucco. If this were removed, the system with which it is attached would leave holes throughout the facade. The basement of the building originally housed two large computers, mechanical
equipment, and a large, well-stocked, fallout shelter. The computers and equipment have since been removed. Only portions of the fallout shelter remain, including some furniture and a civil engineer post. The upper floors contained offices, weapons control system rooms, and support facilities. Since 1963, these rooms have been completely renovated. Thus, the integrity of this building has been adversely affected.
This building is extremely important in illustrating the early Cold War mission of K. I. Sawyer AFB and the base's history. It epitomizes the role of K. I. Sawyer AFB as a first line of defense against a surprise nuclear attack. It is also highly significant to the Cold War era nationally, as it was constructed as part of the early warning detection system called for by the Killian Report (Lewis et al. 1995). The building's design conveys the United States' fear of a surprise first strike by the Soviet Union, and the desire to have early warning and successful interception of such an attack. This facility was developed and used during Phase II, and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
None were evaluated at K. I. Sawyer AFB.
35
36
The purpose of the reconnaissance inventory was to provide initial information on the kinds of Cold War resources extant on K. I. Sawyer 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 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 K. I. Sawyer AFB. comprehensive analysis. These resources should be investigated further for a more
The Wing Historian has a collection of memorabilia which, due to the base closure, has been prepared for shipment to the Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. This material will be properly curated by the Air Force at this facility.
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 K. I. Sawyer AFB revealed approximately 50 citations. Most of these are unit histories and special collections. More specific topics include the histories of base realignment due to acquisition of the B-52 bomber and the KC-135 tanker. The vast majority of these documents are available on
microfilm. Future studies of Cold War history at K. I. Sawyer AFB should allot time to researching these documents.
37
K. I. Sawyer AFB is scheduled to close in 1995. Base personnel are currently in the process of closing buildings, and attempts are underway to dispose of properties to private entities. With this study, and others being conducted on the base, it appears that efforts are being made to identify properties of historic significance before their disposal. Hopefully this will ensure that any significant properties are properly documented and evaluated for NRHP eligibility prior to transfer out of Air Force control.
38
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 K. I. Sawyer 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.
39
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 K. I. Sawyer 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
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 K. I. Sawyer AFB have not been evaluated, and thus must be considered and treated as eligible until an evaluation and determination of eligibility are made.
40
These
41
Recommendations for the evaluated resources at K. I. Sawyer AFB are presented below. Table 9.1 summarizes these recommendations. More than one recommendation may apply to a given
43
The majority of the architectural drawings and layout maps are in good condition; however, they are threatened by frequent or occasional handling or removal from drawers. It is recommended that the files be inventoried, with the originals going to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II through IV. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) based upon its role of rapid deployment and interception of enemy attack, a strategy that was part of the United States deterrent capability, and on its structural components which are unique to this building type and
44
identify it as an example of Cold War military architecture. However, the integrity of the building may have been compromised due to its conversion to a weapon and release system maintenance shop. Therefore, the building is recommended as potentially eligible to the NRHP. Further documentation to determine the level of integrity and to explore NRHP eligibility is recommended. Stewardship of the building to retain its current level of integrity is recommended in the interim during this evaluation.
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II through IV. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) based upon 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 and its features is intact. Therefore, this building is recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Recommendations include stewardship to maintain
integrity of the building and features, and further documentation for nomination of this resource to the NRHP.
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases III and IV, and meets NRHP criterion (a) based upon its role in sustaining a survivable force to meet the needs of deterrence. The integrity of the building is intact based on its continuous and singular use as a tanker alert facility. Therefore, this building is recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Further documentation is recommended to nominate the resource to the NRHP. Stewardship is also recommended to retain the building's current level of integrity.
45
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important to the base and national Cold War contexts during Phase II. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) based upon its role as a first line of defense against surprise attack and on its structural components, which are unique to this building type and identify it as an example of Cold War military architecture. However, the integrity of the building has been adversely affected. Therefore, this building is recommended as ineligible to the NRHP. Further documentation is recommended to assemble documents, photographs, and other information to record the building's significant Cold War function.
9.3 PENDING BASE CLOSURE
There is no immediate threat to any of the four evaluated facilities on K. I. Sawyer AFB. However, the base is scheduled for closure in 1995, with the subsequent transfer of buildings and properties out of Air Force control. These actions constitute a federal undertaking that may have an effect on potentially NRHP-eligible properties. It is therefore recommended, per Section 106 of the NHPA, that the eligibility of the four properties be determined prior to transfer of the buildings out of USAF control. [Editor's Note: As of this publication, the properties at K. I. Sawyer AFB remain under the control of the USAF and are managed by the Air Force Base Conversion Agency.]
46
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. Department of Defense 1973 Executive Order 11508 Installation Survey Report. K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base, Michigan.
On file, Real Property Office,
1986 Real Property Survey Report, July 1986. On file, Real Property Office, K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base, Michigan. 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. Finanger, S. A. 1994 Guardians of the North (Part I). In The Aero Historian, 28(10):3-5. Twin City Aero Historians, Inc., Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. Goldberg, A., editor 1957 A History of the United States Air Force, 1907-1957. D. Van Nostrand, Princeton, New Jersey. 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. Mueller, R. 1989 Air Force Bases, Volume 1, Active Air Force Bases within the United States of America on September 1982. Office of Air Force History, United States Air Force, Washington, D.C.
47
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. Schaffel, K. 1991 The Emerging Shield: The Air Force and the Evolution of Continental Air Defense 19451960. Office of Air Force History, Washington, D.C. United States Air Force 1993a Fact Sheet, 410th Bomb Wing. On file, Office of Public Affairs, K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base, Michigan. 1993b 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. 1994 K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base Guide. Marcoa Publishing, San Diego.
EVALUATED RESOURCES AT K. I. SAWYER AFB

Property Description: Originally Fighter Alert Facility which included four aircraft bays and crew quarters and dining and lavatory accomodations. Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: 527 H Avenue Base Map Date: 8/1/89 Base Map Building Number: 400 Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Alert Facilities Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Fighter Alert Facility Statement of Significance: The building was designed and used to house fighter interceptors and their crews. The building represents the first mission of KI Sawyer AFB; the mission of intercepting incoming enemy bomber attack. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 4 4 3 4 2 4 21
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: The integrity of this building is questionable, thus it is evaluated as potentially eligible. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility Eligible
30 28175 Permanent Maintenance Shop Fighter Alert Steel Frame Aircraft bays, crew quarters and accomodations

Property Description: Crew Readiness Facility, (Bomber): Contained sleeping quarters, dining and lounge facilities for bomber crews as well as access tubes to apron. Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: none Base Map Date: 8/1/89 Base Map Building Number: 104 Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Alert Facilities Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Bomber Alert Facility Statement of Significance: The building was designed and used to support bomber crews and facilitate their rapid response to their planes in the event of a war situation. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 4 4 3 4 4 4 23
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: Exceptional importance and intact integrity. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility Eligible Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use: Other Use/Dates: Comments on Use: Primary Building Materials: Character Defining Features: 20 52629 Permanent vacant Crew Readiness Poured Concrete Personnel access tunnels, crew quarters and accomodations, massing

Property Description: SAGE building: originally used by ADC as a communications center for coodination of interceptors in the event of Soviet bomber attack. Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: 240 D. Avenue Base Map Date: 8/1/89 Base Map Building Number: 708 Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Communications Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: SAGE Facility Statement of Significance: This building was designed and used to provide interceptor fighters locations of attacking bombers and compute the best posible intercept vector. It exemplifies the fear of Soviet transpolar bomber attack Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 4 4 2 4 1 3 18
No Further Work: No Stewardship: No National Register Listing: No Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: Very little integrity remains; interior space has been extensively renovated and exterior treatments have altered the original appearance. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility Ineligible Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use: Other Use/Dates: Comments on Use: Primary Building Materials: Character Defining Features: 60 120819 Permanent Communication Center, Various Offices SAGE Poured Concrete Windowless exterior, bomb shelter basement

Property Description: Tanker alert facility which housed tanker alert crews and facilitated rapid deployment to their aircraft. Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: none Base Map Date: 8/1/89 Base Map Building Number: 108 Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Alert Facilities Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Tanker Alert Facility Statement of Significance: The building was designed and used for tanker alert operations. It symbolizes the mission of rapid deployment of tanker forces in support of bombers in the event of an enemy nuclear threat Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: 4 Theme Relationship: 4 Temporal Phase Relationship: 2 Level of Importance: 4 Percent Historic Fabric: 4 Severity of Threats: 4 Total Score for Priority Matrix: 22 Comments on Threats: assume historic fabric is high but could not gain access to interior of building No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: Exceptionally important with surmised intact integrity. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility Eligible Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use: Other Use/Dates: Comments on Use: Primary Building Materials: 15 4012 Permanent vacant Tanker Alert Poured Concrete

Property Description: Historical maps, master layouts, utility project drawings in paper, linen, mylar, vellum, and blue line reproductions. Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: 8/1/89 Base Map Building Number: inside 531 Operational Support & Installations: Documentation Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Architectural Drawing Files Statement of Significance: Illustrate the development of the base and document other evaluated resources. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 3 2 4 2 4 3 18
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: No Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: Yes Comments on Resource Management: Inventory and copy; copies go to base and originals go to a permanent curatorial facility. Record/Document Category: Year of Document: Period of Association: Comments on Condition: Drawing Files various all four phases being handled a lot; benign neglect
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 K. I. Sawyer AFB and to provide research materials for the study:
SSgt Tami Miller Wing Historian 410th Bomb Wing (906) 372-2470 SSgt Penny Baker Incoming Wing Historian 410th Bomb Wing (906) 372-2470 SrA Bryan Archer Drafter 410th Civil Engineering Squadron (906) 372-2865 Mr. Alan Wood Real Property Officer 410th Civil Engineering Squadron (906) 372-2316
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 knowledge of K. I. Sawyer AFB history and Cold War context.
SSgt Tami Miller, Wing Historian, 410th Bomb Wing, October 17-21, 1994
VOLUME II-14: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE AT LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE
August 1997
Volume II-14: Langley Air Force Base
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Langley Air Force Base was inventoried for Cold War resources by R. Blake Roxlau and Karen Lewis of Mariah Associates, Inc. between November 1 and 10, 1994 as part of the Air Combat Command Cold War Study under the ongoing Department of Defense Legacy Program. Information was gathered at the base from the Wing History Office, Drawing Vault, Civil Engineering Office, Real Property Office, Public Affairs Office, and the Base Cultural Resources Manager. On-site inspection of the base was also conducted. During this inspection, 191 resources that represent the various property types on the base were inventoried and photographed.
Of the 191 resources, three resources were further documented and evaluated during the course of the survey as important to the Cold War. These include the Fighter Alert Facility, a Major Command Headquarters, and a Documentary Collection. These evaluated resources correspond to Phases I through IV of the Cold War, as described in the historic context and methodology document written for this project (Lewis et al. 1995), and reflect the role that Langley Air Force Base played in the Cold War.
Recommendations for these resources are as follows. The Fighter Alert Facility is recommended as eligible to the NRHP, with further documentation and stewardship also recommended. The Major Command Headquarters has already been determined eligible for NRHP listing for its pre-Cold War associations and is included in a proposed National Register district. This resource is
recommended as eligible to the NRHP based on its Cold War associations and stewardship of the building is recommended. Inventory, conservation, and stewardship are recommended for the Documentary Collection of maps and architectural drawing files.
ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACC ACCS ACHP ADC ADMS AFB AGE AREFS AREFW BMG BMS BMW CRS DoD EMS FBG FBS FBW FIS FTD FW GHQ HABS HQ HTA LOX LTA MAC Mariah NACA NASA NCO NHPA NPS NRHP NSC OCONUS POL SAC SAGE SALT
Air Combat Command Airborne Command and Control Squadron Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Air Defense Command Air Defense Missile Squadron Air Force Base Air Ground Equipment Air Refueling Squadron Air Refueling Wing Bombardment Group Bombardment Squadron Bombardment Wing Component Repair Squadron Department of Defense Equipment Maintenance Squadron Fighter Bomber Group Fighter Bomber Squadron Fighter Bomber Wing Fighter Interceptor Squadron Field Training Detachment Fighter Wing General Headquarters Historic American Buildings Survey Headquarters Heavier-Than-Air Liquid Oxygen Lighter-Than-Air Military Airlift Command Mariah Associates, Inc. National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics National Aeronautics and Space Administration Noncommissioned Officer National Historic Preservation Act National Park Service National Register of Historic Places National Security Council Off the Continental United States Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Strategic Air Command Semi-Automatic Ground Environment Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty
iii
SDI SHPO START TAC TACAN TAS TAW TCS TCW TFS TFW TRS TRW USAF WRSK
Strategic Defense Initiative State Historic Preservation Officer Strategic Arms Reduction Talks Tactical Air Command Tactical Air Navigation Station Tactical Airlift Squadron Tactical Airlift Wing Troop Carrier Squadron Troop Carrier Wing Tactical Fighter Squadron Tactical Fighter Wing Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron Tactical Reconnaissance Wing United States Air Force War Readiness Spares Kit
iv
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. 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. 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. 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.
vi
3.0 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 13 3.1 BASE HISTORY AND COLD WAR CONTEXT.............................................................. 13 3.2 NASA .................................................................................................................................... 20 3.3 BASE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................... 21 4.0 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 28 4.1 INVENTORY ........................................................................................................................ 28 4.2 EVALUATION OF IMPORTANT RESOURCES ............................................................. 29 4.2.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 29 4.2.2 Evaluation of Importance ............................................................................................. 29 4.2.2.1 Cold War Context ............................................................................................... 29 4.2.2.2 NRHP Criteria..................................................................................................... 30 4.2.2.3 Exceptional Importance ...................................................................................... 31 4.2.3 Evaluation of Integrity.................................................................................................. 31 4.2.4 Priority Matrix .............................................................................................................. 32 4.2.5 Resource Organization ................................................................................................. 33 4.3 BASE SPECIFIC METHODS .............................................................................................. 33 5.0 RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY RESULTS ..................................................................... 34 6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS......................................................................................................... 35 6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS ........................................................ 35 6.1.1 Base and Command Centers ........................................................................................ 35 6.1.1.1 Major Command Headquarters .......................................................................... 35 6.1.2 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 37 6.1.2.1 Documentary Collection ..................................................................................... 37
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS ......................................................... 38 6.2.1 Alert Facilities .............................................................................................................. 38 6.2.1.1 Fighter Alert Facility........................................................................................... 38 6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES ..................................................................... 39 6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES...................................................................................................... 39 6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES ............................................................................................ 39 7.0 UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 40 8.0 FUTURE THREATS TO RESOURCES ................................................................................... 42 9.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 43 9.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY ............................................................................................................ 43 9.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility.................................................... 43 9.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility ................................................................................ 45 9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 46 9.2.1 Major Command Headquarters.................................................................................... 48 9.2.2 Documentary Collection .............................................................................................. 49 9.2.3 Fighter Alert Facility .................................................................................................... 49 10.0 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................. 50 APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D: APPENDIX E: RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY BASE LAYOUT MAPS SHOWING INVENTORIED RESOURCES PHOTOGRAPHS OF INVENTORIED RESOURCES DATA BASE DOCUMENTATION FOR EVALUATED RESOURCES EXTANT SOURCES OF INFORMATION
viii
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Figure 3.5 Bases Selected for the Air Combat Command Cold War Study .............................. 2 Location of Langley Air Force Base.......................................................................... 5 Langley Air Force Base Layout ................................................................................. 6 Standard Tactical Air Command Base Layout .......................................................... 7 Langley Air Force Base Land Use Diagram ............................................................. 11 Standard Tactical Air Command Base Land Use Diagram ...................................... 12 Langley Air Force Base, pre-1941............................................................................. 22 Langley Air Force Base, 1941-1960.......................................................................... 24 Langley Air Force Base, 1960-1970.......................................................................... 25 Langley Air Force Base, 1970-1980.......................................................................... 26 Langley Air Force Base, 1980-1990.......................................................................... 27
LIST OF TABLES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is a reconnaissance inventory of Cold War related resources on Langley Air Force Base (AFB). Langley AFB, a former Tactical Air Command (TAC) 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.
Langley AFB currently consists of the ACC Headquarters and the 1st Fighter Wing (FW). The 1st FW is the base host and directs the 1st Operations Group, 1st Logistics Group, 1st Support Group, and the 1st Medical Group. The 1st Operations Group directs the wing's flying
squadrons, the 27th, 71st, and 94th Fighter Squadrons. These squadrons employ the F-15C and F-15D Eagle fighter aircraft to achieve their mission, which is to provide combat air forces capable of delivering rapid, decisive air power anytime, worldwide. The wing's mission
statement is "America's First Team setting the standard in air supremacy" (United States Air Force [USAF] 1994a).
Langley AFB is located along the Atlantic coast on the Virginia Peninsula in the southeastern part of Virginia (Figure 2.1). Langley AFB is located approximately 3.0 mi (4.8 km) north of
downtown Hampton, Virginia, and is part of the major metropolitan area that also includes Norfolk and Newport News. The base is located on relatively flat terrain in an area originally dominated by coastal wetlands. Although most of the surrounding area is urban, some wetland environments remain on the base. The climate of the area is dominated by mild winters and warm, humid summers. The local economy is dependent upon the area's large military and government
installations, shipbuilding, and tourism.
The layout of Langley AFB (Figure 2.2) varies considerably from the standard TAC base layout (Figure 2.3). This variation is probably due to a variety of circumstances, among them the
geography of the area, Langley AFB's long history, and the location of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Langley Research Center adjacent to the base.
The base is positioned on a piece of land that juts out into the Back River, splitting the river into the Northwest Branch and the Southwest Branch. The base is surrounded by water on three-quarters of its boundaries, and this geographic occurrence influenced base expansion.
With the exception of the river's irregular shorelines, the base is circular in shape. The main runway extends east-northeast to west-southwest, and is located in the southern half of the base. It extends from one side of the base to the other and separates the base into southern and northern parts. At the northeastern end of the runway are the remnants of three World War II runways. These are laid out in a triangular shape and are now used as parking aprons. By acting as boundaries to expansion, these runways have significantly influenced the development of the base.
There are four main areas of development on the base, two in the northern part and two in the southern part. The southern part contains the Heavier-Than-Air (HTA) area, named for its historic use for winged aircraft, and the Shellbank area, named after the plantation it replaced. The HTA area, located at the eastern end of the runway, is bounded by the river on three sides and a World War II runway on the fourth. It is elongated in shape and oriented north-northeast to southsouthwest. The gate access to this area of the base is across the river to the south. Upon entering the gate, vehicles cross a bridge and then enter into the development. The Shellbank area is found southwest of the HTA area at the southwestern end of the main runway. This area is globular in shape and is bounded by the river on the eastern, western, and southern sides and the runway on the northern side. This area is accessed through the main gate at the southern tip of the base. The HTA and Shellbank areas are separated by a parade ground and memorial park with fighter aircraft displays.
The northern part of the base, which comprises approximately two-thirds of the base land area, contains two development areas and some scattered facilities. One of the two development areas is
the Lighter-Than-Air (LTA) area, named after the dirigible development that occurred there. This development, located at the northeastern end of the runway, is found between the Back River and one of the World War II runways. The other development is the NASA area, which is actually located off the base, adjacent to its western side. Between these two developments are recreation facilities, open areas, a creek, and wetland areas.
2.4 BASE LAND USE
The following is a list of standard TAC land use categories: Alert Facility - provides for air combat readiness and rapid deployment of air crews. Base Support Facilities - house base support functions and supplies. 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. Weapon 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.
10
Langley AFB layout does not conform to the standard TAC layout, and the land use plan for Langley AFB (Figure 2.4) differs extensively from the standard TAC base land use diagram (Figure 2.5).
In the HTA area, the mission and base support areas extend along the flight line and consist of hangars, squadron operations buildings, various support facilities, and wing headquarters. Directly to the east of this area and extending to the south is the officer's family housing, which consists of single family and duplex buildings constructed in a Tudor revival style. East of the mission and base support areas in the northern section of the HTA area are the ACC headquarters and offices, NASA test facilities, and more base support facilities. The base support facilities, NASA facilities, and officer's housing are on or near the river. The Shellbank area consists of mission facilities along the flight line, and a mix of community, base support, unaccompanied housing, and recreation facilities between the mission area and the river.
The LTA area consists of a mix of family housing, recreation, community, and base support areas. The space between the LTA and the NASA areas is mainly open space and recreation areas. However, the base weapon storage area is found in the northern-most part of this open space, and the alert facility is located south of the NASA area and west of the recreation area. The main family housing area is located off-base, adjacent to the Big Bethel Reservoir.
In and of themselves, the HTA and Shellbank areas are similar to the standard TAC diagram. The mission areas are beside the flight line. Base support, unaccompanied housing, and community areas are mixed together next to the mission areas. The wing and ACC headquarters facilities are located within this mix. Finally, the family housing and recreational areas are on the edge of the development, farthest from the flight line. The layout of the LTA area contradicts the standard, with the family housing and recreation areas located closest to the flight line, and base support and community areas farthest away.
13
Langley AFB is one of the oldest continuously active AFBs in the nation and has hosted a number of major commands. The base was named for Samuel Pierpoint Langley (1834-1906), an aviation pioneer who made two unsuccessful attempts at flying an aircraft in 1903 (USAF 1966). Despite his failure to fly, Langley's ideas and designs were considered sound, and he inspired other aviators, including the Wright brothers.
Langley Field was established to support the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), which was founded in 1915. The committee, which evolved into NASA in later years, was responsible for aeronautical research and experimentation (Curtis et al. 1977). The aviation section of the Army Signal Corps accepted the responsibility of securing the land for the installation. The present location of Langley AFB was chosen due to several factors including: "accessibility; location near an established Army installation (Fort Monroe); a convenient area for over-water flying; a location suitable for the landing and taking off of land-based aircraft; a proximity to industry; and a temperate climate" (Curtis et al. 1977:11).
The Army acquired the property in December of 1916 for the sum of $290,000, and work on the air field began almost immediately. Albert Kahn & Associates, a prominent Detroit architectural firm, was selected to design the field. Kahn's services were obtained for half his normal fee. It is unclear why Kahn was chosen to design the air field; however, his low fee and his dedication to this and similar projects may have been a contribution to the war effort (Cook 1992). Construction work in 1917 included clearing the area, installing a drainage system, dredging the Back River, and constructing temporary facilities.
With the United States' entry into World War I in 1917, the desire to initiate aircraft development and operation at Langley Field was urgent (Cook 1992). However, due to numerous contractor
14
delays, a temporary experimental center was established instead at McCook Field in Dayton, Ohio (Curtis et al. 1977). With this move, most of the Army aviation shifted away from Langley Field, greatly reducing the air field's role in World War I. The main activity at the air field during World War I was the operation of the Army School of Aerial Photography, which trained men in the practice of aerial photography, photographic interpretation, and map making (Curtis et al. 1977). Other activities included bombing experiments, radio and telegraph development, and foreign aircraft testing.
In addition to fixed-wing aircraft, balloon companies were stationed at Langley Field between 1917 and 1935. In order to facilitate the balloons' operation, an airship station was constructed at the air field in 1919 (Cook 1992). A hydrogen plant had previously been constructed in the vicinity in 1917. This area became known as the LTA area.
In 1920, the Army Air Service was established as a combat arm. The Air Service was composed of two wings, including the 2nd Wing which was located at Langley Field. The 2nd Wing was composed of the 2nd Bombardment Group, 58th Service Squadron, 50th Observation Squadron, and 19th Airship Company (Curtis et al. 1977). Despite a general decline in personnel and equipment in the Armed Services following World War I and the incomplete construction of the field, Langley Field was the largest air field in the United States in the early 1920s (Curtis et al. 1977).
Another significant event at Langley Field was the establishment of the Army Air Service Field Officers School in 1920. This pilot school taught tactics, technical aviation, and administrative subjects (Curtis et al. 1977). The following year, the school and its pilots took part in the bombing experiments carried out by the First Provisional Air Brigade commanded by General William "Billy" Mitchell.
Mitchell's bombing tests, conducted in June 1921, were designed to prove that airplanes could successfully attack and destroy surface ships (Curtis et al. 1977). Mitchell was an outspoken
15
proponent of aircraft and believed, contrary to many in the military establishment, that airpower was the wave of the future. Captured German warships and obsolete U.S. ships were used as targets. The tests included several components, including locating the ships by aircraft, strafing the ships' decks, and bombing and sinking the ships. Although the tests were successful, many more trials were needed to convince traditional military leaders that surface warships were vulnerable to air attack.
Airship activity continued at Langley Field throughout the 1920s. Numerous types and varieties of balloons were operated, including rigid and non-rigid designs. The airship Roma is the best known of the LTA craft used at Langley Field. The Roma was purchased from Italy and flown for the first time in the United States in November of 1921. The airship was plagued with engine troubles throughout its short lifetime. American motors were installed to replace the faltering Italian engines, and the ship was flown with the new engines in February 1922. Approximately one hour after lift off, the hydrogen-filled ship crashed, and 34 of 45 passengers and crew were lost (Curtis et al. 1977). In spite of this tragedy, airship activity continued at Langley Field until 1935.
The 1930s were a major period of growth at Langley Field. The principal units at the air field were the 2nd Bombardment Wing (BMW), which commanded the 2nd Bombardment Group (BMG), the 8th Pursuit Group, and the 19th Airship Squadron. The 8th Pursuit Group was composed of the 3rd, 35th, 36th, and 37th Pursuit Squadrons. When the Army Air Corps was reorganized in March of 1935, Langley Field was also assigned the role of General Headquarters (GHQ) Air Force (Curtis et al. 1977).
Langley Field's role in World War II was decided in early 1941 when GHQ Air Force was reassigned to Bolling Field near Washington D.C. The headquarters moved in March of 1941, and the air field lost its place as the premier air field in the United States (Curtis et al. 1977). Langley Field's mission between the outbreak of war in 1941 and 1943 was coastal patrol and antisubmarine operations. The main combat unit assigned was the 2nd BMG composed of the 20th and
16
96th Bombardment Squadrons (BMS), and the 3rd Observation Squadron (Curtis et al. 1977). The 2nd BMG operated a number of aircraft, mainly the long-range B-17 bomber and shorter range B25 and B-18 bombers.
In 1943, anti-submarine operations were reassigned to the Navy. With the end of anti-submarine activity, the 2nd BMG ended its stay at Langley Field, bringing to a close over 20 years at the air field (Curtis et al. 1977). Between 1943 and 1945, activity at the air field was centered around the development and testing of radar equipment for use in bombers. Aircraft crews were also trained here in the operation of this equipment.
At the end of World War II, the vast majority of units at the air field were deactivated and the base fell into a short period of relative abandonment. The inactivity did not last long, and several new units arrived in late 1945 and 1946. These included the Army Airways Communication System, the Army Air Forces Weather Service, and the 363rd Tactical Reconnaissance Wing (TRW) (Curtis et al. 1977).
The most significant organization to be assigned to Langley Field in the post-war years was TAC. It was assigned to the air field in May 1946 after being established two months earlier. Langley Field was chosen to host the new command due to its location near Headquarters, Continental Army Command at Fort Monroe, Virginia and Headquarters, U.S. Atlantic Fleet in Norfolk, Virginia, in order to coordinate activities of both major commands (Department of Defense (DoD) 1972). Throughout its tenure at Langley AFB, TAC's mission was to train and maintain tactical air forces in order to facilitate their deployment to war-fighting commands whenever needed. The USAF was created as an autonomous service in 1947, and Langley Field was officially named Langley AFB in January 1948 (Curtis et al. 1977).
The late 1940s and early 1950s witnessed a variety of missions and numerous units assigned to and removed from Langley AFB. The first flying squadrons to serve under the new TAC command were the 161st Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron (TRS), which arrived in November of 1946, and
17
the 162nd TRS, which arrived the following month.
These two squadrons were under the
command of the 363rd TRW. The wing employed the FP-80 Shooting Star and A-26 aircraft in reconnaissance operations. The F-80 was the first jet aircraft to be assigned to Langley AFB (Curtis et al. 1977).
Headquarters Ninth Air Force was assigned to Langley AFB in 1949, and the 4th Tactical Fighter Wing (TFW) equipped with F-80 and F-86 Sabre fighters replaced the 363rd TRW (Headquarters [HQ] ACC History Office 1994; DoD 1972). The following year the Ninth Air Force was reassigned, and the 4th TFW was deployed to Korea to participate in the conflict in that country. In 1950, the 363rd TRW was reactivated at Langley AFB and assigned B-26 Marauder aircraft for reconnaissance operations. The wing was also tasked with the training of the 84th and 85th BMS (HQ ACC History Office 1994). In response to the need in Korea for conventional support aircraft, a B-26 combat crew training school was opened on base.
In 1951, the 49th Air Division began operation at Langley AFB, bringing with it the 47th BMW and the 20th Fighter Bomber Wing (FBW). The 363rd TRW was reassigned to Shaw AFB, and the 84th and 85th BMS were reassigned under the 47th BMW. These squadrons operated the B-45 Tornado, the Air Force's first jet bomber. The 20th FBW was equipped with F-84 Thunderjet fighters (HQ ACC History Office 1994).
The 48th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS) was assigned to Langley AFB in 1952. The squadron was tasked with the defense of the eastern seaboard from airborne attack (DoD 1972). Aircraft were maintained on 24-hour alert and could be airborne in less than five minutes (USAF 1994b). The squadron operated F-84 fighters in 1953, flew the F-94 Starfire in the mid-1950s, and switched to the F-102 Delta Dagger in 1957. The first operational F-106 Delta Dart began operation with the 48th FIS in 1960 (HQ ACC History Office 1994).
The 405th FBW, flying F-84s, was assigned to Langley AFB in 1953 (Wing History Office 1993; Van Dame 1994; HQ ACC History Office 1994). The 345th Fighter Bomber Group (FBG), with
18
the 498th, 499th, and 500th Fighter Bomber Squadrons (FBS) began operations in 1954 under the 405th FBW (DoD 1972). The 429th Air Refueling Squadron (AREFS) was activated at Langley AFB in 1954, assigned to the 345th FBG, with its main purpose to extend the range of aircraftdelivered nuclear weapons (HQ ACC History Office 1994). In 1955, the 509th and 510th FBS were assigned to the 405th FBW. In 1956, the 405th FBW was reassigned; however, the 345th FBG and its squadrons remained at Langley AFB. In 1957, the 345th FBG was redesignated a BMW. That same year, the 836th Air Division replaced the 49th Air Division, and 836th Air Base Group was activated, and the 345 BMW was moved under the 836th Air Division. In 1958, the 4440th Air Delivery Group was also assigned to the 836th Air Division.
In 1958, Langley's air refueling mission increased with the assignment of the 4505th Air Refueling Wing (AREFW) flying KB-50 tankers (DoD 1972). This wing brought with it the 427th AREFS, and the 429th AREFS was reassigned from the 345th BMW to the 4505th AREFW. In 1959, the 345th BMW and its squadrons were deactivated, leaving Langley AFB as primarily a tactical air refueling base (HQ ACC History Office 1994). Langley AFB's tanker force took part in a number of flights with fighters that demonstrated to the world that the USAF could be rapidly deployed to any location.
A notable tenant unit at Langley AFB during the 1960s and early 1970s was the 22nd Air Defense Missile Squadron (ADMS) operating Bomarc F-99 missiles under the command of Air Defense Command (ADC). The Bomarc missile, a surface-to-air missile, was designed to intercept and destroy enemy bombers, thus its designation as an unmanned interceptor. The Bomarc was fired from concrete shelters and controlled by the Washington Air Defense Sector's Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) system once the missile was airborne (HQ ACC History Office 1994). Bomarcs first arrived in 1960 and were stationed at a site in the city of Newport News approximately 12 mi west of the base (DoD 1972).
The 48th FIS replaced the F-100 Super Sabre with the F-106 Delta Dart in 1960. To relieve the 836th Air Division of the responsibilities of running the base, so that it could concentrate on its
19
flying mission, the 836th Air Base Group was redesignated as the 4500th Air Base Wing and given the responsibilities. In 1961, the 836th Air Division was deactivated, and the 4440th Air Delivery Group was reassigned to the 4505th AREFW.
Due to the large amount of time spent by TAC in moving forces across the oceans, headquarters opened a Deep Sea Survival School at Langley AFB in 1962. It was realized that even a minimum amount of training in survival techniques would result in an increased survival rate for troops stranded at sea. This school was moved to Homestead AFB, Florida in 1966 to allow year-round training.
The 463rd Troop Carrier Wing (TCW), with the 772nd, 773rd, and 774th Troop Carrier Squadrons (TCS), was assigned to Langley AFB in 1963. The wing operated C-130 Hercules aircraft and participated in a number of civil and humanitarian missions. Its military mission was to fly in support of the United States Army's airborne units. This same year, the 4505th AREFW was reassigned, taking with it the 4440th Air Delivery Group and the 427th and 429th AREFS. In 1965, the 463rd TCW was reassigned to the Philippines, and the 316th TCW was reactivated in its place, bringing with it the 37th TCS (Wing History Office 1993; Van Dame 1994). In 1967, all troop carrier units were redesignated as tactical airlift. In 1968, the 36th and 38th Tactical Airlift Squadrons (TAS) were reassigned to the 316th Tactical Airlift Wing (TAW) at Langley AFB (HQ ACC History Office 1994).
The 6th Airborne Command and Control Squadron (ACCS) was activated at Langley AFB in January 1973 under the 4500th Air Base Wing (HQ ACC History Office 1994). The squadron operated EC-135 aircraft which were specially equipped with radios and satellite communications equipment. The squadron's mission was to provide communications between the Atlantic
Command and the national command authorities in times of crisis or war (HQ ACC History Office 1994).
20
In 1975, Langley AFB's role shifted from tactical airlift to tactical fighter operation. The 316th TAW was deactivated, taking with it the three squadrons, and the 1st TFW, composed of the 27th, 71st, and 94th Tactical Fighter Squadrons (TFS), was activated at the base (Wing History Office 1993; Van Dame 1994). The 1st TFW also consisted of the 12th Airlift Flight, using Learjet 35s for airlifting of high ranking civilian and military personnel, and the 72nd Helicopter Squadron, using the UH-IN helicopter (USAF 1994a). All three of the fighter squadrons were operational by 1977. In 1976, the 6th ACCS was transferred from the 4500th Air Base Wing to the 1st TFW, and, in 1977, the 4500th Air Base Wing was deactivated and its assets moved to the 1st TFW. The wing became the new base host.
The 48th FIS began converting from the F-106 to the F-15 Eagle in 1981. While the squadron was training for the conversion, the 1st TFW assumed the 48th FIS's alert responsibilities. The 94th TFS received its first F-15 also in 1981, and the 71st TFS received its new aircraft in 1982 (HQ ACC History Office 1994).
The 1st TFW remained as base host and as the main base wing for the remainder of the Cold War. In 1991, during the broad-scale reorganization of Air Force assets, the 1st TFW was redesignated the 1st FW. In 1992, TAC was deactivated and its assets transferred to ACC, including Langley AFB and the 1st FW.
3.2 NASA
Formerly NACA, NASA has played a significant role throughout the history of Langley AFB. Several of the historic buildings in the HTA area are owned by NASA and therefore fall outside the scope of this Air Force ACC sponsored project. However, the close association between the Air Force and NASA in numerous interrelated missions warrants brief mention of NASA in this report. In addition to the buildings within the confines of Langley AFB, NASA maintains a large facility adjacent to the LTA area of the base.
21
The NASA-owned buildings located within the base consist of wind tunnels and administrative offices. All were constructed prior to the Cold War. Numerous aircraft designs, both pre-Cold War and Cold War era, have been tested in these facilities. Perhaps the most notable Cold War era NASA development at Langley was Project Mercury, the manned space program, in 1958. The original seven astronauts of this program were stationed briefly at Langley AFB. The 48th FIS provided pilot proficiency training to these astronauts (HQ ACC History Office 1994).
Several distinct periods of development can be identified at Langley AFB. These include the period during and shortly after World War I, the 1930s, the period during and shortly after World War II, and the 1960s.
Although construction was generally slow during the initial construction period, 16 of the Tudor Revival family housing units had been completed before the end of World War I. A number of other Albert Kahn designed buildings in the HTA area were completed soon after the Armistice. These included the remaining 10 family housing units, the Army Aeronautical Laboratory, Dodd Hall (a Noncommissioned Officers' [NCO] dormitory), Lawson Hall (an officer dormitory), a machine shop, and two ornate brick hangars (Figure 3.1).
Development also took place in the LTA area northeast of the HTA area which had been designated as an airship operating area. Construction of a hydrogen plant was completed in 1917, a large airship hangar was begun in 1919, a helium plant was built in 1922, and a number of NCO and officer housing units were constructed in the early 1920s (Figure 3.1).
Almost 75% percent of the historic housing still present on the base was built during the 1930s (Cook 1992). Funding for these building projects was provided by a number of federal programs including the Army Housing Program, Emergency Relief and Construction Act and the National Industrial Recovery Act's Public Works Administration. Construction included quarters for both
23
officers and enlisted men, a new street, a hospital, 11 new hangars, an officers' club, and a bridge across the Back River (Figure 3.1). The Tudor-style housing used in the HTA area earlier was designed by Albert Kahn, and was later maintained as the style of the newer buildings, as well as in the Gothic Tudor Chapel completed in 1935. Langley AFB's dirt runways were paved with asphalt in 1939 in preparation for the U.S. participation in World War II. The United States' entrance into World War II and the rapid increase in personnel and equipment, caused a great burden on the base. Construction of new facilities was begun almost immediately. The Army acquired what was known as the Shellbank area, directly to the west of the HTA area, in 1941 (Curtis et al. 1977). Ninety-six buildings along with utilities were completed in the new area by November of that year (Figure 3.2). Most of the 1940s construction in the Shellbank area was temporary, and only a few examples of buildings dating to this period remain. A weapons storage area was also built in the 1940s. In 1953, the Fighter Alert Facility was constructed. Facilities for the Corps of Engineers were built in an area northeast of the alert facility throughout the 1950s. Construction during the 1960s included several new buildings in the Shellbank area. The Bayview Towers, a high rise housing facility, was completed in the LTA area, and Bethel Manor, the offbase housing area, was begun. The weapons storage area in the northern part of the base was expanded during this decade (Figure 3.3). During the 1970s, the off-base housing area doubled in size. A golf course and associated clubhouse and facilities were also constructed in the open area of the base. Major construction activities were also begun in the Shellbank area, including the base theater, a new medical facility, a dental clinic, headquarters buildings, and other community facilities (Figure 3.4). Construction during the 1980s was minor. It included temporary family housing in the LTA area and a child care center in the Bethel Manor housing area. The Shellbank area saw construction of a new control tower next to the runway and some recreational facilities between the development and the riverbank (Figure 3.5).
28
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the reconnaissance inventory of Langley 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
29
As part of the reconnaissance inventory of Langley 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 Langley 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.
30
31
32
33
Ms. Suzanne Allan of the Program Development Office met with the Mariah field team upon their arrival at Langley AFB and introduced the team members to individuals who would be able to provide them with the information and research materials required to complete their work. These people included HQ ACC History Office staff, Engineering and Design Drawing File Vault staff, Real Property personnel, and security personnel who could provide access to facilities. Ms. Allan gave the team a tour of the base, discussed its history, and provided historical photographs.
Fieldwork began by obtaining available background literature on the base and photographing inventoried resources. Resources that were selected for evaluation were then documented more fully, and this information was recorded in the project database.
34
During the reconnaissance inventory of Langley AFB, 191 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.
35
Three resources were evaluated at Langley AFB, two of them falling under the DoD category of real property and one under records/documents. 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 one of the evaluated buildings could not be secured. In this instance, documentation was consulted to provide insight into the integrity of the building.
6.1.1.1 Major Command Headquarters (Resource No. 22114, Real Property No. 693)
This building, which currently houses ACC Headquarters, was the central TAC Headquarters building throughout the Cold War. The structure, built in 1919, is comprised of a central entry area flanked by extending wings. The building is constructed of brick pilasters with concrete capitals, surmounted by a concrete coping and a slate hipped roof. The windows between the pilasters are divided by decorative spandrels at the second floor. The building became TAC Headquarters two months after the command was established in 1946 and remained with this function until 1992 when TAC was deactivated.
The building's interior and exterior integrity is determined to be intact.
This is based on
comparisons with photographs of the building from the Cold War era, the relatively short amount
37
of time that has passed since the building was the TAC Headquarters, and the building's continued use as a major command headquarters.
This building's exceptional Cold War importance lies in its function as TAC Headquarters. Although the structure is essentially an office building, it is symbolic of the decisions and strategies that were formulated and carried out by this major command throughout the Cold War. This headquarters building played a vital role in command and control during the entire Cold War era. In this building, global information was assembled that enabled the Commander in Chief of TAC to maintain both interceptor defensive forces and world-wide fighter forces. This building was used for this purpose during Phases I through IV and meets NRHP criterion (a).
6.1.2 Documentation
This documentary collection, located in the Engineering and Design Drawing File Vault of the Base Engineering Flight building, is contained in four rows of 7 ft tall flat file cabinets. The files contain numerous historical maps, original base master layouts, and architectural and utility project drawings of Langley AFB and related facilities. The drawings, which are stored flat, include paper, linen, mylar, vellum, and blue line reproductions. The collection contains important information about historic structures on base and illustrates the development of the installation throughout the Cold War era. All of the evaluated resources have associated drawings in this collection. The majority of the collection is in good condition, but it is threatened by frequent or occasional handling and removal from the flat files.
38
This Fighter Alert Facility exemplifies one of the missions of Langley AFB as an interceptor base. Fighter interceptor pilots stayed at the facility while on alert, having only minutes to be airborne in response to any incoming bomber attack over the southeastern United States. The Fighter Alert Facility was constructed in 1953 for this mission, and used for such from then until 1994. The facility, constructed of a steel frame, contains four aircraft bays divided by an enclosure in the middle. This enclosure contains a day room, bedrooms, and a utility area. The layout of the facility, with aircrew living quarters within the hangar, speaks to the strategy of rapid deployment, a strategy that was part of the U.S. deterrent capability.
The building now serves as a maintenance hangar facility for National Guard and other transient aircraft. A tour of the facility was made during the field visit. The aircraft bays and crew accommodations are as they were when alert operations were suspended. The building is generally in good condition. Based on these factors, interior and exterior integrity are intact.
The exceptional importance of this facility lies in its sole mission to thwart any surprise attack by the Soviet Union on the United States. This building is important not only to Langley AFB's Cold War context, but also to Cold War history at the national level. This building conveys the U.S. fear of a Soviet bomber attack from the Atlantic Ocean and the measures taken to ensure that any such attack would be successfully intercepted. It is a direct result of Congressional approval in the 1950s for the construction of interceptor bases and the NSC-68 recommendations for a massive military build-up to "counteract the increasing threat posed by the Soviet Union" (Lewis et al. 1995). This facility held this importance throughout Phases II, III, and IV of the Cold War era, and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
39
None were evaluated at Langley AFB.
40
The purpose of the reconnaissance inventory was to provide initial information on the kinds of Cold War resources extant on Langley 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 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 Langley AFB. These resources should be investigated further for a more comprehensive analysis of base Cold War context.
Large collections of photos and memorabilia, some relating to the Cold War, are present in the two squadron operations buildings (Real Property Nos. 760 and 763) and the wing headquarters (Real Property No. 764). Only a cursory inventory of these could be made due to the variety of locations (reception areas, meeting rooms, offices, etc.) in which the objects are housed. Further research on the base should inventory these resources for objects pertaining to Langley AFB's Cold War history.
The Virginia Air and Space Museum, operated by the City of Hampton, Virginia, was also visited during fieldwork. This institution may house records that contain information on the relationship between NASA and Langley AFB during the Cold War. Any in-depth research on Langley AFB should investigate this possibility.
One of the buildings in the ACC headquarters complex was the original NACA Laboratory (Real Property No. 587). The building is already included in a proposed National Register district for its pre-Cold War significance. Little could be determined during the base visit concerning the
building's significance during the Cold War. Some of the Project Mercury research may possibly have taken place in this building, along with other possibly important Cold War research. It is recommended that further research of this building be undertaken to determine if it also retains Cold War era significance.
41
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 Langley AFB revealed approximately 1,550 citations. Most of these are unit histories and special collections. More specific topics include the histories of base realignment due to acquisition of the bomber, air refueling, troop carrier, and fighter missions. The vast majority of these documents are available on microfilm. Future studies of Cold War history at Langley AFB should allot time to researching these documents.
42
Several inventories of historic resources have been undertaken at Langley AFB, indicating that efforts are being made by the base to preserve historic buildings. In general, current or planned renovations that neglect the historic fabric of buildings are the only threats to Cold War era resources mentioned in this report.
43
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 Langley 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.
44
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 Langley 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 Langley AFB have not been evaluated, and thus must be considered and treated as eligible until an evaluation and determination of eligibility are made.
45
These
46
Recommendations for the evaluated resources at Langley AFB are presented below. Table 9.1 summarizes these recommendations. More than one recommendation may apply to a given
48
9.2.1 Major Command Headquarters (Resource No. 22114, Real Property No. 693)
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases I through IV, and meets NRHP criterion (a) based upon its use as central TAC Headquarters during the entire Cold War era. The integrity of the building and its features is intact based upon comparison with Cold War photographs and the continued use of the building as a major command headquarters. Therefore, this building is recommended as eligible to the NRHP. This building has already been determined eligible to the NRHP for its pre-Cold War associations and is included in a proposed National Register District, thus stewardship is recommended to retain the building's current level of integrity.
49
The majority of this collection is in good condition. However, it is threatened by frequent or occasional handling and removal from the flat files. It is recommended that this collection be inventoried and copied. It is further recommended that the base retain the copies for its use, and that the originals be sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
This facility is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II through IV, and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) based upon its role of rapid deployment and interception of enemy attack, a strategy that was part of the U.S. deterrent capability, 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 and its features is intact based upon visual inspection and continued use of the facility for aircraft maintenance. Therefore, this facility is recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Recommendations include stewardship to maintain the integrity of the building and its features, and further documentation for nomination of this resource to the NRHP.
50
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. Cook, J. 1992 Architectural and Historical Survey of Langley Air Force Base and Inventory of Historic Resources Langley Field, Virginia. Southeast Regional Office, National Park Service, Atlanta, Georgia. Curtis, R. I., J. Mitchell, and M. Copp 1977 Langley Field, The Early Years 1916-1946. Office of History, 4500th Air Base Wing. Langley Air Force Base, Virginia. Department of Defense 1972 Installation Survey Report. Langley Air Force Base, Virginia. 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. Headquarters Air Combat Command History Office 1994 Organizational Notes. Headquarters, Air Combat Command, History Office, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia. 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. 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.
51
1991 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (revised). National Register Bulletin 15. National Register Branch, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. United States Air Force 1966 The Virginia Peninsula Salutes Langley. C.F. Boone Nationwide Publications, Inc. 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. 1994a Fact Sheet: 1st Fighter Wing. On file, Office of Public Affairs, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia. 1994b Fact Sheet: Langley Air Force Base. On file, Office of Public Affairs, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia. Van Dame, T. R., Sgt 1994 Langley Air Force Base. MARCOA Publishing Inc.: San Diego, California. Wing History Office 1993 America's First Team, History of the 1st FW and Langley Air Force Base. Office of History, 1st Fighter Wing, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia.
EVALUATED RESOURCES AT LANGLEY AFB

Property Description: Crew Readiness Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: 9/1/92 Base Map Building Number: 1362 Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Alert Facilities Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Fighter Alert Facility Statement of Significance: The building was designed and used as a fighter alert facility which housed both aircraft and crews. The building symbolizes the U.S. fear of Soviet air attack and the need to defend the U.S. through rapid interception. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 4 4 3 3 4 3 21
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: NRHP eligible now. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility Eligible Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use: Other Use/Dates: Comments on Use: Primary Building Materials: Character Defining Features: 40 30085 Permanent Satellite basing Fighter Alert Steel Frame Aircraft bays, crew accomodations

Property Description: ACC Headquarters, formerly TAC Headquarters. Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: 9/1/92 Base Map Building Number: 693 Operational Support & Installations: Base and Command Centers Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Major Command Headquarters Statement of Significance: The ACC (formerly TAC) headquarters was instrumental in the day to day operation of this major Cold War Command. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 4 4 4 4 4 2 22
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: No Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: Already determined eligible for pre-Cold War associations and is included in a proposed National Register district. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility Listed Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use: Other Use/Dates: Comments on Use: Primary Building Materials: Character Defining Features: Year of Document: 30 52953 Permanent ACC Headquarters TAC Headquarters Brick Adminstrative Offices, Headquarters Sign

Property Description: Architectural drawings and historical maps Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: 9/1/92 Base Map Building Number: inside 621 Operational Support & Installations: Documentation Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Documentary Collection Statement of Significance: Illustrates the development of the base, and contains drawings of historical structures on the base. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 3 2 4 2 4 3 18
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: No Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: Yes Comments on Resource Management: Inventory and copy; copies to base and originals to a permanent curatorial facility. Record/Document Category: Year of Document: Period of Association: Comments on Condition: Drawing Files various All four phases handled a lot; benign neglect
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 Langley AFB, and to provide research materials for this study:
Ms. Suzanne Allan Base Community Planner/Cultural Resources Manager 1 CES/CECP 209 Thornell Avenue Langley AFB, Virginia 23665-2291 (804) 764-2696 MSgt Beggs Wing Historian 1st FW History Office 159 Sweeney Boulevard, Suite 200 Langley AFB, Virginia 23665-2291 (804) 764-2713 Dr. Paul McAllister Historian HQ ACC History Office 162 Dodd Blvd., Suite 132 Langley AFB, Virginia 23665-1994 (804) 764-3186 Dr. Paul Green Cultural Resource Manager HQ ACC\CEVA 129 Andrews Street, Suite 102 Langley AFB, Virginia 23665-2769 (804) 764-3056 Mr. Jeff Woodcock Virginia Air and Space Museum (804) 727-0900, ext.719
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 Langley AFB history and Cold War context.
Dr. Paul McAllister, Historian, HQ ACC History Office, November 2 - 9, 1994 Dr. Paul Green, Cultural Resource Manager, HQ ACC\CEVA, November 2 - 9, 1994 Mr. Jeff Woodcock, Virginia Air and Space Museum, November 4, 1994
VOLUME II-15: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE AT LITTLE ROCK AIR FORCE BASE
June 1997
Volume II-15: Little Rock Air Force Base
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Mariah Associates, Inc. conducted a cultural resource inventory at Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas, between November 14 and 17, 1994 to identify extant Cold War resources important to the base, its history, and Cold War mission as part of the ongoing Department of Defense Legacy Program. Environmental scientists James A. Lowe and John A. Evaskovich comprised the field team and were welcomed to the base by Robert Seay, Chief, Environmental Flight, from the Environmental Office. Mr. Seay arranged for an escort to accompany the field team on an orientation tour of the base.
A variety of repositories were inventoried on base: the Wing History Office, Public Affairs Office, Civil Engineering Office and Drafting Department, Real Estate Office, and Environmental Office. Informal interviews were conducted with personnel long affiliated with the base to better understand the relationship of specific base properties to the Cold War era. A photographic reconnaissance of the base was conducted to document Cold War properties as well as representative architecture on the base.
Four resources were selected for documentation and evaluation due to their importance within the base Cold War context. The Bomber Alert Facility represents the United States Air Force alert posture and deterrence capabilities indicative of the Cold War era. Recommendations include further documentation, National Register of Historic Places eligibility, and stewardship. The Base Newspaper Collection, Documentary Collection, and Office Files illustrate the development of the base during the Cold War, describe historical base events, and provide information on specific base properties. Recommendations include further documentation, stewardship, and conservation for the two collections, and stewardship for the Office Files.
ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ABS ACC ACHP AD AFB AG AGE AMMS AMS ANG AREFG AREFS AS AW BMW CCTW DoD FMS FTD HABS ICBM MAC Mariah MMS NCO NHPA NPS NRHP OCONUS OMS PME RAPCON SAC SAD SALT SDI SHPO SMS SMW SRW START
Air Base Squadron Air Combat Command Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Air Division Air Force Base Airlift Group Air Ground Equipment Airborne Missile Maintenance Squadron Avionics Maintenance Squadron Air National Guard Air Refueling Group Air Refueling Squadron Airlift Squadron Airlift Wing Bombardment Wing Combat Crew Training Wing Department of Defense Field Maintenance Squadron Field Training Detachment Historic American Buildings Survey Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Military Airlift Command Mariah Associates, Inc. Munitions Maintenance Squadron Noncommissioned Officer National Historic Preservation Act National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Off the Continental United States Organizational Maintenance Squadron Precision Measurement Equipment Radar Approach Control Center Strategic Air Command Strategic Air Division Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty Strategic Defense Initiative State Historic Preservation Officer Strategic Missile Squadron Strategic Missile Wing Strategic Reconnaissance Wing Strategic Arms Reduction Talks
iii
TAC TAW TRG USAF
Tactical Air Command Tactical Airlift Wing Tactical Reconnaissance Group United States Air Force
iv
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 Soviet Union to one each. 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. 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. 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. 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 weapon 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.
vi
3.0 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 13 3.1 BASE HISTORY AND COLD WAR CONTEXT.............................................................. 13 3.2 BASE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................... 18 4.0 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 24 4.1 INVENTORY ........................................................................................................................ 24 4.2 EVALUATION OF IMPORTANT RESOURCES ............................................................. 25 4.2.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 25 4.2.2 Evaluation of Importance ............................................................................................. 25 4.2.2.1 Cold War Context ............................................................................................... 25 4.2.2.2 NRHP Criteria..................................................................................................... 26 4.2.2.3 Exceptional Importance ...................................................................................... 27 4.2.3 Evaluation of Integrity.................................................................................................. 27 4.2.4 Priority Matrix .............................................................................................................. 28 4.2.5 Resource Organization ................................................................................................. 29 4.3 BASE SPECIFIC METHODS .............................................................................................. 29 5.0 RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY RESULTS ..................................................................... 31 6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS......................................................................................................... 32 6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS ........................................................ 32 6.1.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 32 6.1.1.1 Base Newspaper Collection ................................................................................ 32 6.1.1.2 Documentary Collection ..................................................................................... 34 6.1.1.3 Office Files .......................................................................................................... 35 6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS ......................................................... 35
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.2.1 Alert Facilities .............................................................................................................. 35 6.2.1.1 Bomber Alert Facility ......................................................................................... 35 6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES ..................................................................... 36 6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES...................................................................................................... 36 6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES ............................................................................................ 37 7.0 UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 38 8.0 FUTURE THREATS TO RESOURCES ................................................................................... 40 9.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 41 9.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY ............................................................................................................ 41 9.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility.................................................... 41 9.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility ................................................................................ 43 9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 44 9.2.1 Base Newspaper Collection ......................................................................................... 46 9.2.2 Documentary Collection .............................................................................................. 46 9.2.3 Office Files ................................................................................................................... 47 9.2.4 Bomber Alert Facility................................................................................................... 47 10.0 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................. 48 APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D: APPENDIX E: RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY BASE LAYOUT MAPS SHOWING INVENTORIED RESOURCES PHOTOGRAPHS OF INVENTORIED RESOURCES DATA BASE DOCUMENTATION FOR EVALUATED RESOURCES EXTANT SOURCES OF INFORMATION
viii
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Bases Selected for the Air Combat Command Cold War Study .............................. 2 Location of Little Rock Air Force Base .................................................................... 6 Little Rock Air Force Base Layout ............................................................................ 7 Standard Strategic Air Command Base Layout ........................................................ 9 Little Rock Air Force Base Land Use Diagram ....................................................... 11 Standard Strategic Air Command Base Land Use Diagram .................................... 12 Little Rock Air Force Base, 1950-1960 .................................................................... 19 Little Rock Air Force Base, 1960-1970 .................................................................... 20 Little Rock Air Force Base, 1970-1990 .................................................................... 22 Little Rock Air Force Base, 1990-present ................................................................. 23
LIST OF TABLES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is a reconnaissance inventory of Cold War related resources on Little Rock Air Force Base (AFB). Little Rock AFB, a former Military Airlift Command (MAC) 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.
The 314th Airlift Wing (AW) is the host unit at Little Rock AFB, and its assigned aircraft is the C130 Hercules. Headquarters Eighth Air Force at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, directs the operations of the 314th AW. The wing has two primary missions: "providing airlift support for United States and allied forces anywhere in the world anytime, and operating the only Department of Defense (DoD) C-130 formal training school" (Public Affairs Office 1994a:1; 1994b:15). As the host unit of Little Rock AFB, the 314th AW supports the logistics mission of the Air Force by engaging in joint operations and training. Emergency response to national and international regions stricken by natural disasters and civil disorders is another responsibility of the wing (Perdue 1994:1-2; Public Affairs Office 1994b:15).
Several units within the wing play key roles in accomplishing the wing's overall mission. The 62nd Airlift Squadron (AS) has the dual mission of training U.S. and allied aircrews and instructors in the operational use of the C-130 aircraft and participating in operational airlifts. The 53rd AS provides initial training qualification, requalification, and upgrading of formal training in the C-130 and also supports airlift missions when directed. The 50th AS and 61st AS are responsible for the delivery and resupply of DoD and allied combat troops in forward battle areas by utilizing airland, airdrop, and extraction techniques. The 189th Airlift Group (AG) of the Arkansas Air National Guard (ANG) is also assigned to Little Rock AFB and provides additional crew training (Perdue 1994:1-2; Public Affairs Office 1994c:2).
The Combat Aerial Delivery School is located at Little Rock AFB. The most recent addition to base activities, its mission is to provide "aircrews with a `Ph.D.' in C-130 tactical employment; expand and enhance theater combat delivery methods and expertise; conduct tactics development and testing; and [conduct] C-130 operational tests and evaluations" (Public Affairs Office 1994b:15).
Little Rock AFB is located near the center of Arkansas in Pulaski County, immediately northwest of the city of Jacksonville and approximately 15 mi (24 km) northeast of the state capitol at Little Rock (Figure 2.1). The base consists of approximately 6,100 acres (2,468 ha) of land, with the elevation averaging 300 ft (91 m) above mean sea level. The base is situated along the junction of the Ouachita Mountains and the Mississippi Alluvial Plain. The Arkansas River is 15 mi (24 km) to the southwest, and the Mississippi River is approximately 65 mi (104 km) to the east. The topography in this region is characterized by northeast-southwest trending parallel ridges and valleys. The region is characterized by a humid, subtropical climate similar to much of the southeastern United States (Environmental Office n.d.:2; Fenneman 1938:632,663; Mueller 1989:323; Perdue 1994:1-3).
Little Rock AFB was initially designed and built to be an operational Strategic Air Command (SAC) medium bomber base for B-47 Stratojet and B-58 Hustler bombers. It became a Tactical Air Command (TAC) base years later in 1970, and then a MAC base in 1974. Its primary mission since 1970 has been to airlift troops and cargo utilizing the C-130 aircraft.
The main runway, taxiways, and parking apron at Little Rock AFB (Figure 2.2) are oriented eastnortheast to west-southwest, with a "christmas tree" alert apron located south and adjacent to the eastern end of the runway. All buildings, facilities, and structures at Little Rock AFB are located south of the main runway, and most are located in the western half of the base. The development extends west along the southern edge of the base and fills the southwest corner. The eastern half of the base is used for facilities such as the sewage treatment plant, jet engine test stands, and the weapons storage area. There are large areas of open space around these facilities.
Because of the base's initial construction as a SAC base, it resembles the standard SAC base layout (Figure 2.3). Like the standard, Little Rock AFB's development is primarily on one side of the runway and towards one end of it. Although the standard has the sewage treatment plant and the jet engine test stands on the opposite side of the runway, and Little Rock AFB has these facilities on the same side of the runway as the main base development, they both achieve the apparent goal of having these facilities away from the main base.
Differences include Little Rock AFB's placement of the bomber alert facility at the non-developed end of the runway, whereas the standard places it at the developed end. Also, Little Rock AFB's weapons storage area is located away from the bomber alert facility, whereas the standard places it nearby.
2.4 BASE LAND USE
The following is a list of standard SAC land use categories: Alert Facility - provides 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.
10
Unaccompanied Housing - accommodations for single personnel, temporary personnel, and visitors. Weapon and Warhead Storage - for nuclear and conventional weapons.
The pattern of land use at Little Rock AFB (Figure 2.4) only roughly resembles that of a standard SAC base land use diagram (Figure 2.5). At Little Rock AFB, the mission facilities are along the runway, including the bomber alert facility. Farthest from the flight line are family housing, industrial, and recreation areas. In between is a mix of community, base support, unaccompanied housing, and recreation areas. This general land use pattern is similar to that shown in the standard diagram.
However, there are also differences between Little Rock AFB and the standard diagram. At Little Rock AFB, headquarters facilities, including the command post, are located within the mission area along the flight line, whereas the standard diagram places them within the community area in the middle of the main base development, away from the flight line. Other differences from the standard land use diagram include Little Rock AFB's multiple and dispersed industrial areas, a weapon and warhead storage area located away from the flight line, and the large amount of open space between the mission area and the rest of the base developments.
13
The site of Little Rock AFB was owned previously by the U.S. military during World War II for the Arkansas Ordnance Plant, a government facility built in 1942 on 9,000 acres of land in the vicinity of Jacksonville, Arkansas. The plant manufactured fuses, detonators, percussion caps, and bomb components, which were then shipped to other installations for load and assembly operations. The plant closed in 1945 following the end of World War II, and the Jacksonville area suffered from the economic impact. The War Assets Administration promoted the relocation of non-military
industries to the site by offering the vacant buildings at low cost to those interested companies. Several companies operated out of the old plant buildings between 1947 and 1952 (Public Affairs Office 1980:4; Santeford et al. 1986:23-24).
During this period, SAC continued to expand its operations following the Soviet development of a nuclear device in 1949 and the outbreak of the Korean conflict in 1950 (Lewis et al. 1995). In 1951, the Arkansas Congressional Delegation made public their interest in establishing an air force base in central Arkansas. The State government had "recapture" rights on the land formerly occupied by the old ordnance plant, and repurchasing clauses had been included in the deeds to purchasers after the war. The citizens of Jacksonville organized a fund drive to raise the money to purchase the land from the various landowners so the property could be donated to the Air Force. Recalcitrant landowners unwilling to sell had their land condemned by court action to facilitate the process (Public Affairs Office 1980:4-6, 8-10; Santeford et al. 1986:23-24).
The DoD asked Congress in May 1952 to authorize the funds necessary to construct Little Rock AFB. In June, the House Armed Services Committee approved the bill, and, in December 1952, the Air Force gave its final approval for the Jacksonville site. Initial construction and grading began in November 1953, and, by May 1954, deeds were secured for the first 325 of a total of 6,359 acres for the base (Mueller 1989:323; Public Affairs Office 1980:7,10-12; Santeford et al. 1986:25).
14
The base was designed as a model SAC installation with facilities to accommodate two medium bombardment wings. The 4225th Air Base Squadron (ABS) was activated at the base on February 1, 1955; SAC assumed control the same day, and the base was officially named Little Rock AFB. Assigned to the Second Air Force, the 4225th ABS laid the ground work for the formation of the 825th Air Division, which replaced the squadron and took over host responsibilities at the base upon completion of construction. The base was officially activated by SAC orders on August 1, 1955. The primary mission of the 825th Air Division was to "monitor and coordinate the manning, training, equipping and operational readiness of assigned units for the primary purpose of conducting strategic air warfare on a global scale" (Wing History Office 1955a:1). The 70th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing (SRW), with its 70th Air Refueling Squadron (AREFS), the 384th Bombardment Wing (BMW), and the 825th Combat Support Group were assigned to Little Rock AFB in September 1955 (DoD 1973:1; Mueller 1989:323-324; Owen 1984:5; Public Affairs Office 1980:14,20).
The concern of SAC for increased Soviet military strength and the potential for a surprise attack fostered the SAC alert program in 1957. SAC's goal was to place one third of its aircraft on continuous ground alert to act as a deterrent to a potential Soviet nuclear attack (Lewis et al. 1995; SAC 1988:1). Little Rock AFB played an integral role in testing this alert concept. SAC conducted three successive operational tests during late 1956 through late 1957 to prove the feasibility of such a concept: Operation Try Out, Operation Watch Tower, and Operation Fresh Approach. Between April and November 1957, Little Rock AFB participated in Operation Try Out under the direction of the 825th Air Division. The 70th SRW, 384th BMW, 70th AREFS, and the 825th Combat Support Group successfully completed the training that validated the feasibility of the alert program. The overall mission of the 70th SRW changed in 1961 from reconnaissance to bombardment, and the wing converted from the RB-47 to the B-47 aircraft and was redesignated a BMW (Public Affairs Office 1980:29; 1994b:14; SAC 1988:1; 1991:1-2). In 1962, the 70th BMW was deactivated, and its assets and the 70th AREFS were absorbed by the 384th BMW.
15
Research and development in missile technology continued during the early 1960s following United States Air Force (USAF) approval to develop the second generation Titan II intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) (Lewis et al. 1995). The Air Force decided in June 1960 that Little Rock AFB would become one of the support bases for the new missile; and in April 1962, the 308th Strategic Missile Wing (SMW) was activated as the largest unit on base. The wing consisted of the 373rd Strategic Missile Squadron (SMS) and the 308th Missile Maintenance Squadron. The mission of the 308th SMW was to develop and maintain the required state of readiness for Titan II [ICBMs] to conduct strategic warfare according to the Emergency War Order as directed by Headquarters Eighth Air Force in accordance with policies of the Strategic Air Command and Higher Headquarters . . . [and] . . . to maintain operational capability to carry out the mission of nuclear deterrence. (Owen 1984:8-9). The base augmented its nuclear deterrent capabilities on January 1, 1964, when the Titan II ICBM became operational at 18 sites surrounding Little Rock AFB (Mueller 1989:325; Public Affairs Office 1980:28-29,39-42; 1994b:14; Wing History Office 1960:1; n.d.:43-44,47). In August 1965, an accident occurred at Missile Site 4 near Searcy, Arkansas, that killed 53 civilian workers engaged in site modifications. A memorial has since been erected in their memory just outside the southeastern perimeter of the base (Public Affairs Office 1980:42; Wing History Office n.d.:48).
The Cuban Missile Crisis manifested itself in the fall of 1962. It was a military response by the United States to the construction of missile sites in Cuba by the Soviet Union (Lewis et al. 1995). This occurred before the Titan II mission at Little Rock AFB became operational. However, Little Rock AFB did contribute to SAC's efforts during the crisis. On October 22, the wing command post received the order to disperse the 384th BMW's B-47 aircraft. Eleven B-47s were deployed to three municipal airports, while the remaining B-47s at Little Rock AFB stayed on increased alert status. The dispersed B-47s returned to Little Rock AFB on November 25, and the wing alert status was decreased the same day. The wing also supported Operation Common Cause during the crisis; it provided aerial refueling support for the reconnaissance aircraft
16
conducting aerial surveillance over Cuba (Public Affairs Office 1980:29-30; Wing History Office 1962:1,4).
Arkansas ANG units moved permanently to Little Rock AFB in September 1962. Upon arrival, the 189th Tactical Reconnaissance Group (TRG) was formed to assist the Air Force in its aerial surveillance activities. Units from the 189th TRG were activated for 11 months of duty when the intelligence ship Pueblo was seized by North Korea in 1968.
Coinciding with the 1964 activation of the Titan II was the phase-out of the B-47 and the inactivation of the 384th BMW at Little Rock AFB. The B-58, a medium size bomber, and the KC-135 Stratotanker replaced the aging B-47s and KC-97 tankers. The 43rd BMW replaced the 384th in September 1964 and assumed command of the 70th AREFS. The B-58 remained at Little Rock AFB until January 1970 when it was sent to the Aircraft Storage Center at DavisMonthan AFB in Arizona. At the same time, the 43rd BMW and the 825th, now the 825th Strategic Air Division (SAD), and the 825th Combat Support Group were deactivated, and the 70th AREFS was transferred (Mueller 1989:324-325; Owen 1984:5-6; Public Affairs Office 1980:30-31; 1994b:14).
The Air Force officially transferred jurisdiction of Little Rock AFB from SAC to TAC on April 1, 1970. The 4442nd Combat Crew Training Wing (CCTW) was transferred to Little Rock AFB to provide training for pilots and flight engineers in the C-130. The 64th Tactical Airlift Wing (TAW), designated as the new host unit in March 1970, was also assigned to the base and utilized the C-130 aircraft. Its mission "was to provide air transportation for airborne forces by airdrop, airland, and aerial extraction" (Public Affairs Office 1994b:14). This brief designation lasted until May 1971 when the 64th TAW was deactivated, and the 314th TAW was activated as the host unit at Little Rock AFB. The 314th TAW acquired the assets and missions of the 64th TAW and the 4442nd CCTW. Upon activation at Little Rock AFB, the mission of the 314th TAW was "to provide command and staff supervision of tactical airlift squadrons and assigned support units engaged in providing tactical airlift support for airborne forces and other personnel, equipment
17
supplies and aeromedical evacuation of patients within the theater of operations." In short, the mission was to "Organize, equip and train assigned units to conduct tactical airlift operations on a global basis...[and]...provide pathfinder capability for other tactical airlift units...." (DoD 1973:13; Doty 1971:7-8).
The 834th Air Division (AD) was activated at Little Rock AFB in 1972 and assigned to Twelfth Air Force until it was transferred in December 1974 (Mueller 1989:325; Owen 1984:6; Public Affairs Office 1980:47-48; 1994b:14). MAC became the host organization at Little Rock AFB in December 1974, and the 314th TAW and other airlift units at Little Rock AFB were transferred from TAC to MAC. The 314th TAW was reassigned from the 834th AD to 22nd Air Force. The following year, four C-130 aircraft from the 314th TAW supported a U.S. Marine landing to rescue crew members from the captured ship S.S. Mayaguez (Public Affairs Office 1980:52).
In 1975, the 189th TRG received eight KC-135 tankers, enabling the ANG unit to refuel its own planes. In 1976, the 189th TRG became the 189th Air Refueling Group (AREFG) under SAC, although it was still considered an ANG unit. By 1980, the 189th AREFG had been integrated into the SAC tanker force. The 189th AREFG was redesignated the 189th AG ANG in October 1986 and continues in that capacity today utilizing the C-130 (Public Affairs Office 1980:35-37; 1994b:24).
Little Rock AFB maintained its dual mission as an airlift center and missile control center until August 1985. At that time, the Titan II missile sites maintained by the 308th SMW as part of the nuclear defense triad were inactivated and all launch facilities were destroyed. The 308th SMW was also deactivated. Throughout the remaining years of the Cold War, the 314th TAW continued its mission of maintaining global airlift responsibilities to combat areas, responding to national and international emergencies with humanitarian aid, and training of aircrews from both the United States and allied countries (Danner 1989:1; Public Affairs Office 1994b:14).
18
In 1991, the 314th TAW was redesignated the 314th AW. In June 1992, the 314th AW and Little Rock AFB were aligned under the newly formed Air Mobility Command, the successor to MAC. Then in October 1993, the wing and base were once again re-aligned, this time to ACC.
Virtually the entire base was constructed during the decade of the 1950s, with the exception of periodic renovations and some new facilities in the 1970s and 1980s. Construction and grading commenced in 1953-1954, and the majority of base facilities were completed between 1955-1958.
Old weapon storage bunkers and facilities from the ordnance plant were extant when construction of the base began in 1953. Some of the currently remaining structures are located west of the weapon storage area (Figure 3.1). Construction of the runway, taxiways, parking apron, and 90 buildings was underway by June 1955 (Public Affairs Office 1980:15-19; Wing History Office 1955b; 1956; 1957). These buildings include mission, industrial, base support, community,
recreation, and housing facilities. Housing was a serious problem at Little Rock AFB since its initial construction, and the dormitory construction helped to alleviate the problem. However, the need for officer and enlisted family housing units to be built was still acute. The 1956 Capehart Housing Amendment to the National Housing Act of 1949 provided the necessary legislation to augment existing housing facilities at Air Force bases nationwide. The base Capehart housing project was begun in 1957, with the first housing completed for occupation in June 1959. A total of 1,535 units were planned: 613 for officers, and 922 for airmen (Public Affairs Office 1980:25,28; Wing History Office 1956:240-241,259-260; 1957:28-29).
The SAC alert program at Little Rock AFB was improved substantially with the 1960 completion of the alert facility, alert apron, and traffic check house (Figure 3.2). A fire training facility was
21
also completed in 1960. Base warehouse facilities and an additional maintenance hangar were completed between 1961 and 1963. The base bowling center was completed in 1961, the small arms range in 1962, and the base hospital in 1964.
During the 1970s, major construction projects completed in the main base area included an avionics shop, a jet engine maintenance shop, maintenance docks and general purpose aircraft shops, several housing support and storage buildings, several covered storage facilities, hazardous storage facilities, and a child care center (Figure 3.3).
In the 1980s, base construction of new facilities included a new base commissary and youth center completed in 1980, three large, covered storage facilities in 1980 and 1983, a branch exchange in 1982, a new security police canine kennel in 1983, and a series of buildings for the training and billeting of students participating in the Phoenix Ace law enforcement training program (Figure 3.3). The latter is located immediately west of the small arms range. In the mid-1980s, the flight simulator building was expanded to facilitate the C-130 training mission of the 314th AW (Figure 3.3, 3.4).
Construction continued on base following the end of the Cold War.
Significant buildings
completed in the 1990s include a flying training classroom and a general purpose aircraft shop built just south of the alert facility and west of the alert apron in 1990 and 1991 respectively (Figure 3.4). In 1992, two security police operations buildings were completed at the eastern end of the mission area along the flight line, and a large maintenance hangar was completed at the western end of the flight line. In 1994, a new base personnel office was completed, and one of the old wing headquarters buildings nearby was renovated so completely that it appears to be new. The bomber alert facility is currently being renovated.
24
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the reconnaissance inventory of Little Rock 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
25
As part of the reconnaissance inventory of Little Rock 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 Little Rock 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.
26
27
28
29
Upon arrival at Little Rock AFB, the Mariah field team met with Robert Seay, Chief, Environmental Flight, of the Environmental Office. He arranged an orientation tour of the base for the Mariah team. During the tour, the field team became familiar with the base layout and identified certain buildings for evaluation and documentation. This objective completed, the team began the information search on base.
The Wing History Office supplied wing histories that augmented base historical information provided by the Public Affairs Office. These histories were examined to determine the various wing missions at Little Rock AFB and to link the base to significant events that occurred during the Cold War era. The Wing History Office also had in its possession a bound collection of base newspapers that is virtually complete and dates from 1958 to the present; a photograph and slide collection of various subjects that spans the decades since Little Rock AFB was built; and a three volume collection of newspaper clippings that deals with all aspects of the base.
30
Architectural drawing files were inventoried in the Drafting Department of the Civil Engineering Office. Drafting also provided base layout maps on computer discs, current hard copies of base layout maps, and decade maps useful for depicting base development over the Cold War years. Property Cards from the Real Estate Office established information pertinent to the resources chosen for documentation and evaluation based on their Cold War significance.
A photographic reconnaissance was conducted to document Cold War properties and representative architecture on base. Several informal interviews were conducted with personnel long affiliated with the base, especially the Real Property Officer, to better understand the relationship of specific base properties to the Cold War era. Finally, selected resources were documented and evaluated based on their Cold War importance. These resources were more fully documented using a lap-top computer database to store information about the resources.
31
During the reconnaissance inventory of Little Rock AFB, 110 resources were inventoried. Appendix A lists the inventoried resources, and Appendix B shows their location on the base. Photographs of the inventoried resources are presented in Appendix C.
32
Four resources were evaluated at Little Rock AFB, one of them falling under the DoD category of real property and three under records/documents. 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 the evaluated building could not be secured. In this instance, documentation describing changes to the building was consulted to provide insight into the integrity of the building's interior.
6.1.1 Documentation
6.1.1.1 Base Newspaper Collection (Resource No. 25109, Located in Real Property No. 370)
This resource is located in the Wing History Office at Wing Headquarters and consists of a bound collection of newspapers and three scrapbooks of newspaper clippings. The bound collection of the base newspaper, the Air Scoop, is virtually continuous from its inception in 1958 and spans three temporal periods of the Cold War era. The issues from 1958-1959 are incomplete, and those from 1962 are missing. Associated with this resource are three scrapbooks containing local newspaper clippings that discuss all aspects of Little Rock AFB. Dating from 1952 through the 1970s, this resource covers at least two of the temporal time periods of the Cold War era and can provide information and insight into the issues involved in locating the base in Jacksonville, Arkansas, as well as the lives of base personnel and activities that occurred on base. This
34
resource can provide information and insight into the development of the base throughout the Cold War era.
This resource is located in a secured area and is in fair condition. However, the resource is not actively curated. The newspapers show evidence of wear due to handling, and some of the scrapbook clippings are loose.
This documentary collection consists of architectural drawings and aerial photographs located in a secured vault/controlled access facility inside the Drafting Department within the Civil Engineering Office. No index exists for the collection, although the collection is cataloged numerically and by subject matter. The architectural drawings represent most buildings and structures extant on base, including initial construction, modification, renovation, and repair drawings. The collection also includes master plans, landscapes, runways and taxiways,
topography, utilities, roads and railroads, and other associated and miscellaneous projects. These drawings are compiled on a variety of mediums (mylar, blue prints, vellum, etc.) and are a record of construction and renovations completed for all buildings on base, past and present. The collection also contains approximately 62 aerial photographs of the base dating from 1975-1982, although most of the photos are undated.
This resource can provide information concerning the history of the base for future evaluations of extant buildings and structures on base. It also illustrates the development of the base throughout the Cold War era. Although the collection is stored in a secured area, it is continuously used by base engineers, and is thus subject to wear and tear.
35
This collection is located in the Wing History Office at Wing Headquarters and spans all four temporal periods of the Cold War era. This resource consists of a complete wing history collection of the 314th TAW assigned to Little Rock AFB from 1971 to the present. Also extant is a brief history collection of the 64th TAW which was assigned to Little Rock AFB in 1970. Historical information is also available concerning the 825th Air Division and Second Air Force; these organizations were in the SAC chain of command at Little Rock AFB from 1954-1964.
This collection provides information on base personnel and activities, the involvement of the base in major Cold War events, and the development of the various missions throughout the Cold War era. All of these histories are stored in a secured area and are in good condition. Copies of these histories are also on file at the USAF Historical Research Center at Maxwell AFB, Alabama.
2
Real Property No. 160 is a permanent, 23,190 ft facility constructed primarily of reinforced concrete in 1960. Located at the eastern end of the flight line and immediately west of the "christmas tree" alert apron, the Bomber Alert Facility is a two story building characterized most by the rapid egress ramps found on all four sides of its exterior and a sloped earthen berm that extends up the four sides of the building and covers the first story. This facility was the original crew readiness building constructed for SAC alert bomber crews stationed at Little Rock AFB. It was designed to house aircrews standing alert duty and to facilitate rapid egress from the building to bomber aircraft parked on the adjacent alert apron during a national emergency situation or operational readiness inspection from 1960 until 1970.
36
Although the earthen berm has been removed temporarily to waterproof the exterior of the building, when this waterproofing is completed the berm will be replaced and the exterior integrity of the building once again will be intact. Internal modifications are currently underway with some alterations to the original interior design. This is being done to promote a better use of space to facilitate aerial delivery training programs planned for this facility in the near future. Thus interior integrity will be partially affected. The associated facilities (security tower, fence, check house, and alert apron) remain intact. Since the features that characterize the building as an alert facility remain intact, i.e. the ramps and the earthen berm, it is determined that the facility's integrity is intact.
The Bomber Alert Facility is exceptionally important to Little Rock AFB's Cold War context and to Cold War history at the national level. It 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 the Killian Report, meeting the needs of deterrence through a survivable force and the dispersion of bombers across the country (Lewis et al. 1995). Though this facility was used for this purpose during Phases II and III, it characterizes the policy and strategy enacted during Phase II of the Cold War. This facility meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
None were evaluated at Little Rock AFB.
37
38
The purpose of the reconnaissance inventory was to provide initial information on the kinds of Cold War resources extant on Little Rock 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 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 Little Rock AFB. These resources should be investigated further for a more
comprehensive analysis of the base's Cold War context.
Little Rock AFB has an interpretive display and monument located on base behind the B-47 static display at the intersection of Arnold Drive and Vandenburg Boulevard. The display discusses the Titan II program, the 308th SMW, and missile launch sites located in the region near Little Rock AFB. This display consists of two concrete walls in front of which is a Titan II re-entry vehicle on a concrete slab emanating from the base of the walls. Interpretive plaques are mounted on the walls. A time capsule has been set into this display for future generations. This visual and written display portrays the U.S. nuclear defense program and deterrence during the latter two temporal phases of the Cold War era.
A memorial exists at Little Rock AFB just outside the base property line in the southeastern portion of the base. This memorial is a stone monument (Real Property No. 400) with an interpretive description discussing the fate of 53 civilian workers who died in a Titan II silo during a construction accident in August 1965 near Searcy, Arkansas. This memorial conveys to the public the danger and seriousness connected with the construction and maintenance of the U.S. missile program for national defense during the Cold War.
The Wing History Office has several collections in its possession which span the latter three temporal periods of the Cold War. A very large photograph, slide, and negative collection of
39
various subjects spans the decades since Little Rock AFB was built. A collection of approximately 100 slides relates to the 308th SMW.
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 Little Rock AFB revealed approximately 330 citations. Most of these are unit histories and special collections. More specific topics include the histories of base realignment due to acquisition of the various base missions and acquisition of the Titan II missile system. The vast majority of these documents are available on microfilm. Future studies of Cold War history at Little Rock AFB should allot time to researching these documents.
40
During the base visit, no immediate or future threats to any of the evaluated resources were identified. However, due to the use of the Base Newspaper Collection and the Documentary Collection by base personnel, attention to these resources to reduce wear is recommended.
41
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 Little Rock 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.
42
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 Little Rock 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
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 Little Rock AFB have not been evaluated, and thus must be considered and treated as eligible until an evaluation and determination of eligibility are made.
43
These
44
Recommendations for the evaluated resources at Little Rock AFB are presented below. Table 9.1 summarizes these recommendations. More than one recommendation may apply to a given
46
9.2.1 Base Newspaper Collection (Resource No. 25109, Located in Real Property No. 370)
This collection of newspapers and newspaper clippings is in fair condition. However, it is not actively curated and is showing signs of wear. It is recommended that this collection be inventoried and copied. It is further recommended that the copies go to the base for its use, and the originals go to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
This collection of architectural drawings and aerial photographs is subject to continuous use by base engineers and is showing signs of wear. It is recommended that this collection be inventoried and copied. It is further recommended that the copies go to the base for its use, with the originals going to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
47
This collection of histories is in good condition and is stored in a secured area. Copies of the histories are also on file at the USAF Historical Research Center at Maxwell AFB, Alabama. Therefore, stewardship of the collection at Little Rock AFB is recommended.
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II through III. 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 and its defining features is intact. Therefore, this building is recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Recommendations include stewardship to maintain the integrity of the building and features, and further documentation to nominate this resource to the NRHP.
48
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. Danner, D. D. 1989 History of the 314th Tactical Airlift Wing (TAW), January-June 1989. On file, Wing History Office, Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas. Department of Defense 1973 Executive Order 11508 Installation Survey Report, Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas. On file, Air Force Historical Research Center, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. 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. Doty, R. W. 1971 History of the 314th Tactical Airlift Wing, Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas. On file, Wing History Office, Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas. Environmental Office n.d. Portion of an environmental assessment for the construction of SAB nature trail. On file, Environmental Office, Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas. Fenneman, N. M. 1938 Physiography of Eastern United States. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York and London. 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
Mueller, R. 1989 Air Force Bases: Active Air Force Bases Within the United States of America on 17 September 1982, volume 1. Office of Air Force History, United States Air Force, Washington, D.C. 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. Owen, B. L. 1984 Survey Report of Executive Order 12348 for Little Rock Air Force Base, Jacksonville, Arkansas. On file, Air Force Historical Research Center, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. Perdue, B. L. 1994 Water Requirements at Little Rock Air Force Base: Final Report. On file, Planning Office, 314th Civil Engineering Squadron, Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas. Public Affairs Office 1980 Little Rock Air Force Base: Silver Anniversary Review, 1955-1980. On file, Public Affairs Office, Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas. 1994a 314th Airlift Wing. Fact Sheet (June) on file, Public Affairs Office, Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas. 1994b Little Rock Air Force Base. Base Guide and Telephone Directory on file, Public Affairs Office, Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas. 1994c 314th Airlift Wing. Fact Sheet (October) on file, Public Affairs Office, Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas. Santeford, L. G., J. Stewart-Abernathy, R. H. Lafferty III 1986 A Background and Literature Search for Significant Historic Archaeological Sites at Little Rock Air Force Base in Pulaski County, Arkansas. On file, Planning Office, 314th Civil Engineering Office, Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas. Strategic Air Command 1988 Strategic Air Command and the Alert Program: A Brief History. Office of the Historian, Headquarters Strategic Air Command, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska.
50
1991 Alert Operations and the Strategic Air Command, 1957-1991. Office of the Historian, Headquarters Strategic Air Command, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. United States Air Force 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. Wing History Office 1955a Historical Report of the 825th Air Division, 1 September to 30 September, Little Rock Air Force Base, Jacksonville, Arkansas. On file, Wing History Office, Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas. 1955b Historical Report of the 825th Air Division, 1 December-30 December 1955, Little Rock Air Force Base, Jacksonville, Arkansas. On file, Wing History Office, Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas. 1956 Second Air Force Historical Data, 1 July-31 December, 1956. On file, Wing History Office, Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas. 1957 825th Air Division, 1-31 August 1957. On file, Wing History Office, Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas. 1960 825th Air Division, 1-30 June 1960. On file, Wing History Office, Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas. 1962 384th Bombardment Wing (M), 1-30 November 1962. On file, Wing History Office, Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas. n.d. 308th: From the Past Into the Unknown. On file, Wing History Office, Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas.
EVALUATED RESOURCES AT LITTLE ROCK AFB

Property Description: Alert facility Associated Property: 25003, 25029, 25041 Non-Inventoried Association: Security facilities (e.g., fence, guard house), and the alert apron. Sub-installation: Address: 160 Marshall Road Little Rock AFB, AR Base Map Date: 10/1/94 Base Map Building Number: 160 Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Alert Facilities Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence Property Type: Bomber Alert Facility Statement of Significance: This property was directly related to the Cold War effort. It served as a component of first line, rapid response nuclear delivery system (one arm of the nuclear triad deterrent). This resource is also significant for its architectural design elements, such as ramped entrances and an earthen berm. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: 4 Theme Relationship: 4 Temporal Phase Relationship: 3 Level of Importance: 4 Percent Historic Fabric: 4 Severity of Threats: 2 Total Score for Priority Matrix: 21 Comments on Threats: This resource is currently undergoing a second renovation with a certain loss in the original interior fabric. However, the original appearance of the building, both interior and exterior, will be maintained following completion of construction. No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: Weighed against other SAC alert facilities, the partial loss of original fabric here reduces its level of significance. However, it will maintain its basic architectural fabric, especially in outward appearance with earthen berms, ramps, and tunnels.
Importance: Exceptional Eligibility Eligible 20 23190 Permanent Aerial Delivery Training Facility SAC alert facility The current (and extensive) renovation includes temporary removal of the earth berms to waterproof the building and remodeling (with some partition changes) the interior. This is being done to prepare the building for continued use as a training facility. Primary Building Materials: Poured Concrete Character Defining Features: Earthen berms, rapid egress ramps and tunnels. Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use: Other Use/Dates: Comments on Use:

Property Description: Base newspaper "Air Scoop." In addition, the collection includes three scrap books containing a personal collection of local newspaper clippings concerning LRAFB. These clippings date from 1952 to the 1970s. Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: 4119 Cannon Drv. Little Rock AFB, AR Base Map Date: 10/1/94 Base Map Building Number: inside 370 Operational Support & Installations: Documentation Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence Property Type: Base Newspaper Collection Statement of Significance: This resource is mostly continuous from 1952 to the present and may provide additional insight into the activities and personnel at Little Rock AFB during the Cold War Era, especially from a social perspective. The collection of clippings provides additional social significance from the period before Jacksonville was chosen for the base location, and discusses the communities attempts to bring the base to Jacksonville.. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: No Further Work: Stewardship: National Register Listing: Further Documentation: Preservation/Conservation/Repair: Comments on Resource Management: Object Condition: Record/Document Category: Year of Document: Period of Association: Comments on Condition: No Yes No Yes Yes 3 1 3 1 3 1 12
In Storage/Benign Neglect Newspaper collection 1952-present All temporal periods of the Cold War Era The newspaper collection is bound ,with the earlier portion of the collection is in fair condition, while the latter issues are in excellent condition. The newspaper clippings are in fair condition and should be curated.

Property Description: Architectural drawing and engineering files located in vault in CE building. These are contained in 11 hanging filing cabinets, one table of miscellaneous drawings, and 24 hanging files of proposed projects (not yet funded). Types of drawings include master base plans, landscapes, buildings (initial construction, modification, renovation, and repair), runways and taxiways, topography, utilities, roads and railroad, and other miscellaneous constructed facilities. One folder included 62 base aerial photos dating from 1975 and 1982. Most of these photos were undated. Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: 528 Thomas Ave. Little Rock AFB AR Base Map Date: 10/1/94 Base Map Building Number: inside 528 Operational Support & Installations: Documentation Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence Property Type: Documentary Collection Statement of Significance: These drawings are a record of construction and renovations completed for all buildings on base, past and present. They can also provide further information for future evaluations of extant buildings and structures on base. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 3 2 3 2 4 1 15
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: No Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: Yes Comments on Resource Management: This resource is located in a controlled access facility and is in good condition. No index exists. Object Condition: Record/Document Category: Year of Document: Period of Association: In Storage/Benign Neglect Architectural Drawing Files and Aerial Photographs various All temporal periods of the Cold War era.

Property Description: Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: Base Map Building Number: Wing History Collection
4119 Cannon Ave. Little Rock AFB, AR 10/1/94 inside 380
Operational Support & Installations: Documentation Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence Property Type: Office Files Statement of Significance: This history collection details the activities of the 314th Tactical Airlift Wing at Little Rock AFB. Further research into the various volumes that span 1970-1993 could provide additional insight into the activities conducted at the base in general and specific facilities in particular during the Cold War era. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: No Further Work: Stewardship: National Register Listing: Further Documentation: Preservation/Conservation/Repair: Comments on Resource Management: Object Condition: Record/Document Category: Year of Document: Period of Association: Comments on Condition: No Yes No No No 3 4 2 2 4 1 16
In Storage/Benign Neglect Report various 1970 -present A duplicate set of these documents is stored at the USAF Historical Research Center at Maxwell AFB, Alabama.
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 Little Rock AFB and to provide research materials for this study:
Robert Seay Chief, Environmental Flight 314 CES/CEV 528 Thomas Avenue Little Rock AFB, Arkansas 72009-5005 (501) 988-6435 Jennifer Gray Facility Security Officer 1255 Vandenburg Boulevard Little Rock AFB, Arkansas 72099-5020 (501) 988-6984 Ray McEuen Deputy Base Civil Engineer 314 CES/CE 528 Thomas Avenue Little Rock AFB, Arkansas 72099-5005 (501) 988-3322 William Meadows Environmental Technician 314 CES/CEV 528 Thomas Avenue Little Rock AFB, Arkansas 72099-5005 (501) 988-6435 Richard Munch Real Property Officer 314 CES/CERR 209 Thornell Avenue Little Rock AFB, Arkansas 72099-5053 (501) 988-6988
E-2
TSgt A. Carl Rhode Wing Historian 314 AW/HO 4119 Cannon Drive Little Rock AFB, Arkansas 72099 (501) 988-6332
E-3
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 Little Rock AFB history and Cold War context.
Richard Munch, Real Property Officer, November 14 and 15, 1994 Robert Seay, Chief, Environmental Flight, November 14, 1994 William Meadows, Environmental Technician, November 14, 1994
VOLUME II-16: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE AT LORING AIR FORCE BASE
Prepared by James A. Lowe David P. Staley Katherine J. Roxlau
August 1997
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.
ii
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 United States Air Force
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
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.
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 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Bases Selected for the Air Combat Command Cold War Study .............................. 2 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
LIST OF TABLES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
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.
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.]
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).
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.
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
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.]
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
23
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 The
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.
24
25
26
27
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
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
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.
None were evaluated at Loring AFB.
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).
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).
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).
36
37
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
39
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
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.
41
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.
42
These
43
44
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.
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.
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War 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.
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War 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.
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War 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
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 Office, Loring Air Force Base, Maine. 1989 Real Property Study, Annual Review, Loring Air Force Base, Maine. On file, Real Estate Office, Loring Air Force Base, Maine. 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. United States Air Force 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.
EVALUATED RESOURCES AT LORING AFB

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
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.
Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use: Other Use/Dates:

Property Description: DC (Double Cantilever) Hangar Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: 10/30/92 Base Map Building Number: 8280 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 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. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: 3 Theme Relationship: 3 Temporal Phase Relationship: 3 Level of Importance: 4 Percent Historic Fabric: 4 Severity of Threats: 3 Total Score for Priority Matrix: 20 Comments on Threats: Maintenance will be restricted to structural integrity and weather tightness. All utilities are discontinued. No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: Efforts should be made to document this building before it begins to deteriorate. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility: Eligible
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: Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: Base Map Building Number: Alert Facility - Molehole 9126, 9127, 9172, 9186
10/30/92 8970
Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Alert Facilities Training Facilities: Material Development 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. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: 4 Theme Relationship: 4 Temporal Phase Relationship: 3 Level of Importance: 4 Percent Historic Fabric: 4 Severity of Threats: 2 Total Score for Priority Matrix: 21 Comments on Threats: Structural Integrity and weatherproofing only. No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: 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. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility: Eligible
Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: 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: Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: 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
Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Storage Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: 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. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 4 4 4 3 4 4 23
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: 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 Importance: Exceptional Eligibility: Eligible
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
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 Loring AFB, ME 04751-5000 (207) 999-2547 SSgt Boston Commander of Security Police 42nd MSSQ/SPS Loring AFB, ME 04751-5000 (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
VOLUME II-17: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE AT MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE
Prepared by Patience Elizabeth Patterson David P. Staley Katherine J. Roxlau Mariah Associates, Inc. Albuquerque, New Mexico MAI Project 735-15
May 1997
Volume II-17: MacDill Air Force Base
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
MacDill Air Force Base and Avon Park Air Force Range were inventoried by Patience Elizabeth Patterson and David P. Staley of Mariah Associates, Inc. between May 31 and June 5, 1994, as part of the Air Combat Command Cold War study. Information was gathered at the base from the Environmental Office, the Drafting Section of Civil Engineering, the Community Planning Office, the Real Property Office, the Public Affairs Office, the Wing History Office, and on-site inspections.
An initial reconnaissance of the base and range was accomplished with Mr. Bob Hoffman, Chief of Environmental Analyses. This initial orientation enabled the field team to become familiar with the facilities and determine what property types were present and which were likely to be relevant to the Cold War study. A photographic inventory was taken of the different types and styles of facilities present on the base.
From the inventory, on-site inspection, and research, seven resources were evaluated as important within the base's Cold War context and were more fully documented . Six of these relate to Operational and Support Installations on the base, and one relates to Combat Weapons and Support Systems. All temporal phases, as described in the study's historic context and methodology document (Lewis et al. 1995), are represented.
Four of the resources evaluated are documentary.
Architectural drawings, maps, aerial
photographs, history office files, a bound base newspaper collection, and early maps and layout plans for the bombing range at Avon Park Air Force Range are all present. One particular 1940 layout plan of MacDill Army Air Field has the signature of General Henry "Hap" Arnold and is framed. resources. Further documentation, stewardship, and conservation are recommended for these
ii
Two of the evaluated resources are primary command headquarters and one is the Bomber Alert Facility constructed during the base's tenure as a SAC base. These resources are recommended as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Stewardship and further documentation to nominate the resources to the National Register are also recommended.
iii
LIST OF ACRONYMS AAF ABW ACC ACHP AFB AFR AGE BRAC BMG BMW CRS DoD EMS EW FTD HABS LOX Mariah NCO NHPA NOAA NPS NRHP OCONUS POL RDJTF RTU SAC SALT SDI SHPO START TAC TACAN TFW TTW USAF USCENTCOM USREDCOM USSOCOM USSTRIKCOM WRSK Army Air Field Air Base Wing Air Combat Command Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Air Force Base Air Force Range Air Ground Equipment Base Realignment and Closure Bombardment Group Bombardment Wing Component Repair Squadron Department of Defense Equipment Maintenance Squadron Electronic Warfare Field Training Detachment Historic American Buildings Survey Liquid Oxygen Mariah Associates, Inc. Noncommissioned Officer National Historic Preservation Act National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Off Continental United States Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force Replacement Training Unit Strategic Air Command Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty Strategic Defense Initiative State Historic Preservation Officer Strategic Arms Reduction Talks Tactical Air Command Tactical Air Navigation Station Tactical Fighter Wing Tactical Training Wing United States Air Force United States Central Command United States Readiness Command United States Special Operations Command United States Strike Command War Readiness Spares Kit
iv
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. 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. Flexible Response - A military strategy adopted by President Kennedy whereby different potential crisis situations are matched with an equal number of potential options for reaction. Under this strategy, nuclear weapons are used for only two purposes: for deterrence and as a weapon of last resort. 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. 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. 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. 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.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... i LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................. iii GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................................. iv 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 ........................................................................................................... 3.0 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ................................................................................................. 3.1 MACDILL AFB HISTORY AND COLD WAR CONTEXT ........................................ 3.2 AVON PARK AFR HISTORY AND COLD WAR CONTEXT ................................... 3.3 BASE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................ 4.0 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 4.1 INVENTORY .................................................................................................................. 4.2 EVALUATION OF IMPORTANT RESOURCES......................................................... 4.2.1 Documentation ....................................................................................................... 4.2.2 Evaluation of Importance ....................................................................................... 4.2.2.1 Cold War Context ......................................................................................... 4.2.2.2 NRHP Criteria ............................................................................................... 4.2.2.3 Exceptional Importance ................................................................................. 4.2.3 Evaluation of Integrity............................................................................................ 4.2.4 Priority Matrix ........................................................................................................ 4.2.5 Resource Organization ........................................................................................... 4.3 BASE SPECIFIC METHODS ........................................................................................ 4 4 4 6 9 13 13 18 20 26 26 27 27 27 27 28 29 29 30 31 31
5.0 RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY RESULTS ................................................................ 33 6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS ................................................................................................... 6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS .................................................... 6.1.1 Base and Command Centers .................................................................................. 6.1.1.1 Major Command Headquarters ..................................................................... 6.1.1.2 Major Command Headquarters ..................................................................... 6.1.2 Documentation ....................................................................................................... 34 34 34 34 38 39
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.1.2.1 Documentary Collection................................................................................ 6.1.2.2 Documentary Collection................................................................................ 6.1.2.3 Base Newspaper Collection........................................................................... 6.1.2.4 Map Files ...................................................................................................... 6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS .................................................... 6.2.1 Alert Facilities ........................................................................................................ 6.2.1.1 Bomber Alert Facility.................................................................................... 6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES ................................................................ 6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES ................................................................................................ 6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES....................................................................................... 39 39 39 40 40 40 40 41 41 41
7.0 UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 42 8.0 FUTURE THREATS TO RESOURCES .............................................................................. 44 9.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 9.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY ...................................................................................................... 9.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility............................................... 9.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility ........................................................................... 9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 9.2.1 Major Command Headquarters .............................................................................. 9.2.2 Major Command Headquarters .............................................................................. 9.2.3 Documentary Collection......................................................................................... 9.2.4 Documentary Collection......................................................................................... 9.2.5 Base Newspaper Collection.................................................................................... 9.2.6 Map Files ................................................................................................................ 9.2.7 Bomber Alert Facility............................................................................................. 45 45 45 47 49 49 51 51 51 52 52 52
10.0 REFERENCES CITED ....................................................................................................... 53 APPENDIX A: RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY APPENDIX B: BASE LAYOUT MAPS SHOWING INVENTORIED RESOURCES APPENDIX C: PHOTOGRAPHS OF INVENTORIED APPENDIX D: DATA BASE DOCUMENTATION FOR EVALUATED RESOURCES APPENDIX E: EXTANT SOURCES OF INFORMATION
viii
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Bases Selected for the Air Combat Command Cold War Study ........................... 2 Location of MacDill Air Force Base and Avon Park Air Force Range ..................................................................................................................... 5 MacDill Air Force Base Layout ............................................................................ 7 Standard Tactical Air Command Base Layout ...................................................... 8 MacDill Air Force Base Land Use Diagram ........................................................ 11 Standard Tactical Air Command Base Land Use Diagram .................................. 12 MacDill Air Force Base 1950s ............................................................................. 22 MacDill Air Force Base 1960s ............................................................................. 23 MacDill Air Force Base 1980s ............................................................................. 24 MacDill Air Force Base 1990s ............................................................................. 25
Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4
LIST OF TABLES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
inventory cultural resources under their control and evaluate those that are significant or potentially eligible for listing in 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 MacDill Air Force Base (AFB) and its associated Avon Park Air Force Range (AFR). MacDill AFB, a former Tactical Air Command (TAC) 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.
The host unit at MacDill AFB is the 6th Air Base Wing (ABW). Its mission is to support the two major unified commands and a number of tenant units on base. The U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) and the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), both tenants on base, are two of the six unified commands in the United States military system. The staffs of both commands come from Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marine Corps personnel. The mission of USCENTCOM is responsibility for United States military and security interests in Southwest Asia, the Arabian Peninsula, and Northeast Africa. The mission of USSOCOM is to provide a reserve of combat ready forces for the defense of the United States and Canada and for global deployment.
In addition, MacDill AFB operates Avon Park AFR, an auxiliary facility in central Florida. The missions of the facility are to maintain and operate the air-to-ground bombing and gunnery range, to provide a realistic electronic combat crew training environment, and to maintain an auxiliary airfield in the event of an aircraft emergency. The primary user of the range is the 56th Fighter Wing from MacDill AFB, although other units from the Air Force, Navy, Army, Marine Corps, and National Guard also conduct training exercises at the range.
MacDill AFB is located on the western coast of central Florida in the Tampa metropolitan area (Figure 2.1). It is 8 mi (13 km) south of downtown Tampa. The installation consists of 5,630 acres of fee-owned land on the southernmost tip of Interbay Peninsula in Hillsborough County. To the east of the peninsula is Hillsborough Bay, to the west is Old Tampa Bay, and to the south Tampa Bay.
The terrain is flat with elevations above mean sea level in the single digits. Well over half of the base is within the 100 year flood plain, and portions of the southern area are mangrove swamps. Approximately 1,100 acres of the fee-owned acreage are marsh areas and protected wetlands under State and Federal statutes (United States Air Force [USAF] 1983).
Avon Park AFR is an auxiliary facility located within Polk and Highland Counties in central Florida, 95 mi (153 km) east-southeast of MacDill AFB. The range covers 167 square miles (106,110 acres) of coastal plain in central Florida. Much of the area encompassed by the range is open space, with more than 60,000 acres of wetlands, 15,000 acres of pine plantations, forests, streams, lakes, and a river. Currently, Avon Park AFR is shared with the State of Florida's Avon Park Correctional Institution. Over 560 acres of range land have been turned over to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (USAF 1989).
The MacDill AFB layout is similar to that of a standard TAC base, including the airfield (Figures 2.2 and 2.3). One primary or instrument runway was originally constructed in the early 1940s. This runway is 11,420 ft (3,481 m) long and 300 ft (91 m) wide and is on a northeast-southwest axis. The crosswind runway intersects the primary runway on its northern end at approximately 90 degrees. The crosswind runway is 7,167 ft (2,185 m) long and 150 ft (46 m) wide and is on a northwest-southeast axis.
The mission-related buildings are adjacent to and east of the runways and flight apron. They are laid out in an arrowhead shape or "V" pointing to the west and the runways. They provide a buffer to the other part of the base immediately to the east which contains industrial and administrative buildings. Next is unaccompanied housing, administration, and community related buildings, and lastly and furthest east is family housing. The medical complex and portions of the family housing are situated to the east and south along the bay and around the golf course. A portion of industrial structures and buildings lies south of the runways and west of the golf
course and housing areas. These industrial facilities house the Ordnance Depot, small arms firing ranges, and warehouses. The fuel storage tanks are located on the western side of the primary runway. A number of industrial, administrative, and community facilities are located north of the crosswind runway and east of the northern end of the primary runway. A large portion of the southern end of the base is Open Space. These areas contain protected wetlands and other areas not suitable for construction or other uses.
2.4 BASE LAND USE
The following is a list of standard TAC land use categories: Base Support Facilities - facilities for base support functions and supplies. 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.
10
Figure 2.4 is a diagrammatic land use plan for MacDill AFB and Figure 2.5 is a diagrammatic land use plan for a standard TAC base. MacDill AFB does not strictly conform to the TAC land use layout since it has fragmented use areas. Industrial functions on MacDill AFB are carried out in several areas around the runways. Ordnance storage and disposal are placed to the south of the crosswind runway and east of the southernmost housing and recreation areas. Fuel storage, communications antennae, a doppler radar facility, and a control tower are situated on the portion of the base west of the primary runway.
In a general sense, the standard TAC land use pattern is followed in that the mission, support, and personnel facilities are generally placed in that order from the flight lines. Community, recreation and family housing are furthest away from mission functions. The standard land use patterns are followed at MacDill AFB within the exigencies of geography and topography, which somewhat dictate placement of the various use areas.
Avon Park AFR encompasses over 106,000 acres, only 20,000 acres of which is impacted by developments. The remaining acreage is open space containing 15,000 acres of pine plantations, 15,000 - 25,000 acres of forested land, and several thousand acres of critical habitat for endangered plants and animals. Within the open space, 80,000 acres are open to the public for recreational purposes and 90,000 acres are used for grazing under a cattle range leasing program.
13
3.1 MACDILL AFB HISTORY AND COLD WAR CONTEXT MacDill AFB had its beginnings with the passage of the Wilcox National Defense Act of 1935. Congressman J. Mark Wilcox of West Palm Beach Florida introduced a bill authorizing the creation of seven air fields in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Panama for the defense of United States interests in the vulnerable Caribbean (USAF Historical Division 1961). The City of Tampa successfully lobbied in Washington, D.C., for the development of an air field in the city.
Initial acquisition of the land for the air field began in 1939, and construction began on November 28, 1939. Personnel were deployed from Barksdale Field, Louisiana, and Mitchel Field, New York, to the new field. In May of 1940, there were over 1,000 men at MacDill Army Air Field (AAF), along with 14 planes.
Black troops were stationed at the air field in August 1940. During World War II, the military was still segregated under a policy of "separate but equal." The Black troops stationed at MacDill AAF lived in the "north area" of the base, the present site of the Commissary. They had their own theater, non-commissioned officer (NCO) club, barracks, and other facilities similar to those provided on the main portion of the base. These facilities were provided under an
expansion program, and construction of the facilities was completed by mid-July, 1942. Today, only the Black Motor Pool facility remains and is currently used as a base civil engineering facility.
The air field was officially activated on April 16, 1941, and was named after Colonel Leslie MacDill, who was killed in a plane crash at Bolling Field near Washington, D.C., on November 9, 1938. MacDill AAF's first "official" commander was Colonel Clarence L. Tinker. The previous commanders of the air field had fewer than 500 people under their command; therefore, they were not considered "official" (USAF Historical Division 1961:2).
14
MacDill AAF's first mission was transitional training of aircrews in the B-17 Flying Fortress long range bomber and the B-26 Marauder medium range bomber. From 1941 to 1943, the host units at the field were the 29th, 44th, and 21st Bombardment Groups (BMG). B-17 replacement crew training continued until March of 1945. Training for B-29 Super Fortress crews was provided until the end of the war.
Immediately after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, MacDill AAF became the staging point for ferrying combat aircraft to the Far East. Project X, as it was called, involved preparing the aircraft and briefing the crews for their long flights via the South Atlantic and Africa to Australia (USAF Historical Division 1961).
MacDill AAF had served as command headquarters for the III Bomber Command and the III Fighter Command since 1941. With the end of the war in 1945 and the subsequent downsizing of the military, both commands were deactivated on April 8, 1946 (USAF Historical Division 1961).
Already by the end of 1946, the seeds of anti-Communist propaganda were growing. This was illustrated by the reaction to the Black riot that erupted at MacDill AAF on October 27, 1946. The circumstances which caused the riot had been brewing for some time and were not confined to this air field alone. Ultimately, an outburst by a Black soldier led to an investigation. In the previous 90 days, there had been 22 mass disturbances in the military, all attributed to "Communist propaganda with the definite objective of infiltrating the armed forces, which has manifested itself by inciting the Negro soldier to demand preference rather than equality" (Gropman n.d.:66). A Black counterintelligence special agent, assigned to the Negro Unit at MacDill AAF, discovered that the riot was spontaneous and found no evidence of Communist agitation. Despite his findings, reports from MacDill AAF indicated that the blame continued to be placed on Communist agitation (Gropman n.d.:68).
15
In January of 1946, MacDill AAF became a base under the Strategic Air Command (SAC), and in 1948, was officially designated MacDill AFB. It continued its tradition of supporting
programs of concentrated air training. Some of the major SAC organizations which were assigned to the base were the 311th Reconnaissance Wing, the 55th Reconnaissance Group, the 305th, 306th, and 307th Bombardment Wings (BMW), and the 6th Air Division.
MacDill AFB continued as a SAC base throughout the 1950s. In 1959, the 305th BMW was transferred to Bunker Hill AFB, Indiana, and was immediately replaced at MacDill AFB with an Air Defense Weapons Wing equipped with assorted fighter aircraft. In 1960, the Air Defense Weapons Wing was deactivated, and it was announced that MacDill AFB would be downsized and a major portion of the base closed by June 1962 (Department of Defense [DoD] 1973:10; USAF Historical Division 1961).
The base, however, remained open. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a factor in this reversal of fortune. Since MacDill AFB's original purpose was to protect America's interests in the
Caribbean, the base was retained as an active installation and in September of 1961, the United States Strike Command (USSTRIKCOM) was activated there. Instead of closing, MacDill AFB assumed a dual role with a SAC bomber force and a USSTRIKCOM fighter force.
USSTRIKCOM's mission was to provide a strong ready reserve of versatile fighting personnel able to be sent on a moment's notice anywhere in the world. USSTRIKCOM's versatility
fulfilled Kennedy's strategy of "Flexible Response" (Lewis et al. 1995) by allowing the DoD to tailor the country's retaliation to meet the level of the initial aggressive act. Prior to
USSTRIKCOM, the United States had no capability or policy in place to fight a limited tactical war. USSTRIKCOM forces and administration allowed for a flexible response and retaliation against hostile aggressiveness (Benson and Hines 1988:30).
MacDill AFB was transferred from SAC to TAC on July 1, 1962, with an Air Division and two tactical fighter wings (TFW) being activated on that date. The last B-47 Stratojet bomber left the
16
base in March of 1963 (USAF 1994). From April 1962 to February 1963, the base had F-84 Thunderjet aircraft. MacDill AFB then received the first F-4C Phantom II jet aircraft in the Air Force, and both the 12th and 15th TFWs made the transition from F-84s to F-4Cs.
MacDill AFB's training role continued under TAC as fighter squadrons were flying missions in the Vietnam War. The 12th TFW was transferred to Cam Ranh Bay Air Base in Vietnam and the 15th TFW became a Replacement Training Unit (RTU) to replace those pilots lost in combat in Vietnam. MacDill AFB also trained aircrews of the B-57 Night Intruder from 1968 through 1970. The base was following its tradition, established in World War II, of training replacement aircrews in an organized and thorough fashion.
MacDill AFB was literally teaming with people by 1970, with over 8,500 military and civilian personnel on the base. Upgrading and construction of mission-related facilities, along with medical and housing facilities, occurred in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1970, the 15th RTU mission changed from training to a combat ready operational role, and the F-4E replaced the F-4C. This resulted in additional construction and development.
The United States Readiness Command (USREDCOM), a unified command consisting of all four branches of the DoD, was activated at MacDill AFB in January 1972 as the replacement for USSTRIKCOM. USREDCOM provided planning and exercise functions for a general reserve of combat ready forces to reinforce other unified commands as required. MacDill AFB kept its dual role of training and maintaining global fighter readiness. Once assigned to the base, the 1st TFW trained F-4E and F-4D crews (USAF 1994; DoD 1973:12).
In 1975, the 56th TFW was established at MacDill AFB. The F-4 was still the primary training aircraft until 1979. The F-16 Fighting Falcon was the newest addition and conversion to that aircraft was completed by June 1982. The 56th TFW was changed to a tactical training wing (TTW) as the emphasis switched again from combat ready to pilot training, this time for the F-16.
17
The formation of the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF) at MacDill AFB by President Carter and the Joint Chiefs of Staff occurred on March 1, 1980. The RDJTF was subordinate to USREDCOM and was formed due to changes in the balance of power in the Middle East. In Iran, the Shah was replaced by the fanatical theocrat Ayatollah Khomeini, and Afghanistan was invaded and conquered by Soviet forces (Benson and Hines 1988:39-50).
During 1981 and 1982, RDJTF evolved from a force designed to deploy virtually anywhere on the globe to a regional unified command representing American interests in the Middle East and North Africa. The RDJTF became a separate joint task force on October 1, 1981, and was no longer subordinate to USREDCOM. The RDJTF was deactivated on December 31, 1982, and USCENTCOM was established on January 1, 1983, to replace it, taking over RDJTF's responsibilities for United States military activity in both Northeast Africa and Southwest Asia. USCENTCOM, currently stationed at MacDill AFB, provides security assistance to friendly countries in its area of responsibility (Benson and Hines 1988:48). Desert Shield and Desert Storm were both operations of USCENTCOM.
Another unified command still at MacDill AFB is USSOCOM. USREDCOM was deactivated and USSOCOM established its headquarters in USREDCOM's old headquarters in April of 1987. USSOCOM unifies more than 47,000 active duty and reserve forces from the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force under a single commander. The mission of USSOCOM is to prepare assigned forces to carry out special operations, psychological operations, and civil affairs operations as required, and if directed by the President or Secretary of Defense, to plan and conduct special operations (MacDill AFB 1993a:28).
In April 1991, the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission recommended MacDill AFB cease all flight operations by September 1993, and declared approximately 3,500 acres to be disposed of as excess property (USAF 1994). All flight operations ceased and downsizing actions were begun at the base.
18
In June 1992, MacDill AFB came under the jurisdiction of ACC. In October 1992, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced plans to relocate to the base. A new round of base closure and realignment actions reversed the 1991 ruling of closing the flight line at MacDill AFB and limited flight operations continued at the base under the management of NOAA.
Early in 1994, the 6th ABW became the new host unit. With most of the flight operations gone, this wing's mission is to support the two major unified commands, USSOCOM and USCENTCOM, and a number of tenant units.
3.2 AVON PARK AFR HISTORY AND COLD WAR CONTEXT
What is now Avon Park AFR came into being in January 1942 with the Office of the Chief of Engineers in Washington, D.C., granting authority for the construction of a general bombing and gunnery range located 10 mi (16 km) east-northeast of Avon Park, Florida, in Polk and Highland Counties. Initially known as the "World's Largest Bombing Range," there were 175 square miles for the range (USAF 1989), which consisted of massive tropical wildlife sanctuary abundant with grazing cattle and Florida wildlife, but little else (USAF 1990).
The 88th BMG was assigned to Avon Park Army Air Base early in 1942 due to the good weather in Florida which allowed more training opportunities. The base population grew from the original 100 troops to approximately 5,000 in a period of only one year. In less than a year, two runways, five practice bombing ranges, one aerial gunnery range, one demolition range, and one incendiary range were in operation. By December of 1942, initial construction of the cantonment area was completed to include 276 buildings. By 1943, the base had a population of 8,000 airmen.
After World War II, the base population dropped to just 500 personnel and then 200 personnel. The base reverted to caretaker status in July 1950 with only 10 personnel retained. The only
19
activities at the range during the early 1950s included cattle grazing, civilian fishing camps, and an occasional bivouac by various military units. In 1951, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons opened a minimum security prison camp on the base, which today is known as the Avon Park Correctional Institution. Prison laborers dismantled approximately 50 World War II buildings on the base and used the salvaged materials to rehabilitate other buildings.
On April 1, 1956, the base was merged with Avon Park Air Force Range under SAC and was used by SAC units of the 2nd Air Force for pilot, bombing, and gunnery training. An advanced water survival school was also conducted by SAC at the range in 1958 (USAF 1989). Jurisdiction over the range changed hands multiple times, resting with MacDill AFB from 1956 to 1961, McCoy AFB between 1961 and 1962, then MacDill AFB again in 1962. On July 1, 1962, Avon Park AFR was reassigned to TAC, but was under the control of the 836th Air Division at MacDill AFB (USAF 1990).
In the early 1970s, plans for adding Electronic Warfare (EW) training to activities conducted at Avon Park AFR were proposed, and the first EW troops were transferred to the range in 1972 and assigned to the 1st Combat Support Squadron. During the following three years, EW equipment was shipped to the range for training. In July 1975, the squadron was redesignated as the 56th Combat Support Squadron.
Training opportunities provided by the range throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s were and are varied. Four bombing ranges are used to train pilots and weapons system operators on procedures and patterns for air-to-ground weapons delivery, providing practice in locating and bombing targets in a realistic environment. The range is also capable of providing
familiarization with threat radar signals and tactical threat employment scenarios. The range also provides an artillery range for artillery and machine gun training, and wooded areas for bivouac and parachute drop training by Army, National Guard, and Reserves units.
20
Due to the downsizing at MacDill AFB that began in 1991, no military personnel were assigned or posted at Avon Park AFR. In 1993, Avon Park AFR was also downsized, military personnel were transferred, and the range was converted to a civilian-run operation. Some of the earlier housing on the range is currently used by employees of the Avon Park Correctional Institution which is nearby.
MacDill AFB is surrounded by water on three sides and the City of Tampa to the north. Those physical restrictions on base development, along with the fact that much more than half of the base area is within the 100 year floodplain, has limited expansion and development. In addition, much of the wetland areas are now protected by state and federal statutes. In fact, when planning development, emphasis has been put on more efficient use of space within areas already developed. As a result, when looking at diagrams of base development through the decades, it often appears that no development or expansion has taken place.
By the end of World War II, MacDill AFB had seen tens of thousands of personnel pass through its facilities. Its primary runway, which is northeast-southwest in orientation, runs the length of base property, from the clear zone in the bay to the clear zone on the north side of the base. It effectively separates the western part of the base from the remainder. Fuel storage tanks and transmitters occupy that side of the base. The north area of the base was the Black soldier's area. Construction at the base in 1942 and 1943 was to produce facilities for the Black troops stationed on the base in a "separate but equal" philosophy. These were dismantled in 1949 when the military was desegregated.
The majority of the buildings on base are to the east of the flight lines, between the flight apron and the shore on Hillsborough Bay. Mission related buildings are closest to the flight line, with industrial, administrative, and unaccompanied housing behind the hangars in their arrowhead placement pointing to the flight line.
21
The Ordnance Depot and Storage, built in 1955, is located to the south of the crosswind runway (Figure 3.1). The hospital was built in the 1950s as well. In planning, it was originally situated at the south end of the peninsula, but was moved further to the north when construction began in 1956. The area at the south end of the peninsula was used instead as a recreation area. The 1960s brought the construction of large headquarters buildings, dormitories, and community oriented facilities. All of these are within the main area of the base east of the flight line (Figure 3.2).
The 1970s and 1980s were periods of building and continued development within the already developed areas on the eastern side of the base (Figure 3.3). Some family housing appropriations were made, and units were built in the area to the south of the hospital and around the golf course and recreation areas. The present control tower was built in 1972 to replace the old control tower atop Hangar 3.
In the 1990s, expansion on the base has been limited to mission-related areas to the north of the flight lines, and in the areas immediately south of the commissary and community-related structures (Figure 3.4). Portions of this expansion or rehabilitation were for the arrival of the two unified commands on base.
26
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the reconnaissance inventory of MacDill AFB and Avon Park AFR 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
27
As part of the reconnaissance inventory of MacDill AFB and Avon Park AFR, 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 MacDill AFB and Avon Park AFR 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.
28
29
30
31
Upon arrival at MacDill AFB, the field team met their point of contact, Mr. Bob Hoffman. The objectives of and needs for accomplishing the base inventory were discussed. Mr. Hoffman accompanied the team on a tour of the base - with the exception of the flight line area - and the team began to familiarize themselves with the base layout and the types of facilities present. They established themselves in an office in order to have a contact point and working space. Mr. Hoffman introduced the team to the other points of contact within Civil Engineering, including the Real Property Officer, the Community Planner, and Drafting Section personnel. They established the project needs from each of the contacts in regard to computerized and earlier Property Change lists and cards, planning documents and maps, and base layout plans, maps, and drawings from each decade for the base. They expressed the possibility of more requests to come and established a time frame for their needs.
In areas where clearance might be necessary, the field team notified the appropriate personnel regarding their presence and the time frame required for photography. The Property Change list, base maps, and the first reconnaissance with Mr. Hoffman were used to assemble a list of
32
resources to be inventoried and evaluated. Visits with the Base Historian and the Public Affairs Officer were undertaken and needs were established with those offices. A historian at the USCENTCOM was also contacted. The photographic inventory of property types on the base was begun on day one and was accomplished concurrently with other tasks. The field team arranged to drive to Avon Park AFR and inventory the installation there at the end of the visit at MacDill AFB. The final task was to determine if a debriefing session was necessary or requested from the Base Commander or Base Engineer. It was not, and the team left with the promise of continued, follow-up contact.
33
During the reconnaissance inventory of MacDill AFB and Avon Park AFR, 158 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.
34
Seven resources were evaluated at MacDill AFB, three of them falling under the DoD category of real property and four under records/documents. 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.
6.1.1.1 Major Command Headquarters (Real Property Nos. 501/501A, Resource No. 5003)
This Major Command Headquarters is a two-story building of concrete masonry unit construction completed in 1969 at the heart of the base on the eastern side. The windows are long, thin and vertical. The roof overhangs the second floor, the second floor overhangs the first, and there is a porticoed entrance to the building. The building exterior has a light colored cementitious stucco. The building originally contained state-of-the-art command and control equipment such as conference rooms with glass projection screens, pneumatic tubes for communication throughout the building, teletype, radio, telephone, short wave radio, and closed circuit TV. All personnel entering the building had to have at least a SECRET level facility clearance and locks were on all doors. Independent operation of the building was assured by generators. It was reported that
37
computers were the backbone of the facility, and the unimpressive exterior concealed an exciting military nerve center.
This building was the central headquarters for multiple major commands on the base, including USSTRIKCOM during the late 1960s, the unified USREDCOM in the 1970s, and RDJTF at the beginning of the 1980s before it became USCENTCOM. At present, USSOCOM is
headquartered in this building and has been there since 1987. Thus this building has continually housed major command headquarters since 1969. Aspects of policy and strategy of the Cold War have certainly been directed and carried out from this building.
Due to the building's current use as the Major Command Headquarters for USSOCOM, access to the interior of the facility was not obtained by the field team. However, the real property card for the building indicates no major renovations, and the use of the facility as a classified headquarters continuously from 1969 to the present suggests that no major changes have occurred. Therefore, interior and exterior integrity are determined to be intact.
This Major Command Headquarters is exceptionally important to MacDill AFB's Cold War context and to Cold War history at the national level. As the headquarters of USSTRIKCOM, it represents the switch during the Kennedy administration to a military strategy and government policy of Flexible Response. It was the headquarters of USREDCOM, one of the first unified commands in the U.S. military. It also housed RDJTF, which was formed due to the changes in the balance of power in the Middle East. Finally, it has housed USSOCOM since its formation in 1987 as the replacement unified command for USREDCOM. During its long tenure as a headquarters, it has been witness to changing U.S. military strategies throughout most of the Cold War era. This facility was used for this purpose during Phases III and IV of the Cold War and meets NRHP criterion (a).
38
6.1.1.2 Major Command Headquarters (Real Property No. 540, Resource No. 5004)
This building, the headquarters for USCENTCOM, has at least two stories, possibly three. Its is constructed of concrete masonry unit with a tan, cementitious stucco on the exterior. In plan, it has a stair-step configuration. Narrow, vertical windows are located high up on the second/third floor and there are very few entrances/exits to the building. Windows and entrances are a factor in security, and the scarcity of these illustrates the importance placed on security at this command center. The building is located on the northeastern part of the base and was completed in 1982.
USCENTCOM is the successor of RDJTF. USCENTCOM is a unified command which has responsibility for the Middle East, parts of North Africa, and southwest Asia. Although its activation occurred near the end of the Cold War era (January 1, 1983), it still evidences the policies and strategies of the U.S. and its concern for stability in the Persian Gulf, southwest Asia, and northern Africa.
Due to the building's current use as the headquarters for USCENTCOM, access to the interior of the building was not obtained by the field team. However, due to the recent construction date of the building, and as evidenced by the real property card for the building, no major changes have occurred. Thus, the building's integrity is determined to be intact.
This Major Command Headquarters is exceptionally important to MacDill AFB's Cold War context and to Cold War history at the national level. As the headquarters of USCENTCOM, a regional unified command, this building represents the growing U.S. interest in the Middle East and U.S. concern for the unsettling of the balance of power in that region. This facility was used as the USCENTCOM headquarters during Phase IV of the Cold War and meets NRHP criterion (a).
39
6.1.2 Documentation
6.1.2.1 Documentary Collection (Located in Real Property No. 30, Resource No. 5006)
This resource is a collection of files located in the Base Engineering Administration's Planning Office. The files contain miscellaneous architectural drawings and plans, as well as aerial photographs. The collection includes original mylar, linen, and paper drawings of individual buildings and the whole base dating from 1940 to 1994. The collection also includes as-built drawings of the Wherry housing developments. Some of the recent drawings are actively used. The collection is stored in five drawers, the top one uncovered and exposed to the moist air.
The collection contains information essential to the history of the base. It documents base land use and development from pre-Cold War through to the present. It also provides information on individual buildings, some of which are evaluated as important through this study.
This collection of files is located in the Base Historian's office. The files contain unique historic newspaper clippings, photographs, correspondence, base guidebooks, and other miscellaneous data sorted by year. The files bear the mark of various personalities in that records are kept and maintained at the whim of the historian. These files are not comprehensive or systematically gathered. The various materials found in the files provide information on base events and the development of the base throughout the Cold War era.
6.1.2.3 Base Newspaper Collection (Located in Real Property No. 299, Resource No. 5008)
This bound collection of MacDill AFB's newspaper is located in the Public Affairs Office. The newspapers date from the 1950s through the 1970s. They may be somewhat incomplete, but they
40
provide descriptions of base activities throughout those decades. This collection is important since it records the history of the base as it was affected by the developments of the Cold War.
6.1.2.4 Map Files (Located in Real Property No. 30, Resource No. 5009)
These documents are located in the Base Engineering Administration's Planning Office. They are not stored with the rest of the drawings and other documents of this type. The fact that these maps are segregated from the others places them at some risk. This set contains the early Tab Sheets for Avon Park AFR when the Air Force was coming into being. There is also a 1940 Layout Plan for MacDill AAF with the signature of General Henry "Hap" Arnold on it. Since this 1940 map is framed, the value of the map has obviously been recognized. This set of maps is important since it illustrates the development of the range during the early stages of the Cold War era.
6.2.1.1 Bomber Alert Facility (Real Property No. 1105, Resource No. 5001)
This concrete masonry unit building was constructed in 1959 as the crew readiness or Bomber Alert Facility. It is meant to be semi-subterranean with two floors and entrance/exit ramps for rapid egress to the flight line and planes during alerts. Due to the area's geology, the first floor is actually built at ground level but is covered up by earthen berms on all sides of the structure.
This facility has gone through several "incarnations" since its deactivation as a Bomber Alert Facility. The facility was originally used solely for the support of bomber crews during alert duty. It was noted as being used as officer's quarters for a period (time frame unknown). It is now being used by the unified USSOCOM and has most likely been rehabilitated and upgraded
41
to meet their needs and specifications. There are no flight operations associated with its present function.
Externally, this facility does not appear to have changed from its original purpose. High profile security fencing and other security measures are still in place and in use. Access to the secured facility was not obtained by the field team. However, the real property card for the building shows no major renovations of the interior of the facility. Thus, the building's integrity is determined to be intact.
This Bomber Alert Facility is exceptionally important to MacDill AFB's Cold War context and to Cold War history at the national level. It exemplifies the concept of deterrence and the need to respond to any Soviet attack threat. This facility was constructed and operated in direct response to the Killian Report, meeting the needs of deterrence through a survivable force and the dispersion of bombers across the country (Lewis et al. 1995). This facility was used for this purpose during Phases II through III of the Cold War and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
None were evaluated at MacDill AFB or Avon Park AFR.
42
The purpose of the reconnaissance inventory was to provide initial information on the kinds of Cold War resources extant on MacDill AFB. During the fieldwork at the base, the field team could not inventory all the resources present on the base 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 MacDill AFB. investigated further for a more comprehensive analysis. These resources should be
Two documents, both of which were in draft form and unavailable for review by the field team, are directly applicable to the present study. One is a Historical Study of MacDill AFB, Florida (MacDill AFB 1993b), completed by Engineering Sciences, Inc. This document, currently
located in the Base Historian's office, discusses buildings and structures located within a portion of the base in a brief summary. The other document, Historic Building Survey for MacDill Air Force Base, Florida (MacDill AFB 1994), discusses a historic building survey of the portion of the base scheduled to remain under Air Force control. The survey work, completed under contract with Computerized Industrial Measurements, Inc. and Hardlines: Design and Delineation, includes Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation of the overall base and individual buildings, an existing conditions report, and an evaluation of buildings for eligibility to the NRHP.
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 MacDill AFB
revealed approximately 280 citations. Most of these are unit histories and special collections. More specific topics include the histories of base realignment due to deployment of unified commands to the base. The vast majority of these documents are available on microfilm. Future studies of Cold War history at MacDill AFB should allot time to researching these documents.
43
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 potential future contacts, are presented in Appendix E.
44
MacDill AFB continues to consolidate uses and rehabilitate structures. Since space is at a minimum, there is an objective, through an Executive Order, to demolish or remove World War II structures and other temporary buildings such as trailers from the base. The base does not have a Preservation Plan. The previously mentioned historical study has taken place, and Mr.
Hoffman, a marine biologist, serves as an environmental/cultural resource manager to aid in the Section 106 process. The base planning office has also identified land use areas on base to aid in efforts to make the base more efficient. The capital improvement projects currently planned appear to pose no threat to the resources evaluated by this study.
In April 1991, the BRAC Commission recommended that MacDill AFB cease all flight operations by September 1993 and declared approximately 3,500 acres as excess property to be disposed of later in 1993. In October 1992, NOAA announced plans to relocate to the base. A new round of BRAC actions reversed the 1991 ruling of closing the flight line at the base. One of the provisions of the law allowed the NOAA Aircraft Operations Center to manage the flight line, thereby continuing flight operations at the base (USAF 1994). Portions of the base will be under the authority of NOAA and portions will be under the Air Force. The document discussed in Chapter 7.0 (MacDill AFB 1994) was completed to produce records that would assist the base in complying with Sections 106 and 110 of the NHPA prior to this exchange of authority.
The BRAC Commission and the Air Force are coordinating plans and objectives for the base resources. The process is one that is ongoing, and resolutions to some problems have not yet been achieved.
45
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 MacDill 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.
46
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 MacDill AFB and Avon Park AFR, 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 MacDill AFB and Avon Park AFR have not been evaluated, and thus must be considered and treated as eligible until an evaluation and determination of eligibility are made.
47
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. 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. necessary to re-evaluate unlisted historic properties periodically. Therefore, it is
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
48
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 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.
49
Recommendations for the evaluated resources at MacDill 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 Major Command Headquarters (Real Property Nos. 501/501A, Resource No. 5003)
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases III and IV, and meets NRHP criterion (a) based on its role as the command headquarters for USSTRIKCOM, USREDCOM, RDJTF, and USSOCOM. The
integrity of the building and its features is intact based upon inspection and review of existing documentation. Therefore, this building is recommended as eligible to the NRHP.
51
Recommendations include stewardship to maintain the current level of integrity of the building and its features, and further documentation to nominate this resource to the NRHP.
9.2.2 Major Command Headquarters (Real Property No. 540, Resource No. 5004)
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phase IV, and meets NRHP criterion (a) based upon its role as a major command headquarters for USCENTCOM. The integrity of the building and its features is intact based upon inspection and review of documentation. Therefore, this building is recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP. Further documentation is recommended to nominate the resource to the NRHP. Stewardship is also recommended to retain the building's current level of integrity.
9.2.3 Documentary Collection (Located in Real Property No. 30, Resource No. 5006)
This collection of architectural drawings and plans and aerial photographs has undergone no inventory or active preservation. It is recommended that the entire collection be inventoried and duplicated. It is further recommended that the copies be retained by the base for its use, with the originals sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
This collection includes newspaper clippings, photographs, correspondence, base guidebooks, and miscellaneous data that has been sorted by year. It is recommended that the collection be completely inventoried and duplicated, with the copies kept at the base for its use and the originals stored at a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
52
9.2.5 Base Newspaper Collection (Located in Real Property No. 299, Resource No. 5008)
The collection of base newspapers kept in the Public Affairs Office should be inventoried for completeness. It is further recommended that the collection be stored at a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation, with a duplicate set kept at the base for its use.
9.2.6 Map Files (Located in Real Property No. 30, Resource No. 5009)
This collection of early Tab Sheets for Avon Park AFR and the 1940 Layout Plan for MacDill AAF with the signature of General Arnold on it are valuable resources that are currently stored away from the other maps of the base and range. It is recommended that the Tab Sheets for Avon Park AFR be inventoried and duplicated, with the copies kept at the base for its use and the originals stored at a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation. The Layout Plan signed by General Arnold is currently framed. This is a resource that should be kept at the base for viewing by the public. It is recommended that a conservation specialist be consulted on ways to preserve this map while having it available for viewing.
9.2.7 Bomber Alert Facility (Real Property No. 1105, Resource No. 5001)
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II and III, and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) based on its role in sustaining a survivable force to meet the needs of deterrence. The integrity of the building is determined to be intact based upon inspection and review of documentation. Therefore, this building is recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Further documentation is recommended to nominate the resource to the NRHP. Stewardship is also recommended to retain the building's current level of integrity.
53
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. Benson, L. R. and J. E. Hines 1988 The United States Military in North Africa and Southwest Asia Since World War II. United States Central Command, History Office. Department of Defense 1973 Installation Survey Report. Executive Order 11508. MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. Office, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Installations and Logistics. 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. Gropman, A. L. n.d. The Air Force Integrates 1945-1964. Department of the Air Force. On file in Base Historian's Office, MacDill AFB, Florida. 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 Headquarters, Air Combat Command. MAI Project 735-15. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. MacDill Air Force Base 1993a MacDill Air Force Base. (Unofficial Installation Guide). MARCOA Publishing, Inc., San Diego. 1993b Historical Study of MacDill AFB, Florida (Draft). Engineering Sciences, Inc. 1994 Historic Building Survey for MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. (Draft) Prepared by Hardlines: Design & Delineation. Submitted to Computerized Industrial Measurements, Inc.
54
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. United States Air Force 1983 Installation Survey Report. MacDill Air Force Base and Avon Park Air Force Range. GSA Control Numbers 5700-24124 MAFB 5700-24587 AVP AFR. Office, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Installations). 1989 Fact Sheet: Avon Park Air Force Range History. 56th Tactical Training Wing, Public Affairs Division, MacDill Air Force Base. 1990 Welcome to the 56th Combat Support Squadron, Avon Park Air Force Range, Avon Park, Florida, 33825. 56th Combat Support Squadron, Avon Park Air Force Range. 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. 1994 Fact Sheet: MacDill AFB, Florida. 6th Air Base Wing, Public Affairs, MacDill Air Force Base. United States Air Force Historical Division 1961 Notes on MacDill Air Force Base 1939-1960. On file at the Base Historian's Office. MacDill Air Force Base, Florida.
EVALUATED RESOURCES AT MACDILL AFB

Property Description: Crew Readiness Facility or Alert Facility. This is a typical SAC installation facility. It is semi-subterranean with two floors, ramped entrance/exits for rapid egress to flight line and planes during Alerts. Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: 4701 Southshore Ave., MacDill AFB, FL. Base Map Date: 4/7/94 Base Map Building Number: 1105 Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Alert Facilities Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence Property Type: Bomber Alert Facility Statement of Significance: The Alert Facility embodies the national strategy and policy of "ready-to-go" status of the forces; the national stance of defense, deterrence, and immediate response. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: 4 Theme Relationship: 4 Temporal Phase Relationship: 3 Level of Importance: 3 Percent Historic Fabric: 4 Severity of Threats: 1 Total Score for Priority Matrix: 19 Comments on Threats: This facility has gone through several "incarnations" since its deactivation as an Alert Facility. It is now being used by the unified U. S. Special Operations Command and has most likely been re-habilitated and upgraded to meet their needs and specifications. Externally this facility does not appear changed from its original purpose. High profile security fencing, guards, etc. are still in place and in use. No Further Work: Stewardship: National Register Listing: Further Documentation: Preservation/Conservation/Repair: Comments on Resource Management: No Yes Yes Yes No
Importance: Exceptional Eligibility Eligible Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use: Other Use/Dates: Comments on Use: 20 23654 Permanent SOCCENT/COMSOC headquarters for portions of the Special Operations Command (a unified command). Noted as being used as Officer's quarters for a period (time frame unknown). At present this facility is being utilized by the U.S. Special Operations Command and is secured using the existing security measures, e.g. fencing, motion detectors, etc. Concrete Masonry Unit The semi-subterranean construction (first floor below ground level) in this case the building is bermed or built up to cover the first floor. The first and second floors have ramps which allowed rapid egress to the flight line. High security fencing and other detection devices secure the perimeter of the facility.
Primary Building Materials: Character Defining Features:

Property Description: This facility is a 2-story building of concrete masonry unit construction. Thin, vertical windows on each side create a certain rhythm. The roof overhangs the second floor, the second floor overhangs the first. There is a porticoed entrance to the building. The building exterior has a light colored cement texture. When constructed in 1968 the building contained state-of-the-art command and control equipment such as conference rooms with glass projection screens, pnumatic tubes for communication throughout the building, teletype, radio, telephone and short wave radio and closed circuit TV. All personnel had to have at least SECRET clearance and locks were on all doors. Independent operation was assured by generators. "Computers will be the backbone here." "Unimpressive exterior conceals exciting military nerve center." Associated Property: 373 Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: 7701 Tampa Point Blvd., MacDill AFB, FL. 33621 Base Map Date: 4/7/94 Base Map Building Number: 501, 501A Operational Support & Installations: Base and Command Centers Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence Property Type: Major Command Headquarters Statement of Significance: Pres. Kennedy created the United States Strike Command in October, 1961. Construction was complete in 1968 at which time U.S. Strike Command took possession of the building. Aspects of policy and strategy of the Cold War have certainly been directed and carried out from the building. The building has retained its part in the Cold War as the U.S. Strike Command was deactivated and the U.S. Readiness Command (USREDCOM) became its successor at the of 1971. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: No Further Work: Stewardship: National Register Listing: No Yes Yes 4 4 2 3 4 1 18
end
Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: At present the U.S. Special Operations Command is housed in this facility. As it carries on as a unified command its use of the facility guarantees its use and upkeep. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility Eligible 20 183443 Permanent U.S. Special Operations Command (a unified command) [Major Command Headquarters] Other Use/Dates: U.S. Strike Command, U.S. Readiness Command Comments on Use: Primary Building Materials: Concrete Masonry Unit Character Defining Features: As a command headquarters security is evident through the tupe of architectural details, small windows, very few entrances/exits. There are no purely distinctive features for this building other than its seemingly central location. Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use:

Property Description: USCENTCOM, Central Command Headquarters. This building has at least 2 stories, possibly three. In plan it has a stair-step configuration. Thin, vertical windows are located high up on the second/third floor and there are very few entrance/extis to the building. Windows and entrances are a factor in security and illustrates the importance placed on security, etc.at this command center. Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: 7115 South Boundary Blvd., MacDill AFB, Fl 3362 Base Map Date: 4/7/94 Base Map Building Number: 540 Operational Support & Installations: Base and Command Centers Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence Property Type: Major Command Headquarters Statement of Significance: U.S. Central Command is a successor of the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force. CentCom is a unified command which has responsibility for the Middle East, parts of North Africa, and southwest Asia. Its inception (Jan. 1, 1983) comes near the end of the Cold War period but still evidences the policies and strategies of the U.S. and its concern for stability in the Persian Gulf and southwest Asia. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: No Further Work: Stewardship: National Register Listing: Further Documentation: Preservation/Conservation/Repair: Comments on Resource Management: No Yes Yes Yes No 4 4 1 3 4 1 17
Importance: Exceptional Eligibility Eligible Height: 030 Square Footage: 153048 Original Planned Duration: Permanent
Existing Use: Other Use/Dates: Comments on Use: Primary Building Materials: Character Defining Features:
U.S. Central Command Headquarters None Concrete Masonry Unit High windows and few entrance/exits typify the high security level at the headquarters.

Property Description: Collection of architectural drawings and aerial photographs. Associated Property: Bldg. 30 Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: 6721 Hillsborough Loop Drive 33621-5207 Base Map Date: 4/7/94 Base Map Building Number: inside 30 Operational Support & Installations: Documentation Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence Property Type: Documentary Collection Statement of Significance: Original mylars, linen, and paper drawings of buildings and base ranging from 1940 to 1994. Collection includes as built drawings of Wherry housing developments. Many of these resources are likely to be unique. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: 2 Theme Relationship: 2 Temporal Phase Relationship: 4 Level of Importance: 2 Percent Historic Fabric: 4 Severity of Threats: 3 Total Score for Priority Matrix: 17 Comments on Threats: Of the 5 drawers of miscelleneous drawings in the drafting room, one occupies the top shelf which is not covered and is exposed to the elements. No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: No Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: Yes Comments on Resource Management: The unique 1940s vintage maps and drawings should be archived. Object Condition: Record/Document Category: Year of Document: Period of Association: Comments on Condition: In Storage/Benign Neglect Architectural Drawing 1940 World War II and all phases of the Cold War Located in miscellaneous drawer with other drawings being activily used. Top drawer case has no lid and exposes contents to the moist atmosphere.

Property Description: History Office files by year containing assorted documents and photographs Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Bldg. 299 Sub-installation: Address: 8208 Hanger Loop Dr. Base Map Date: 4/7/94 Base Map Building Number: inside 299 Operational Support & Installations: Documentation Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence Property Type: Documentary Collection Statement of Significance: Files contain unique historic newsclippings, photographs, correspondance, base guidebooks,etc. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: 2 Theme Relationship: 1 Temporal Phase Relationship: 4 Level of Importance: 2 Percent Historic Fabric: 2 Severity of Threats: 1 Total Score for Priority Matrix: 12 Comments on Threats: The files bear the mark of various personnalities. Records are kept and maintained at the whim of the historian. Files are not comprehensive or systematically gathered. No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: No Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: Yes Comments on Resource Management: Efforts should be continued to identify and sort photographic records. Object Condition: Being Preserved Record/Document Category: Variety of document types Year of Document: Period of Association: All

Property Description: Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: Base Map Building Number: Base Newspaper Collection
8208 Hanger Loop 4/7/94 inside 299
Operational Support & Installations: Documentation Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence Property Type: Base Newspaper Collection Statement of Significance: Newspapers from the 1950s through 1970s, may be incomplete. Would provide description of base activities through those decades. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 2 1 4 1 3 1 12
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: No Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: Yes Comments on Resource Management: Collection is bound and is located in the Public Affairs Office. Object Condition: Record/Document Category: Year of Document: Period of Association: Comments on Condition: Being Preserved Newspapers 1950s to 1970s Bound

Property Description: Avon Park Tab Sheets 1947 and MacDill Field Layout Plan 1940 Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Avon Park Address: 6721 Hillsborough Loop Dr. Base Map Date: 4/7/94 Base Map Building Number: inside 30 Operational Support & Installations: Documentation Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence Property Type: Map Files Statement of Significance: Early Tab Sheets for Avon Park when Air Force was comming into being. Also a 1940 Layout Plan for MacDill Field with signature of Hap Arnold. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: 2 Theme Relationship: 2 Temporal Phase Relationship: 4 Level of Importance: 2 Percent Historic Fabric: 4 Severity of Threats: 2 Total Score for Priority Matrix: 16 Comments on Threats: These Maps are not stored with the rest of the drawings. They are stored in the CE Headquaters Planning Office. The value of the framed 1940 map is recognized. No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: No Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: Yes Comments on Resource Management: These holdings should be copied and archived. Object Condition: Record/Document Category: Year of Document: Period of Association: Comments on Condition: In Storage/Benign Neglect Maps 1947 1940s The fact that these maps are segregated from the others places them at some risk. These maps are held by the base planner- Mr. Steve Galloway.
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 MacDill AFB and Avon Park AFR, and to provide research materials for this study:
Mr. Bob Hoffman Chief of Environmental Analyses/Natural & Cultural Resource Manager 6 CES/CEVA 7621 Hillsborough Loop Drive MacDill AFB, FL 33621-5207 (813)828-2567 Mr. Steve Galloway Community Planner 6 CES 7613 Hillsborough Loop Drive MacDill AFB, FL 33621-5207 Mrs. Connie Farrow Real Property Officer 6 CES/CERR 7615 Hillsborough Loop Drive MacDill AFB, FL 33621-5207 (813)828-3935 SMSgt Ray Mattingly Public Affairs Office 6 ABW/PA 8119 Marina Bay Drive MacDill AFB, FL 33621-5541 (813)828-2215 MSgt Jo Gaston Wing Historian 6 ABW/HO 8119 Marina Bay Drive MacDill AFB, FL 33621-5541 (813)828-2680
E-2
Dr. Jay E. Hines Historian HQ USCENTCOM/HO MacDill AFB, FL 33608-7001 (813)828-6353 SMSgt Richard Stevens Facility Security Officer 6 SPS 7235 Bay Shore Boulevard MacDill AFB, FL 33621 (813)828-2045
E-3
The following individuals were identified during the investigations as people with some knowledge of MacDill AFB history during the Cold War. They were either unavailable during the investigation or possess much more information than could be documented during this preliminary survey.
Frank Schmol, 6th CES MacDill AFB, FL Mike Cawley, 6th CES MacDill AFB, FL Andy Rey, 6th CES MacDill AFB, FL Gus Longo, 6th CES Staging Area MacDill AFB, FL Mr. Paul Ebersbach Avon Park AFR, FL (813)452-4119
VOLUME II-18: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE AT McCONNELL AIR FORCE BASE
Prepared by Patience Elizabeth Patterson David P. Staley Katherine J. Roxlau Mariah Associates Inc. Albuquerque, New Mexico MAI Project 735-15
February 1996
Volume II-18: McConnell Air Force Base
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
McConnell Air Force Base was inventoried by Patience E. Patterson and David P. Staley of Mariah Associates, Inc. between August 16 and 20, 1994 as part of the Air Combat Command Cold War study for the ongoing Department of Defense Legacy Program. Information was gathered at the base from the files of the Real Property Office, Site Development Office, Environmental Office, Public Affairs Office, and History Office.
An initial reconnaissance of the base was accomplished with Mr. Jay Zimmerman, the Cultural/Natural Resource Officer for the base. This initial orientation enabled the team to become familiar with the base and determine what property types were extant on base. It also allowed for the determination of specific properties which would likely be relevant to the Cold War study. Photographs were taken of these resources and of resources that were representative of the different types of properties on the base.
From the reconnaissance, on-site inspection, and research, three resources were determined to be important to the base and national Cold War history. One of the resources is a building and two are bodies of data in the form of historical documentation, architectural drawings, photographs, and maps. Stewardship, further documentation, and nomination to the National Register of Historic Places is recommended for the building. Further documentation, stewardship, and conservation are recommended for the two documentary collections.
ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AAF ACC ACHP AFB AFP 13 AGE AMC AMMS AMS ARRS ARS ARW ATC BG BMCO BRAC BMW BW CCTW CES DoD FMS FTD HABS HQ KANG MAC Mariah MMS NCO NHPA NPS NRHP OMS RED HORSE SAC SALT SDI SHPO SIOP SMW
Army Air Force Air Combat Command Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Air Force Base Air Force Plant No. 13 Air Ground Equipment Air Materiel Command Airborne Missile Maintenance Squadron Avionics Maintenance Squadron Air Rescue and Recovery Squadron Air Refueling Squadron Air Refueling Wing Air Training Command Bomb Group Ballistic Missile Construction Office Base Realignment and Closure Commission Bombardment Wing Bomb Wing Combat Crew Training Wing Civil Engineering Squadron Department of Defense Field Maintenance Squadron Field Training Detachment Historic American Buildings Survey Headquarters Kansas Air National Guard Military Airlift Command Mariah Associates, Inc. Munitions Maintenance Squadron Noncommissioned Officer National Historic Preservation Act National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Organizational Maintenance Squadron Rapid Engineering Deployable, Heavy Operations Repair Squadron, Engineer Strategic Air Command Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty Strategic Defense Initiative State Historic Preservation Officer Single Integrated Operations Plan Strategic Missile Wing
iii
START TAC TFG TFW USAF USSTRATCOM USTRANSCOM
Strategic Arms Reduction Talks Tactical Air Command Tactical Fighter Group Tactical Fighter Wing United States Air Force United States Strategic Command United States Transportation Command
iv
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. 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. Gaither Report - a report concerning the Cold War produced by the Gaither Committee in 1957. It predicted an increase in the arms race and continued escalation of the Cold War. It recommended a drastic increase in military spending and initiation of a multibillion-dollar civil defense system. 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 United States' military. It included recommendations for research and development of new technologies, including long-range nuclear missiles, as well as 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. 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.
GLOSSARY (Continued) 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 on 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.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... i LIST OF ACRONYMS....................................................................................................................... ii GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................................................ iv 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 5 5 8
3.0 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW....................................................................................................... 14 3.1 BASE HISTORY AND COLD WAR CONTEXT.............................................................. 14 3.2 BASE DEVELOPMENT...................................................................................................... 21 4.0 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 27 4.1 INVENTORY........................................................................................................................ 27 4.2 EVALUATION OF IMPORTANT RESOURCES ............................................................. 28 4.2.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 28 4.2.2 Evaluation of Importance............................................................................................. 28 4.2.2.1 Cold War Context ............................................................................................... 28 4.2.2.2 NRHP Criteria..................................................................................................... 29 4.2.2.3 Exceptional Importance ...................................................................................... 30 4.2.3 Evaluation of Integrity.................................................................................................. 30 4.2.4 Priority Matrix.............................................................................................................. 31 4.2.5 Resource Organization ................................................................................................. 32 4.3 BASE SPECIFIC METHODS.............................................................................................. 32 5.0 RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY RESULTS...................................................................... 34 6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS......................................................................................................... 35 6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS ........................................................ 35 6.1.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 35 6.1.1.1 Documentary Collection ..................................................................................... 35 6.1.1.2 Documentary Collection ..................................................................................... 37
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS ......................................................... 37 6.2.1 Alert Facilities .............................................................................................................. 37 6.2.1.1 Bomber/Tanker Alert Facility............................................................................. 37 6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES ..................................................................... 38 6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES ..................................................................................................... 39 6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES............................................................................................ 39 7.0 UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES........................................................................................... 40 8.0 FUTURE THREATS TO RESOURCES ................................................................................... 41 9.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 42 9.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY............................................................................................................ 42 9.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility.................................................... 42 9.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility................................................................................. 44 9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................... 45 9.2.1 Documentary Collection .............................................................................................. 47 9.2.2 Documentary Collection .............................................................................................. 47 9.2.3 Bomber/Tanker Alert Facility...................................................................................... 48 10.0 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................. 49 APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D: APPENDIX E: APPENDIX F: RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY BASE LAYOUT MAPS SHOWING INVENTORIED RESOURCES PHOTOGRAPHS OF INVENTORIED RESOURCES DATA BASE DOCUMENTATION FOR EVALUATED RESOURCES ADDITIONAL RESOURCES EXTANT SOURCES OF INFORMATION
viii
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Bases Selected for the Air Combat Command Cold War Study................................ 2 Location of McConnell Air Force Base ..................................................................... 6 McConnell Air Force Base Layout............................................................................. 7 Standard Strategic Air Command Base Layout ......................................................... 9 McConnell Air Force Base Land Use Diagram ........................................................ 11 Standard Strategic Air Command Base Land Use Diagram ..................................... 12 McConnell Air Force Base 1950-1960 ..................................................................... 22 McConnell Air Force Base 1960-1970 ..................................................................... 24 McConnell Air Force Base 1970-1980 ..................................................................... 25 McConnell Air Force Base 1980-present.................................................................. 26
LIST OF TABLES
Table 6.1 Evaluated Resource Prioritization by Air Force Group and Subgroup........................... 36 Table 6.2 Evaluated Resource Prioritization by Priority Rank........................................................ 36 Table 9.1 Recommendations for Evaluated Resources ................................................................... 46
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Phase III - November 1963 to January 1981 The 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 The 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. Section 110 requires federal agencies to inventory cultural resources under their control and evaluate those that are significant or potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The reports produced by this project will provide a tool for ACC, HQ Air Mobility Command, and McConnell AFB 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 McConnell Air Force Base (AFB). McConnell 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.
The host unit at McConnell AFB is the 22nd Air Refueling Wing (ARW). It reports to the 15th Air Force, headquartered at Travis AFB, California, and is a component of HQ Air Mobility Command and the unified United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM). The 22nd ARW was activated at McConnell AFB on January 1, 1994 after transferring from March AFB, California (United States Air Force [USAF] 1994a).
The mission of the 22nd ARW is to provide extensive global capability through worldwide mobility operations, meeting airlift and air refueling requirements with one of the USAF's three KC-135R Stratotanker "core tanker wings." The 22nd ARW supports global contingency and conventional operations and the Single Integrated Operations Plan (SIOP). The wing also provides base support for all tenant organizations assigned to McConnell AFB (USAF 1994a). The 22nd ARW is divided into four groups responsible for all support and operations functions needed for the wing to accomplish its mission: 22nd Operations Group, 22nd Logistics Group, 22nd Support Group, and 22nd Medical Group (USAF 1994a).
The 384th Bomb Group (BG), a component of ACC and the unified United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), is at present a tenant on base. The 384th BG retains its B-1B bomber operational mission in support of conventional combat taskings by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The 384th BG is conducting the transfer of B-1Bs to other military units in accordance with the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) and Department of Defense (DoD) directives. These units include the Kansas Air National Guard (KANG) located on the west side of McConnell AFB (USAF 1994b).
The 184th Tactical Fighter Group (TFG) is part of the KANG. The group presently flies the technologically advanced F-16C; however, the F-16Cs are slated to be replaced by the B-1B and its
mission. The current mission of the 184th TFG is three-fold: to provide combat-ready forces to augment active forces; to train aircrews and combat support personnel; and as the state militia, to support civil authority (McConnell AFB 1992).
McConnell AFB is located in south-central Kansas, near the city of Wichita in Sedgwick County (Figure 2.1). The base lies 150 mi (241 km) southeast of the geographic center of the continental United States (GRW Engineers, Inc. 1984:1-1). The base covers 4 mi2 (10 km2) or 2,470 acres (999 ha) on the southeastern side of Wichita (population ca. 305,000) within the Arkansas River Lowland section of the Central Lowland physiographic province. The base area lies entirely within this broad, flat to gently rolling area. McConnell AFB is underlain by the sedimentary Wellington shale formation. The silty loam soils are derived from weathering of these shales and from wind deposited silts (loess) (GRW Engineers, Inc. 1984:2-4).
McConnell AFB and the surrounding area have four distinct seasons, from snowy winters to hot summers. The area's vegetation is typical of the semi-arid Central Plains region, with adaptations to agriculture and urbanization. Rainfall averages approximately 31 inches (79 cm) per year and is quite variable (GRW Engineers, Inc. 1984:2-5 - 2-10).
The dominant feature of McConnell AFB is the airfield.
Runways, land within runway
clearances, and approach zones account for approximately 41% of land use (GRW Engineers, Inc. 1984:4-1). The instrument runway is positioned in a northeast to southwest direction and is 12,400 ft (3,780 m) long by 200 ft (61 m) wide (Figure 2.2). It has both parallel and crosswind taxiways. The flight apron and mission buildings are situated mainly along the eastern edge of the runway. Across the runway to the west are the KANG facilities, and Boeing Corporation buildings are located south of the KANG facilities. KANG and Boeing Corporation have use of
the runway; however, military flights take precedence. Remnants of the older portion of the base can be seen on the western side of the base, between the Boeing Corporation and KANG facilities.
Industrial facilities are located at both the northern and southern ends of McConnell AFB. The southern facilities are mainly weapons storage areas. Headquarters for the host unit are centrally located, well east of the flight line. Community facilities such as the hospital, unaccompanied housing, and the "Emerald City" recreation area are, for the most part, centrally located to the east of the flight line, away from the airfield portion of the base. Outdoor recreation areas, such as the golf course, are located on the eastern side of the base (GRW Engineers, Inc. 1984:4-1). Commanders' housing is located on the northeastern side of the base proper.
The base layout is quite similar to standard SAC bases (Figure 2.3). With the standard base, the mission and support facilities extend along the main runway, with other base development extending perpendicular to the flight line and away from the runway. McConnell AFB's facilities are located to the east of the runway and the major portion of its mission and support functions are carried on in those areas. Individual characteristics of the base layout, such as runway
configuration, were created by former tenants prior to SAC residency. Because of a runway that crosses the main runway, most base development extends only along the northern half of the main runway. However, the rest of the base extends perpendicular to the flight line, as with the standard SAC layout.
2.4 BASE LAND USE
The following is a list of standard SAC land use categories: Alert Facilities - 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.
10
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. Weapon 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. Open space comprises around 30% of the base land use.
The land use at McConnell AFB (Figure 2.4) is very similar to the standard SAC pattern of land use (Figure 2.5). All McConnell AFB facilities are east of the runway, with the KANG and Boeing Corporation facilities the only ones west of the runway. This parallels the standard land use, except for weapon and warhead storage which is usually on the other side of the runway. Locating the weapon and warhead storage on the other side of the runway is a prudent safety precaution; however, McConnell AFB appears to have taken the alternative precaution of placing the storage area at the end of the base, far from any community, mission, and housing areas.
At McConnell AFB, the mission area is along the flight line, with the central part of the base consisting of a mix of base support, industrial, community, recreation, and unaccompanied housing. The headquarters buildings are also among these land use areas. The outer area of the
13
base consists of family housing and recreation areas. The alert facility is located to one end of the flight line within the mission area. All of these characteristics match the standard land use diagram.
Differences between the land use pattern at McConnell AFB and that on the standard diagram include McConnell AFB's placement of the command post within the mission area of the base, whereas the standard places it within the central area of the base among community and base support facilities. Another difference is McConnell AFB's use of three industrial areas, whereas the standard only shows one area. However, like the standard, McConnell AFB's large industrial area is on the outer edge of the base.
14
The history of McConnell AFB is linked with the early history of Wichita, Kansas and with aviation history in particular. In 1908, the first Kansas aircraft exhibition was held southeast of Wichita in a 640-acre field. The field was known locally as the "California Section" since it was owned by a California-born farmer (USAF 1994a:1). The flat terrain and moderate weather made for ideal flying conditions. Early aviation pioneers, such as Clyde Cessna, saw the advantages of the area and Cessna returned to Wichita in 1916 to begin his aircraft manufacturing business, the Cessna Aircraft Company. Today, McConnell AFB is surrounded by aircraft corporation facilities (Stubbs 1980:2-3).
In October of 1924, Wichita hosted the National Air Congress and for two days 100,000 people from around the region watched air races open to both civilian and military aircraft. Forty-seven aircraft participated (Stubbs 1980:1-2). City planners had proposed a Wichita Municipal Airport to support the growing aircraft industry and the National Air Congress of 1924 raised funds for that facility. The spectacle was held on the California Section, and it was that site that was proposed for the airport (McConnell AFB 1986:1).
By mid-1929, the Wichita Municipal Airport was under construction.
Plans called for an
administration/terminal building, three recreational areas, and space for private aircraft companies. Evidence of this development that remains at McConnell AFB is the Stearman Aircraft Company hangar (Real Property No. 9), located by the flight line on the western side of the base. The company erected the building for storage and display purposes. By 1929, there were 15 aviation companies in Wichita and more were forming. The top aircraft producers of the time included Swallow, Travel Air, Stearman, Cessna, Knoll, and Swift companies (McConnell AFB 1986:1).
15
The Great Depression, which began in 1929, caused shortages of capital and slowed production, and the airport was not finished until 1935. Nonetheless, when the Wichita Municipal airport did open, it contained the latest technological innovations and architectural planning and design. Still evident today is the 37 ft (11 m) long cast concrete, colored panel depicting Charles A. Lindbergh's historic arrival on the coast of Ireland in his plane, the Spirit of St. Louis. The airport had a weather bureau and an aerological station (one of the few making upper air observations) and a lighting system that illuminated the entire 4,800 ft (1,463 m) runway (McConnell AFB 1986:2).
An integral part of McConnell AFB's history is Air Force Plant No. 13 (AFP 13), located immediately west of the current runway and south of the KANG facilities. The plant produced the B-29 Superfortress bomber for the Boeing Airplane Company. The government acquired the land at the airport in 1940 and the plant was completed in 1942. By 1945, and the end of World War II, Boeing vacated the plant and it remained empty until 1947. AFP 13 underwent a succession of owners, including SAC and Air Materiel Command (AMC), but was eventually deeded to the Boeing Corporation in 1979.
In August 1941, the KANG became the first military unit assigned to the airport (USAF 1994c). In March of 1942, the Army Air Force (AAF) Materiel Center, Midwestern Procurement District was established in the administration building at the airport. For much of World War II, it occupied most of the building space and even took up space in an adjoining airplane production plant (Stubbs 1980:3). In September 1945, the Materiel Center was transferred to Oklahoma City and the 4156th AAF Base Unit was activated and became the host unit at the airport. The mission, carried out by civilians, was the servicing, dispatching, and maintenance of transient and locally-based aircraft (USAF 1994c). On October 11, 1946, the 4156th AAF Base Unit was ordered to cease operations by the end of the month. The airport then continued operations on a commercial basis (Stubbs 1980:3).
16
In 1950, Boeing Aircraft Company built 10 B-47 Stratojets (USAF 1994c). However, before SAC could take possession of the B-47s, crews had to be trained. Since some facilities were already available at the airport and the manufacturer was on the other side of the runway, downtime when parts were needed would be less and costs would be kept to a minimum if the manufacturer and the crews were located near one another. The USAF began proceedings to make the airport a
permanent military training facility (Stubbs 1980:4-9). Wichita Municipal Airport was officially designated Wichita AFB in June of 1951. Air Training Command (ATC) hosted the base and the 3520th Combat Crew Training Wing (CCTW) was activated at the base to conduct B-47 combat crew training (USAF 1994c).
An aggressive building program was undertaken at Wichita AFB in 1954 while its military occupants lived in a "tent city" (McConnell AFB 1986:3-6). That same year the base's name was changed to McConnell AFB in honor and memory of the two McConnell brothers from Wichita who died while flying missions in World War II (McConnell AFB 1986:5-6). The building program was completed in 1956.
McConnell AFB's mission of training continued. In April of 1955, the 1000th B-47 crew graduated from training. ATC continued its host responsibilities at the base until 1958 when SAC took over as host unit. The 3520th CCTW of ATC was redesignated the 4347th CCTW of SAC. SAC continued to train B-47 crews under the 42nd Air Division.
In 1957, the Soviets successfully deployed two satellites, Sputnik I and II, into orbit around the Earth, demonstrating their ability to deploy an ICBM capable of reaching the United States. This resulted in the Gaither Report, a series of recommendations for military buildup. Although
President Eisenhower increased military funding only slightly, the report touched off a "missile gap" panic and the ICBM program expanded, initiating development of the second generation missiles, the Titan II and the Minuteman series (Lewis et al. 1995).
17
In 1960, additional funds were released by the Air Force to begin construction and development of the Titan II launch sites. As a direct result of these national strategies and policies, McConnell AFB was chosen for deployment of one of three Titan II missile wings. The 18 launch sites were to be located from 20 to 50 mi (32 to 80 km) from McConnell AFB in a half-ring extending from the northeast to the south (McConnell AFB 1986:7). The McConnell Area Office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Construction Office (BMCO) headed the construction of the 18 Titan II launch complexes from October 1960 through September 1963 (Holcombe 1963). On
March 1, 1962, the 381st Strategic Missile Wing (SMW) of SAC was activated at McConnell AFB under the 4347th CCTW (USAF Historical Research Center 1985). Two missile squadrons were activated and each was assigned nine Titan II ICBMs. Each missile was brought into alert status as it was accepted into the SAC inventory (McConnell AFB n.d. a).
In 1963, the B-47 was phased out and the 42nd Air Division's 4347th CCTW departed as well. During McConnell AFB's time as a B-47 training base, 60,000 crew members and maintenance personnel graduated from the 3520th and the 4347th CCTWs (McConnell AFB 1986:6).
When the B-47 was phased out in 1963, Tactical Air Command (TAC) took over host operations at McConnell AFB. Tactical training and operations were carried out by the 388th Tactical Fighter Wing (TFW) along with host unit responsibilities. The 381st SMW continued missile alert
operations as a SAC tenant unit (McConnell AFB 1986:7). The 388th TFW was bestowed the honors and lineage of the 23rd Pursuit Group (Flying Tigers of World War II) and was redesignated the 23rd TFW in February 1964. The wing was responsible for training F-105 Thunderchief pilots and maintenance personnel for duty with units in Thailand and Vietnam (McConnell AFB 1986:7). McConnell AFB's 23rd TFW was assigned duty in Vietnam. By the end of 1965, the 23rd TFW was back at McConnell AFB carrying out their new mission as a Replacement Training Unit of pilots and maintenance crews for units still engaged in Southeast Asia (Stubbs 1980:11). McConnell AFB also assumed responsibility for the Smokey Hill Bomb Range in central Kansas. Schilling AFB had previously provided this support, but Schilling AFB was closing. McConnell
18
AFB could provide the necessary support for the range since it was still used by SAC and TAC aircrews for bombing practice (Stubbs 1980:11).
In April 1971, McConnell AFB acquired a new mission with the arrival of the SAC tenant unit 91st Air Refueling Squadron (ARS), which was equipped with the KC-135A. In July of 1972, the 23rd TFW was reassigned to England AFB, Louisiana. With this move, SAC once again became responsible for McConnell AFB and the 381st SMW became the host unit at the base. The 91st ARS combined with the 384th ARW, thus making McConnell AFB a dual wing SAC base with both aircraft and missiles assigned to it (Stubbs 1980:11-12).
A third major mission was taken on by McConnell AFB in 1973 with the arrival of the 819th Civil Engineering Squadron (CES). This was a "RED HORSE" unit, which stands for Rapid Engineering Deployable, Heavy Operations Repair Squadron, Engineer. This unit was a quickacting, mobile, civil engineering unit capable of deploying anywhere in the world to repair heavily damaged airfields and facilities. When not on mobility training to support their mission, the 819th CES traveled to other bases within SAC to support heavy construction projects (Stubbs 1980:13).
At the end of 1973, another tenant unit was assigned to McConnell AFB. Detachment 6 of the 37th Air Rescue and Recovery Squadron (ARRS), under Military Airlift Command (MAC), took over operational control of the 384th UH-1F helicopters. One year later, in 1974, the `F' models were phased out and replaced with the HH-1H Iroquois helicopter. These helicopters provided increased capability in support of the 381st SMW Titan II operations and any possible disaster situations (Stubbs 1980:13).
On August 24, 1978, the 381st SMW lost a Titan II Complex, No. 533-07, located near Rock, Kansas due to an accidental oxidizer spill (Scallorn 1978). The Titan II missile consisted of a twostage rocket engine-powered vehicle. The fuel (hydrazine and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine) and oxidizer (nitrogen tetroxide) used for propulsion are hypergolic, i.e., ignite upon contact with
19
each other, creating 430,000 pounds of thrust for the first stage. Both components of the fuel are stored in the missile (McConnell AFB n.d. b). During maintenance of this particular missile, a leak of the highly toxic and deadly oxidizer occurred, causing an explosion that killed two Propellent Transfer System Team personnel (Scallorn 1978).
McConnell AFB was the first base to have women serve on a missile combat crew. In 1976 and 1977, the Air Force began to deal with the inequities of gender with programs to recruit women for the Air Force Academy and for combat crew members in the Titan II program (Lewis et al. 1995). In August 1978, Airman First Class Tina Ponzer was the first enlisted woman to begin crew duty with the 381st SMW. In September, the first female officer, First Lieutenant Patricia Fornes, assumed duties as a Titan II crew member with the 381st SMW. She later became one of the first women to assume command of a missile complex (Office of the Historian, HQ, SAC 1983:66; McConnell AFB 1986:9).
In May 1981, international attention focused on McConnell AFB when a missile crew officer was accused of illegal contact with officials from the Soviet Union. It was feared that classified materials had been compromised through his contact. Pre-trial hearings began on base, but were later moved to Washington, D.C. The officer was acquitted due to an amnesty agreement made with SAC officials (McConnell AFB 1986:10).
President Ronald Reagan advocated military build-up as the only way to bargain with the Soviets in reduction talks (Lewis et al. 1995), and he announced the details of his strategic modernization program in October 1981. The Titan II ICBMs would be phased out of the USAF inventory (Lewis et al. 1995). Although this process of deactivation stemmed partly from strategic arms negotiations with the Soviet Union, it was primarily a result of strategic modernization and advances in technology (McConnell AFB 1986:10).
In 1985, the 381st SMW was deactivated and the 384th ARW became the host unit at McConnell AFB. On July 15, 1986, a four-person crew completed alert duties at missile complex 533-09, the
20
last complex dismantled in the two-year deactivation of the Titan II at McConnell AFB. This ended 23 years of around-the-clock alert duty for Titan II missile crews at McConnell AFB. As each missile was dismantled and removed, the associated launch complex was turned over to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contractor, who then continued the dismantling and destruction of the complex in accordance with arms control agreements (Graham 1986).
Two announcements in 1983 heralded further changes for McConnell AFB. The KC-135R, a reengined, quieter, more fuel-efficient version of the Stratotanker, was to be stationed at McConnell AFB. In 1984, the KC-135R began operations at the base. McConnell AFB became the first base to have a complete inventory of KC-135R aircraft (USAF 1994c). Also, Reagan reactivated the development of the B-1 bomber (Lewis et al. 1995), and McConnell AFB was selected as the fourth and final base to receive the new B-1B Lancer aircraft.
In 1986, a $130 million construction program began at McConnell AFB in preparation for the B-1B bomber. Some facilities had to be refurbished and new facilities built, including a new munitions maintenance facility (USAF 1994c). On July 1, 1987, the 384th ARW was redesignated the 384th Bombardment Wing (BMW), Heavy. The 91st ARS was deactivated on October 1, 1987, and the refueling operations at McConnell AFB became the sole responsibility of the 384th ARS under the 384th BMW. All 17 B-1B bombers allocated to McConnell AFB were delivered to the base in 1988. The first aircraft and crew assumed alert status on January 1, 1989 (USAF 1994c).
On September 28, 1991, President Bush ordered the stand down of all bombers, missiles, and tankers currently on alert, an action which was in response to the end of the Cold War and the change in Soviet Union leadership. This event occurred just 20 months after the first B-1B assumed alert posture at McConnell AFB. Wing leaders prepared their units for a conventional combat mission (USAF 1994b). In June 1992, McConnell AFB was reassigned to the newly created ACC, with the 384th Bomb Wing (BW) as base host. On January 1, 1994, the 22nd ARW was activated at McConnell AFB and assumed base host responsibilities, transferring the base to HQ Air Mobility
21
Command and USTRANSCOM. The 384th BW, still an ACC component, is currently a tenant on base.
In the 1940s, Wichita Municipal Airport was the site of much military activity. In March of 1942, the AAF Materiel Center, Midwestern Procurement District established its headquarters in the Wichita Municipal Airport administration building. By this time, the government was
leasing 1,337 acres (541 ha) of what was known as the "California Section" from the city. There were five runways, each 50 ft (15 m) wide and 4,500 to 7,500 ft (1,371 to 2,286 m) long. A parking apron and seven taxiways were provided. One hangar and three small warehouses were the only buildings available for use (McConnell AFB 1986:3) (Figure 3.1). The old
administration building and the Stearman Hangar are located on the northwestern side of the base. The old KANG building, located on the eastern side of the runways and to the north of the northwest/southeast taxiway, was utilized by the pilots from various commands testing the B-47 (Stubbs 1980:4).
In June of 1951, the USAF activated Wichita Municipal Airport to serve as a training center for combat crews for the B-47s being produced by the Boeing Airplane Company. In the early years the "Air Force and Boeing personnel got together and planned the roads, water, sewage and buildings in a way that would benefit both the base and the Boeing Plant" (Stubbs 1980:5). By June 1954, two new 12,000 ft (3,658 m) runways were completed. As Wichita AFB became McConnell AFB, a major construction program with funding totalling more than $22 million transformed the airport into an air force base (Figure 3.1). Major improvements completed during the three year program included 490 Capehart housing units, 10 mi (16 km) of paved streets, two swimming pools, two B-47 hangars, service clubs, a theater, a bank, a commissary, a base exchange, a hospital, and a child care center (Stubbs 1980:4). Some of the family housing was built in 1956, with the remaining Capehart units completed in 1959. Much of the base's configuration
23
today was essentially determined by the first major construction effort on the base, which ended in 1956.
In the early 1960s, 18 Titan II ICBM launch complexes were located around Wichita. None of these were on McConnell AFB proper. On base were facilities dedicated to the armaments, reentry vehicles, and the basic maintenance of the missiles and their components. Some of these facilities were located in the old weapons storage area located to the southeast of the runways (Figure 3.2). Others were incorporated into existing facilities such as the maintenance docks (Real Property Nos. 1106 and 1107). The base golf course was created in the early 1960s.
In the 1970s, a new mission was activated at McConnell AFB with the arrival of the 91st ARS and the KC-135A. In December of 1972, the 384th ARW arrived. The Bomber/Tanker Alert Facility was constructed in 1974 for use by these tanker squadrons (Figure 3.3).
In 1983, it was announced that McConnell AFB was selected to receive the B-1B bomber as a follow-on mission after the deactivation of the Titan II missiles. In early 1986, construction began in preparation for the arrival of the B-1B (Figure 3.4). More than $130 million was spent to build new facilities and refurbish old ones, including a new munitions maintenance facility. These new and highly secured facilities are located on the southeastern end of the old northwest/southeast runway, just to the north of the old weapons storage area.
27
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the reconnaissance inventory of McConnell 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 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 this list 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).
28
As part of the reconnaissance inventory of McConnell 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 McConnell 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.
29
30
d) have yielded or be likely to yield information of importance to United States Cold War history. 4.2.2.3 Exceptional Importance
31
characteristics making the resource important, the lack of integrity in that area may not preclude intact integrity for the resource. 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.
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 of the resource. The fifth is the percentage of remaining historic fabric, or
32
Upon arrival at McConnell AFB, the Mariah field team met with Mr. Jay Zimmerman, the Cultural/Natural Resources Officer within the 22nd CES. Mr. Zimmerman accompanied the field team on a tour of the base, familiarizing the team with the base layout and facilities, and identifying which facilities might be significant resources within the context of the inventory. The
photographic inventory of property types on the base began with this tour and continued throughout the base visit. The field team was introduced to personnel in the Real Property Office and discussed with staff the need for access to the Real Property Change List, the older files containing the Property Change Cards, earlier planning documents, old property inventories, and other pertinent documents the office might have in its files. Reviews of the property change list, base maps, and the first reconnaissance with Mr. Zimmerman were used to assemble a "first priority" list of resources to be documented and evaluated.
The Site Development Office (Drafting Office) in Civil Engineering provided copies of the computer generated C-Tabs, or maps, of the base, as well as project files containing architectural
33
drawings, maps, aerial photographs, and other historical documents.
Project files and maps
pertaining to each decade of base history were pulled, and the maps were copied.
The present Wing Historian, TSgt Daniel Wheaton of the 22nd ARW History Office, also provided materials for use in the study. Copies of the current missions for the host unit and tenant units on base were obtained from the 22nd ARW Public Affairs Division.
34
During the reconnaissance inventory of McConnell AFB, 139 resources were inventoried. Appendix A lists the inventoried resources and Appendix B shows their location on the base. Photographs of inventoried properties are presented in Appendix C.
35
Three resources were evaluated at McConnell AFB, one of them falling under the DoD category of real property and two under records/documents. 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 the evaluated building could not be secured. In this instance, documentation describing any changes to the building was consulted to provide insight into the integrity of the building's interior.
6.1.1 Documentation
This resource is a set of files containing photographs, maps, and drawings relating to construction and renovation projects at McConnell AFB as well as projects on facilities over which McConnell AFB has jurisdiction, such as Titan II launch facilities. A detailed list of the collection contents is provided in Appendix E. The collection is located in the Site Development Section of the 22nd CES in Real Property No. 948. Drawings are ink on linen, vellum, and mylar and include base drawings, location maps, and unique "as built" drawings of facilities. The files also contain several base aerial photographs.
37
The collection represents the history of base use and development from inception through the present, including the Cold War era, and serves as supporting documentation for each resource on base, including those chosen for evaluation.
An inventory of this collection has been entered into a data base accessible at the Site Development Section. Although the collection is protected, it is not stored in a temperature or humidity controlled environment.
This collection provides a history of the base and the host unit and includes news clippings, scrapbooks, photographs, and other objects of memorabilia. The collection also contains
information about the Titan II mission at the base, a mission whose physical presence has largely been erased by subsequent missions assigned to McConnell AFB. A detailed list of the contents of this collection is located in Appendix E.
Some materials in this collection are currently being stored in a closet. Base plans for the near future include the inventory and appropriate storage of these materials. Objects contained in the collection could contribute to displays or exhibits about the base and its history.
6.2.1.1 Bomber/Tanker Alert Facility (Real Property No. 978, Resource No. 12052)
The Bomber/Tanker Alert Facility was completed in 1974, and is a two-story 25,508 ft2 building of concrete block construction with a dry-vit coating. The facility is located at the northern end of the instrument runway and was originally used solely for refueling tankers conducting their mission of
38
support for the bombers. When the B-1Bs were assigned their mission at McConnell AFB, the facility was then used by KC-135 and B-1B squadrons. Separate parking slots on the alert apron for KC-135s and B-1B are indicated by differently configured blast deflectors. The property record for this facility documents a 170 ft (52 m) long by 5 ft (1.5 m) wide tunnel originating at the facility, but does not state when the tunnel was constructed, nor the tunnel's purpose or destination. The tunnel is not illustrated on base maps. No other alert facilities at bases in this study exhibited a tunnel. The facility was removed from its alert duty function in 1991, and the status of the facility is unknown at this time.
This alert facility does not have characteristic "mole hole" architectural elements such as semisubterranean construction and ramped exits. However, it does have a secured area on the flight apron and is surrounded by security. The facility's exterior integrity remains intact. Access to the interior of the facility was not obtained; however, the real property card for the building indicates no major renovations and no changes in use. Thus, interior integrity is also determined to be intact.
This Bomber/Tanker Alert Facility is extremely important to McConnell AFB's Cold War context and to Cold War history at the national level. It exemplifies the concept of deterrence and the need to respond to any Soviet attack threat. This facility was constructed and operated in direct response to the Killian Report, meeting the needs of deterrence through a survivable force and the dispersion of bombers and tankers across the country (Lewis et al. 1995). This facility was used for this purpose during Phases III and IV of the Cold War and meets NRHP criterion (a).
None were evaluated at McConnell AFB.
39
40
The purpose of the reconnaissance inventory was to provide initial information on the kinds of Cold War resources extant on McConnell 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 McConnell AFB. These resources should be investigated further for more comprehensive analyses. A listing of such resources is provided in Appendix E.
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 McConnell AFB revealed approximately 120 citations. Most of these are unit histories and special collections. More specific topics are the histories of base realignment due to acquisition of the F-105s, KC-135As, the 381st SMW and Titan IIs, and the B-1B bomber. The vast majority of these documents are available on microfilm. Future studies of Cold War history at McConnell AFB should allot time to researching these documents.
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 lists of persons informally interviewed at the base and potential future contacts, are presented in Appendix F.
41
The planned disposal of buildings at McConnell AFB over the next three fiscal years does not include any resources evaluated in this study. The Military Construction Program through fiscal year 1996 also does not contain any indicated actions for evaluated resources on base. Thus, there are presently no known threats to any of the resources which have been evaluated in this report.
It was reported to the Mariah field team that there are facilities on McConnell AFB which have previously been identified as historically and/or architecturally significant. The former Stearman Hangar (Real Property No. 9) has been nominated for inclusion to the NRHP. Real Property No. 1218, the former KANG facility, is in the process of being nominated. Real Property No. 2, a metal-sided facility associated with the Wichita Municipal Airport, was recommended as potentially eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. The SHPO requested revision of the original nomination, but agreed with this determination of eligibility. According to Mr. Zimmerman, the Cultural/Natural Resources Officer, the NPS will be completing a historical survey on McConnell AFB sometime in the near future.
42
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 McConnell 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.
43
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 McConnell 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 McConnell AFB have not been evaluated, and thus must be considered and treated as eligible until an evaluation and determination of eligibility are made.
44
These
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 designed to take place during the
45
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.
Recommendations for the evaluated resources at McConnell AFB are presented below. Table 9.1 summarizes these recommendations. More than one recommendation may apply to a given
47
This collection of drawings, maps, and photographs is protected, but not stored in a temperature or humidity controlled environment. The collection has already been inventoried and this inventory entered into a database. It is recommended that the collection be copied. It is further recommended that the base retain the copies for its use, and that the originals be sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
This collection includes objects of memorabilia and documents such as newspaper clippings, photographs, and scrapbooks. Future plans for the collection include inventory and appropriate storage. It is recommended that the entire collection be inventoried, and that the objects of
48
memorabilia be maintained and stewarded. It is further recommended that the documents be duplicated, that the copies be retained by the base for its use, and that the originals be sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
9.2.3 Bomber/Tanker Alert Facility (Real Property No. 978, Resource No. 12052)
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases III and IV, and meets NRHP criterion (a) based on its role in sustaining a survivable force to meet the needs of deterrence. The integrity of the building and its features is intact. 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.
49
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. Department of Defense 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. Graham, V. M., SMSgt 1986 "Goodbye to Titan," Airman Magazine. Vol. XXX, No. 8:21-25. AFSINC. Kelly Air Force Base, Texas. GRW Engineers, Inc. 1984 The McConnell AFB Comprehensive Plan. GRW Engineers, Inc. Lexington, Kentucky. Holcombe, J. H., Lt. Colonel, C.E. 1963 History McConnell Area U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Construction Office. McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas. 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. Lewis, K. and H. C. Higgins 1994 Cold War Properties Inventory Field Guide. MAI Project 735-15. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. McConnell Air Force Base 1986 McConnell AFB: A Historical Perspective. Dedicated to the Wichita Air Pioneers. History Office, 22nd Air Refueling Wing. McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas.
50
1992 Real Property Study, McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas. Executive Order 12512. n.d. a "The Missile Years 1961 - 1981". 381st Strategic Missile Wing History. Manuscript on file in the 22nd Air Refueling Wing History Office. McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas. n.d. b McConnell AFB Installation Guide. Benchmark Publications, Inc. National Park Service 1990 National Register Bulletin 22: Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties That Have Achieved Significance within the Last Fifty Years. Report prepared by Marcella Sherfy and W. Ray Luce, National Park Service. Washington, D.C. 1991 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Crieria for Evaluation (revised). Report prepared by the National Register Branch, National Park Service. Washington, D.C. Office of the Historian, Headquarters, Strategic Air Command 1983 SAC Missile Chronology 1939-1982. Headquarters, Strategic Air Command. Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. Scallorn, B. G., Colonel 1978 "Report of Missile Accident Investigation Major Missile Accident Titan II Complex 533-7 Assigned to 381st Strategic Missile Wing, McConnell AFB, Kansas." Report on file in History Office, 384th Air Refueling Wing. McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas. Stubbs, K. D., 1st Lt 1980 "The History of McConnell Air Force Base." Manuscript on file History Office, 22nd Air Refueling Wing, McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas. United States Air Force 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. 1994a Fact Sheet "22nd Air Refueling Wing (ACC)." 22nd Air Refueling Wing. Public Affairs Division, McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas. 1994b Fact Sheet "History 384th Bomb Group, Air Combat Command." 22nd Air Refueling Wing. Public Affairs Division, McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas. 1994c Fact Sheet "McConnell Air Force Base History." 22nd Air Refueling Wing. Public Affairs Division, McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas.
51
USAF Historical Research Center 1985 "USAF Establishment Lineage and Honors History." USAF Historical Research Center Form 24 (April 1984). Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama.
APPENDIX E: ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
E-1
CONTENTS OF RESOURCE NO. 12138, DOCUMENTARY COLLECTION, LOCATED IN REAL PROPERTY NO. 948
Drawer 45 Mylar, linen drawings, record "As Builts", specific project detail drawings of facility, system, fences, security, roads, etc. for building No. 1411.
Drawer 52 -
Plans and detail drawings on vellum and mylar, 1951, and various subsequent renovations of building No. 1112.
Drawers 53/54 - Hangar plans and drawings; project specific record drawings, mylar, sepia; ballistic missile requirements for Missile Assembly and Maintenance Shop; drawings from Corps of Engineers BMCO.
Drawer 59 -
Mylar record and specific detail drawings of building No. 978.
Drawer 61 -
Miscellaneous - 1980s charts/tables/signs, etc. and additional documents.
Drawer 63 -
Aerial photographs: 1953 - aerial photograph of the base 1955 - 8"x 8" prints, various unidentified construction photos 1963 - aerial photograph of the base n.d. - Hutchinson Naval Air Station
Drawer 74 -
Base Roads, 1979 and earlier; road plans leading to Titan missile sites; 1979 paper and vellum and mylar. 1958 building layout - addition to parking lot no. 75.
Drawer 75 -
"Old Runway" - 1950s and 1960s vellum and mylars of runway details, lights, drains, etc.
Drawer 80 -
POL - 1969 and earlier; early base maps from 1950s and 1960s.
E-2
Drawer 85 -
"Original Base layout" "Vicinity Layout" ICBM sites 1970s-1980s; 1951 base map set in Air National Guard area; 1953 base map
Drawer 86 -
Wichita Airport/KANG; Wichita Airport 1943/1944 detailed drawings; 1950s Boeing Plant.
Drawer 109 -
Building No. 1107 As Builts 1986-1990; detailed drawings and "record drawings".
Drawer 136/137 -
Master Plans, TABS 1990s, 1984, 1988
CONTENTS OF RESOURCE NO. 12139, DOCUMENTARY COLLECTION, LOCATED IN REAL PROPERTY NO. 384
Titan Missile files - Unclassified documents located in Files 1 and 2. They include 11 x 14 inch laminated b/w photos of each Titan missile launch site complex and county maps.
3-ring binders: #1 - Development of the Titan II launch site Dec. 1960-May 1961 #2 - Development of the Titan II launch site June 1961-Feb 1962 #3 - Newspaper clippings - Oxidizer Spill at 533-07 near Rock, Kansas - one death Titan Deactivation Fact Sheet and KC-135R and B-1B information Aerial photographs on the wall, 195? and 1978
File Drawers - McConnell Air Force Base History, McConnell Air Force Base Guides, Key Personnel, Facilities, and Construction.
E-3
Photos - Dedication, 1954, in a binder "McConnell Brothers and Cemetery Photos" news clippings also.
McConnell Air Force Base histories 1980, 1986 - photographs and negatives
McConnell Air Force Base Guides 1957 - 1993
Personnel photographs and rosters 1970s - 1990s
Base Commander photographs and biographies
Facilities - Various information files on dedication, ground breaking, color aerials of various buildings, Chapel dedication and news clippings, etc.
Many buildings have separate files with photographs and/or documents.
Various Base Project Documents - Space Use Analysis/Restoration projects
Comprehensive Plan, Facility planning 1984.
National Register Nomination Forms and correspondence for Building Nos. 1 and 9.
Economic Impact Resource Statements 1980s-90s
File Cabinet: Bottom Drawer - Aircraft photos, literature, various plans, news clippings, awards and miscellaneous papers. Middle Drawer - TAC to SAC transfer 1972; distinguished visitors; old wing histories, information, etc., and ceremonies. 2nd from top drawer - Lineage and honors files, IG Inspections, exercises. Top Drawer - Titan deactivation slides, facility slides, ca. 600, videos, etc.
E-4
Storage Room: "Contrails" to "Sweepback" to 1952 22nd ARW prior Commanders from March AFB. Maps - 1955 Master Plan map, air photos 1951 Base expansion map - hand colored 1950s and Anniversary poster Assorted banners, sashes, and 384th Bomb Wing Flags Assorted movie reels Scrap books 1953-57 1957-92 553rd SMS 1982-1985
History of McConnell AFB 1950s 2 large boxes of patches, pins and assorted insignia Film reels "Instant Airpower" by KTVH TV12, "The Construction of McConnell AFB 1963-1964," "The Workplace Hustle," "The Story of MAFB, the New B-52," "The Winning of France," and "The Japanese Perimeter." Drawings and paintings of aircraft. A Thank You Award Certificate to 384th from NEACP for their assistance in 1983.
E-5
EXISTING RESOURCES NOT INVENTORIED BY THIS STUDY
The following is a list of historically significant items located at McConnell AFB. TSgt D.E. Wheaton concluded this survey on March 23, 1994. It involved all units assigned to the 22nd ARW and the 384th BG.
22nd ARW Headquarters, Building No. 384 World War II Army Air Forces uniform and service cap 1941 helmet and leather jacket Portrait of an air-to-air refueling entitled "22 AREFW, KC-10, First Flight" signed by General Curtis LeMay Four-volume hardbound set of the first base newspaper, Sweepback (1951-1954) Current wing flag
22nd Operations Group 384th ARS KC-135 full scale boom KC-135A model (1/27 scale) Mural: Wichita, USA map including list of past 384th ARS commanders Saunders Trophies (1977, 1980, 1989) - bombing and navigation competition Coconut trophy of a tiger (presented to the unit during the Gulf War) Squadron guidon 1959 photo of the 384th ARS Desert Storm flag of the 384th AFS Squadron scrapbook (1959-1991) 349th ARS Squadron guidon 22nd Operation Support Squadron Squadron guidon Aircraft photo collection
E-6
The 22nd Medical Group, 22nd Logistics Group, and the 22nd Support Group have guidons as their only historical items.
384th BG Hardbound book "As Briefed...Keep the Show on the Road" (a history of the 384th BGcopyright 1946) 15th Air Force Riverside Trophy (1989) - best operation readiness inspection in 15th Air Force Saunders Trophy (1989)- bombing and navigation competition George C. Kenney Trophy (1989) - best operation readiness inspection in SAC Individualized wall plaques depicting all previous 384th commanders at McConnell AFB Actual B-17 bomb fuse cap and turret gunner's control handle Group flag
Eulogy To A Silo Queen - an anonymous poem found in a 1950s scrapbook.
F-1
BASE CONTACTS
The following people were contacted during the base visit by the Mariah field team to help identify Cold War material culture extant on McConnell AFB and to provide research materials for this study:
Mr. Jay Zimmerman (POC) Cultural/Natural Resource Officer 22nd CES/CERR 53000 Hutchinson St. Ste. 109 McConnell AFB, KS 672221-3617 (316)652-3889 (316)652-4344 (FAX) MSgt Allen Site Development Office 22nd CES/CEE 53000 Hutchinson St. McConnell AFB, KS 67221-3617 (316)652-6144 Mrs. Sandy Kurt Real Property Office 22nd CES/CERR 53000 Hutchinson St. McConnell AFB, KS 67221-3617 (316)652-3925 TSgt Daniel E. Wheaton History Office 22nd ARW/HO 57837 Coffeyville St. Bldg. No. 384 McConnell AFB, KS 67221-3504 (316)652-3105 Capt. Cox Public Affairs Division 22nd ARW/PA 57837 Coffeyville St. Suite 240 McConnell AFB, KS 67221-3504 (316)652-3141
F-2
Sgt James/Sgt Pontow Facility Security Office 22nd SPS/CCE 54403 Kansas St. Suite 147 McConnell AFB, KS 67221-3716 (316)652-3977
F-3
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 McConnell AFB history and Cold War context.
Mr. Jay Zimmerman (POC), Cultural/Natural Resource Officer, August 16 - 20, 1994
F-4
The following individuals were identified during the investigations as people with some knowledge of McConnell AFB history during the Cold War. They were either unavailable during the field investigation, or possess much more information than could be documented during this preliminary reconnaissance.
Paul Levy, SABRE/Contracts Jim Condin, 22nd CES Jerry Tibbs, 22nd CES Don Winton, 22nd CES/Water Shop
VOLUME II-19: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE AT MINOT AIR FORCE BASE
August 1997
Volume II-19: Minot Air Force Base
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Minot Air Force Base was inventoried by Karen Lewis and R. Blake Roxlau of Mariah Associates, Inc., between July 5 and July 14, 1994 as part of the Air Combat Command Cold War Study for the ongoing Department of Defense Legacy Program. Information was gathered at the base from the Wing Historian, the Drawing Room staff, and the Civil Engineering, Real Property, and Public Affairs offices. On-site inspections were also conducted. During this research, 98 resources were inventoried and photographed. Of these, nine resources were further documented and evaluated during the course of the survey as important to the Cold War. These include three alert facilities, three sets of architectural drawings, a collection of historic objects, a missile silo replica, and a radar site.
Recommendations for the nine evaluated resources vary. The Bomber Alert Facility, Fighter Alert Facility, Semi-Automatic Ground Environment Facility, and Missile Launch Facility Trainer are all evaluated as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places, with stewardship and further documentation also recommended. The Tanker Alert Facility is recommended as potentially eligible to the National Register, with stewardship and further documentation also recommended. The three sets of Architectural Drawing Files are recommended for further documentation, stewardship, and conservation. documentation and stewardship. Finally, the Museum Collection is recommended for further
ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACC ACHP ADC AFB AGE AMMS AMS BMS BMW BW DoD FIS FMS FTD HABS ICBM LCF LF MAC Mariah MIRV MMS MRE NCO NHPA NPS NRHP OCONUS OMS PME RAPCON SAC SAGE SALT SDI SHPO SMW START TAC USAF
Air Combat Command Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Air Defense Command Air Force Base Air Ground Equipment Airborne Missile Maintenance Squadron Avionics Maintenance Squadron Bombardment Squadron Bombardment Wing Bomb Wing Department of Defense Fighter Interceptor Squadron Field Maintenance Squadron Field Training Detachment Historic American Buildings Survey Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Launch Control Facility Launch Facility Military Airlift Command Mariah Associates, Inc. Multiple Independently-Targetable Reentry Vehicle Munitions Maintenance Squadron Meals Ready to Eat Non-Commissioned Officer National Historic Preservation Act National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Off the Continental United States Organizational Maintenance Squadron 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 Strategic Missile Wing Strategic Arms Reduction Talks Tactical Air Command United States Air Force
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. 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. Gaither Report - a report concerning the development of the Cold War produced by the Gaither Committee in 1957. It predicted an increase in the arms race and continued escalation of the Cold War. It recommended a drastic increase in military spending and initiation of a multibillion-dollar civil defense system. It also echoed the Killian Report in recommending the dispersal of the bomber force to increase survivability. 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 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.
iv
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.
3.0 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 12 3.1 BASE HISTORY AND COLD WAR CONTEXT.............................................................. 12 3.2 BASE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................... 16 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 ..................................................................... 28 6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS......................................................................................................... 29 6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS ........................................................ 29 6.1.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 29 6.1.1.1 Architectural Drawing Files ............................................................................... 29 6.1.2 Memorial ...................................................................................................................... 32 6.1.2.1 Museum Collection............................................................................................. 32
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS ......................................................... 34 6.2.1 Alert Facilities .............................................................................................................. 34 6.2.1.1 Fighter Alert Facility........................................................................................... 34 6.2.1.2 Bomber Alert Facility ......................................................................................... 35 6.2.1.3 Tanker Alert Facility ........................................................................................... 36 6.2.2 Communications .......................................................................................................... 37 6.2.2.1 SAGE Facility ..................................................................................................... 37 6.2.3 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 38 6.2.3.1 Architectural Drawing Files ............................................................................... 38 6.2.3.2 Architectural Drawing Files ............................................................................... 38 6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES .................................................................... 39 6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES...................................................................................................... 39 6.4.1 Missile Training ........................................................................................................... 39 6.4.1.1 Missile Launch Facility Trainer.......................................................................... 39 6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES ............................................................................................ 40 7.0 UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 41 8.0 FUTURE THREATS TO RESOURCES ................................................................................... 42 9.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 43 9.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY ............................................................................................................ 43 9.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility.................................................... 43 9.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility ................................................................................ 45 9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 47 9.2.1 Architectural Drawing Files ......................................................................................... 47 9.2.2 Museum Collection ...................................................................................................... 49 9.2.3 Fighter Alert Facility .................................................................................................... 49 9.2.4 Bomber Alert Facility................................................................................................... 49 9.2.5 Tanker Alert Facility .................................................................................................... 50 9.2.6 SAGE Facility .............................................................................................................. 50 9.2.7 Architectural Drawing Files ......................................................................................... 50 9.2.8 Architectural Drawing Files ......................................................................................... 51 9.2.9 Missile Launch Facility Trainer ................................................................................... 51 10.0 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................. 52
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
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
viii
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Bases Selected for the Air Combat Command Cold War Study .............................. 2 Location of Minot Air Force Base............................................................................. 5 Standard Strategic Air Command Base Layout ........................................................ 7 Minot Air Force Base Land Use Diagram................................................................. 9 Standard Strategic Air Command Base Land Use Diagram ..................................... 10 Minot Air Force Base, 1950-1960 ............................................................................. 17 Minot Air Force Base, 1960-1970 ............................................................................. 18 Minot Air Force Base, 1970-1980 ............................................................................. 20 Minot Air Force Base, 1980-present ......................................................................... 21
LIST OF TABLES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is a reconnaissance inventory of Cold War related resources on Minot Air Force Base (AFB). Minot 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.
Tenants at Minot AFB currently consist of the 5th Bomb Wing (BW) and the 91st Missile Group. The 5th BW is the base host which directs the 5th Operations Group, 5th Logistics Group, 5th Support Group, 5th Medical Group, and the 5th Comptroller Squadron. The 5th BW uses the Offensive Avionics System modified B-52H Stratofortress to achieve its mission, "ready to deliver massive firepower worldwide, on time, on target, every time" (United States Air Force [USAF] 1993a).
The 91st Missile Group is currently responsible for 150 Minuteman III missile silos, situated on more than 8,000 acres of public land surrounding the base. The 91st Missile Group was reassigned from the 91st Missile Wing to the 91st Missile Group in July of 1994. The future of the missiles, the 91st Group, and their mission is somewhat undefined, but the mission statement at this time is, "A professional team; maintaining safe, secure intercontinental ballistic missiles on alert; ready to immediately launch bombs on target" (USAF 1993b). Although there are two distinct units on base, the 5th BW and the 91st Missile Group, the base itself has a motto which unifies those stationed at Minot AFB: "Only the Best Come North."
Minot AFB is located approximately 13 mi (20.9 km) north of Minot, North Dakota (Figure 2.1). The city of Minot has a population of 35,000 and is economically reliant on agricultural and retail industries. The area is located in the rolling grassy plains of north-central North Dakota, and the base is surrounded by farming and ranching land. The city of Minot itself is located in the Souris River Valley with the Souris River running through the city.
The layout of the buildings and facilities at Minot AFB is similar to that of the standard SAC layout (Figure 2.2). The base runway and aprons are oriented northwest/southeast. The flight line forms the southwestern edge of the base, with most buildings and facilities located to the northeast of the flight line. The buildings closest to the flight line are mission-related and base support facilities. Community and administrative buildings and unaccompanied housing are centrally located, separating the mission area from the accompanied housing area to the east. The bomber, tanker, and fighter alert areas are located at the southeastern end of the runway. The location of the alert areas is similar to the standard SAC plan; however, the inclusion of a fighter alert facility and a tanker alert "christmas tree" runway is different.
There are two separate buildings for the Wing Command Post and the Wing Headquarters. The weapons storage area is located to the east of the runway. The flight line is secured by barbed wire, metal fences, and guard check points, which are currently unmanned. Throughout the base, alert klaxons or sirens and yellow lights are mounted on telephone poles, approximately 8 ft (2.4 m) from grade. Minot AFB practices alert on a quarterly basis and continues to test the klaxons throughout the year.
The original base operations building is located on the northeastern side of the runway; the new tower is a lone structure on the southwestern side of the runway. Located within the housing area are two elementary schools and numerous small parks; the housing area is one of the largest in the country. The main gate is located on the eastern side of the base, and the entrance road runs through an open space along the housing area, passing by static displays of aircraft and missiles of importance to the history of the base. The displays include Minuteman II and Hound Dog missiles, a T-33 jet trainer, and an F-102 Delta Dagger interceptor.
2.4 BASE LAND USE
The following is a list of standard SAC land use categories: Alert Facilities - provide for air combat readiness and rapid deployment of aircrews. 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. Weapon 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.
Figure 2.3 is a diagrammatic land use plan of Minot AFB and Figure 2.4 is a diagrammatic land use plan of a standard SAC base. Minot AFB's land use pattern is generally the same as that of a standard SAC base. In both plans, most of the buildings are located on one side of the flight line.
11
Headquarters are located near the center of the base, away from the flight line. Community areas are centrally located on both plans and provide a buffer between mission/support areas and housing areas which are located at a distance from the flight line area. Recreational areas are situated in and around the housing areas.
The Minot AFB and standard SAC plans differ in that Minot AFB has a Tanker Alert Facility with its own "christmas tree" alert apron. The standard plan shows no Tanker Alert Facility. Also, no parade grounds are present at Minot AFB, but are found on the SAC plan.
12
Minot AFB was conceived as an interceptor base to counter the threat of Soviet trans-polar bomber attack and to improve the United States capability to detect incoming attack and to defend the nation.
The original realization of a potential bomber threat was based on the 1953 detonation of a Soviet hydrogen device and the subsequent Killian Report or Surprise Attack Study which was presented to the National Security Council in March of 1954 (Lewis et al. 1995). The report noted that in spite of the U.S. advantage in nuclear strike capability, the nation was vulnerable to surprise attack as a result of poor air defense, lack of early warning systems, and an increasing Soviet long-range bomber force.
To remedy the situation, a defense network including early warning devices and interceptor aircraft was planned for the northern United States. Several cities along the northern frontier were considered as interceptor bases. Due to its location near the Canadian border, good topography, and the availability of inexpensive land in a sparsely populated area, Minot, North Dakota, was chosen in 1954 as the location for one of the required bases (Nolan 1990). Minot was chosen over the city of Bismarck, an early tentative selection. The citizens of Minot raised money to purchase the land for the air base and welcomed the USAF with open arms (Nolan 1990).
Construction began in 1956, and Minot AFB was activated in January of 1957 as an Air Defense Command (ADC) base (USAF 1991). The 32nd Fighter Group was activated on
February 7, 1957, along with its component squadrons, the 32nd Materiel Squadron and the 32nd Air Base Squadron (Reeves 1980). The 4136th Strategic Wing was also activated at this time as a SAC tenant of ADC. The wing's mission at Minot AFB was to fly KC-135 Stratotanker
13
refueling aircraft, which arrived 1959, in support of northern air defense operations (USAF 1991). The 5th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS), equipped with 18 F-106 Delta Dart
supersonic interceptors, arrived at Minot AFB on February 1, 1960. The 5th FIS was responsible for patrol and defense of the Minot Air Defense Sector, one of several north-south corridors along the northern U.S.-Canadian border.
The defense of Minot AFB's sector was facilitated by the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) system (Lewis et al. 1995; Reeves 1980; Schaffel 1991). The SAGE system was spread across the northern United States and Canada at various air force bases. Each SAGE location included a blast-resistant, windowless SAGE building that housed two large IBM computers and an array of radar and communications equipment. The computers cycled information received from early warning devices in Canada to the interceptor force. The computers calculated the elevation, speed, and distance of incoming targets, then figured the most efficient intercept route and relayed that information to fighters in its sector. The SAGE complex at Minot AFB was activated in June 1961. It was then realized that locating interceptor aircraft and control facilities together offered an inviting target (Reeves 1980). To remedy this problem, Minot AFB's SAGE complex was
deactivated in 1963 and SAGE sector responsibilities were shifted to Great Falls AFB, Montana. However, the fighter interceptor aircraft remained at Minot AFB.
Minot AFB's role primarily as a fighter interceptor base was to be short-lived. The Soviet Union's development of the Bear and Bison bombers led to a fear of a "bomber gap" between the United States and U.S.S.R. (Goldberg 1957). This resulted in a call for the production of more U.S. longrange bombers. In 1957, the Gaither Report claimed the Soviet Union could possess a first-strike capability against the United States as early as 1959 (Lewis et al. 1995). The Gaither Report recommended that bombers be dispersed to numerous bases to help ensure that a substantial portion of the strategic bomber and tanker force would survive a Soviet first strike. Minot AFB was one of the bases chosen to carry out this military strategy of dispersal (Lewis et al. 1995; Reeves 1980).
14
The fact that Minot AFB was located in northern the United States and provided a relatively short attack route to the Soviet Union contributed to the decision.
On July 1, 1962, Minot AFB was reassigned from ADC to SAC (Reeves 1980; USAF 1991). The 525th Bombardment Squadron (BMS), flying late-model B-52Hs, had been activated at the base in March 1961, within the 4136th Strategic Wing (Reeves 1980; USAF 1991). Strategic forces in the form of KC-135 tankers of the 4136th Strategic Wing were already stationed at Minot AFB. The 5th FIS remained as a tenant of SAC.
The 1956 launches of the Soviet Union's Sputnik I and II satellites demonstrated that the Soviets now had the capability to hit the United States with a ballistic missile (Lewis et al. 1995). Concerns about a "missile gap" prompted increased development of U.S. intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Early ICBMs, such as Atlas and Titan I, were fired from launch control facilities (LCFs) which could only control a single missile each. Development of the Minuteman missile, initiated in 1958, included the capability of firing ten missiles in hardened silos from a single LCF (Lewis et al. 1995). This factor, along with the use of solid fuel, made the Minuteman missile much more efficient and cost effective than earlier missiles.
In 1961, the USAF announced that Minot AFB had been chosen for deployment of a missile complex. Minot AFB was chosen as a Minuteman base because of soil suitability, location in the northern United States, and the fact that it was already a SAC operated base (Reeves 1980). Construction began on the missile field in January 1962. Fifteen LCFs and 150 launch facilities (LFs) were completed by January 1963 (Nolan 1990). Boeing Corporation installed electronic equipment and the missiles. The last of 150 Minuteman I missiles was in place on
February 26, 1964, and the 455th Strategic Missile Wing (SMW) became combat ready in April 1964 (Reeves 1980).
15
In 1963, SAC deactivated the 4136th Strategic Wing at Minot AFB and activated the 450th Bombardment Wing (BMW) to oversee B-52 and KC-135 aircraft operations (USAF 1991). The 5th BMW then replaced the 450th in 1968.
In June 1968, the 455th SMW was redesignated the 91st SMW. The following year the 91st SMW was chosen to be equipped with Minuteman III missiles, each of which carries three Multiple Independently-Targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs). The last Minuteman I missile was replaced by a new Minuteman III in December of 1971. Minuteman III missiles continue in service at Minot AFB (Reeves 1980).
In July 1971, the 91st SMW was designated the host wing of Minot AFB. The various support units and command of the base were transferred to this wing. The 5th BMW continued in service at Minot AFB as a tenant of the 91st SMW throughout the 1970s. The 23rd BMS of the 5th BMW participated in operations over Southeast Asia during 1971 and 1972 as part of bombing campaigns code named ARC Light and Linebacker II (Reeves 1980).
Fighter interceptors of the 5th FIS also continued in service at Minot throughout the 1970s. Control of the 5th FIS shifted from ADC to Tactical Air Command (TAC) in 1979, but the aircraft continued the same mission. F-106 fighters were replaced by F-15 Eagles in the mid-1980s. As the threat of Soviet surprise attack decreased in the late 1980s, F-15 fighter interceptors were removed from Minot in September of 1988 and the 5th FIS was deactivated (Nolan 1990).
Several changes have taken place within the last few years with the deactivation of SAC and the establishment of ACC and Air Force Space Command. B-52 bombers were removed from alert in 1991, although they continue to support worldwide U.S. military operations such as Desert Storm. Minot AFB and the 5th BMW were reassigned to ACC in July 1992. The 5th BMW was renamed the 5th BW and assumed base host responsibilities (USAF 1993a). The 91st SMW was placed under the control of Air Force Space Command in July of 1993 and was redesignated the 91st
16
Missile Group in July of 1994 (USAF 1993b). The KC-135 tanker squadron of the 5th BW was transferred from Minot AFB to Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota, in 1994.
Minot AFB was built to carry out operations directly related to the Cold War. The installation was initially designed as a fighter interceptor base but continues to serve as a bomber and missile base within ACC.
Land for Minot AFB was acquired through monetary donations from Minot businessmen and the Chamber of Commerce to the U.S. Government for base establishment (Reeves 1980). Plans for family housing were formulated in November 1955 and included construction of a six million dollar 450-unit complex to include row houses, duplexes, and single family residences (Reeves 1980). An additional 620 units were ordered in December 1955 for future base personnel. The first 40 of these housing units were completed in October of 1959 and were immediately occupied (Figure 3.1).
The base was activated on January 10, 1957, and the first few buildings were officially accepted by the Air Force. Construction of buildings, roads, and utilities continued through 1959. The first church service was held in July 1958, and the base exchange was opened in September 1958 (Reeves 1980). Housing continued to be built, and with the completion of two airmen dormitories in 1973, Minot AFB had more base housing than any other USAF facility in the United States (Mueller 1989).
The construction of the SAGE facility to house early warning and command and control systems for interceptors was initiated in 1958. The three-story windowless building was constructed of heavy reinforced concrete and was designed to withstand a nuclear blast. A large fallout shelter was located in the basement of the building. Two large IBM computers were installed in 1960, and the SAGE system was activated in June of 1961 (Reeves 1980) (Figure 3.2).
19
One of the first projects completed on the base was the construction of the 8,100 ft (2,469 m) runway and the traffic control tower. When SAC bombers and tankers began service in the early 1960s, the runway had to be lengthened to accommodate the larger planes. The runway was extended to 13,200 ft (4,023 m) with 1,000 ft (305 m) overruns. As a result of this increase, a new control tower was needed to adequately view the longer runway. The new tower was completed in 1966 and remains in operation (Reeves 1980).
After selection as a Minuteman missile base in 1961, construction of missile silos began in 1962. The Minuteman complex is located north, west and south of the base over an 8,000 acre area. Construction consisted of the excavation of pits measuring 100 x 150 x 12 ft (30 x 46 x 4 m) deep for the LCF, with another 32 ft (10 m) deep hole for the LF. After the concrete missile housing was finished in 1963, installation of the missiles and electronic equipment was turned over to Boeing Corporation personnel. Over 1500 civilian construction workers labored year round on the project, and all of the missiles were in place by April of 1964 (Reeves 1980). Construction also included a number of roads, parking areas, and maintenance and storage buildings at the missile sites and on the base itself (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers n.d.). Numerous upgrades to the missile installations, including additions such as antennas, have occurred over the years.
An exact duplicate of a LF, including a deactivated missile, was constructed at Minot AFB in 1967 and 1968. Known as U-01 or Uniform I, the replica LF serves as a trainer for missile maintenance crews.
Recent construction at the base has included the rehabilitation of airman dormitories in 1980, construction of a new Security Police facility, a regional hospital, a library and learning center, and a child development center (Figures 3.3 and 3.4).
22
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the reconnaissance inventory of Minot 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 Department of Defense (DoD) Legacy Program outlines three general categories under which Cold War resources may be included: real property, personal property, and records/documents (USAF 1993c: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).
23
As part of the reconnaissance inventory of Minot 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 Minot 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.
24
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 1993c) 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
26
27
The USAF Interim Guidance (USAF 1993c) 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.
2Lt Tamara Schulman, an architect in the 5th BW, met with the Mariah field team upon their arrival at Minot AFB and introduced the team to the individuals who would be able to provide them with the information required to complete their work. These people included Drawing Room staff, Real Property personnel, officers knowledgeable of base operations and wing missions, and personnel who could provide easy access to facilities. The field team also spent much time with the Wing Historian, SSgt Strom. The Historian gave the team a tour of the base, discussed histories, provided historical maps, and gave access to the Heritage Center. The team was in contact with 2Lt Schulman and SSgt Strom on a daily basis.
Fieldwork began in the Heritage Center, documenting the Cold War related resources stored there. Once access to the flight line was approved, the survey of buildings began. On the weekend, the survey continued to those areas of the base that did not require an escort. The team met with the 91st Missile Group. A tour of the missile training facility was provided. 2Lt Schulman tried to obtain permission to take the team to an operational missile silo; this request was refused at the commander level.
28
During the reconnaissance inventory of Minot AFB, 98 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.
29
Nine resources were evaluated at Minot AFB, six of them falling under the DoD category of real property and three under records/documents. 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
6.1.1 Documentation
The Minot AFB drawing files, located in the base engineering building, include two rows of 10 ft (3 m) tall drawer files of architectural drawings. The files contain numerous historical maps, original base master layouts, and construction and utility project drawings of Minot AFB and related facilities. The maps, which are stored flat, include paper, linen, mylar, vellum, and blue line reproductions. The files contain important information about historic structures on base and the development of the installation throughout the Cold War era. The majority of drawings are generally in good condition, but are threatened by frequent or occasional handling and removal from drawers.
32
6.1.2 Memorial
The Heritage Center is located in Room 214 of Real Property No. 475, the original command and control room of Minot AFB's SAGE system. The Heritage Center houses a collection of artifacts related to the history of Minot AFB. Within this collection are numerous artifacts that are directly related to the Cold War. The following are descriptions of these artifacts and discussions of their Cold War relationship.
Uniforms, including flight suits, a dress blue uniform, blue jackets, shirts, sweaters, hats, and helmets, are stored on hangers inside the entrance to the main room. These uniforms exemplify Air Force Cold War attire, and although they are not connected to a specific event, they may aid in the interpretation of Cold War history.
Several Minuteman missile components including nose cones, shell segments, and some electronic and wiring equipment are contained in the collection. The Minuteman missile has been in
continuous service at Minot AFB since 1963 as part of the strategy of deterrence through a survivable force. These Minuteman components exemplify the missile and convey some of its structural and design configurations. They are useful in the interpretation of base history and Minot AFB's role in the Cold War, and are in good condition.
Also included are a theodolite and a collimator. The theodolite is a small device that was used in tracking missile launches. The instrument consists of various metal parts with optical devices, resembling a surveyor's transit. The theodolite is stored in its original metal canister and wooden box; the equipment and storage elements are in good condition. The collimator is a device that was used in the targeting of Minuteman I and II missiles. A card on the collimator notes that the instrument was used as a light source for an accurate position in setting up guidance system ground alignment. The collimator is 1 x 2 ft (0.3 x 0.6 m) in size and constructed of metal, optical glass,
33
and various electronic components. The theodolite was used at McConnell AFB, Kansas; it is not known whether the collimator was used at Minot AFB. These instruments could aid in the interpretation of the Minuteman missile system.
Also in the collection is an early design model of the Minuteman that is approximately 6 ft (1.8 m) high and constructed of wood with a center steel rod. The nose is detachable and the circular base has a wood finish. The base is inscribed with "Boeing, Minuteman, 3-Stage, Solid Propellant, Six Thousand Mile Range, Ballistic Missile." The nose is inscribed "Plans Branch." The model is in good condition and exemplifies the development of the Minuteman missile system. Since no model number could be found, it is believed that this may be an early example of a conception of the Minuteman missile system.
Approximately 60 framed photographs of aircraft (the majority of Cold War vintage), awards, and certificates are found in the collection. The items are in good condition and are stored in boxes. The photographs and other documents may be useful in the interpretation of Cold War history.
Scrapbooks from the collection include two large, wood-covered books documenting the 5th FIS and the 5th BMW, and a number of smaller books containing both photos of social and on-duty activities, and citations for various squadrons and groups. Approximately 25 videotapes and film canisters, including 16 mm, VHS, and Beta format videotapes, are also in this collection. Subjects include squadron and group activities, speeches, and instructional/training videos. The scrapbooks, videos, and film may be useful in the interpretation of base history.
All of the objects in the Heritage Center appear to be in good condition and are under the care of the Wing Historian, SSgt Strom.
34
This small aircraft maintenance dock was originally the Fighter Alert Facility, and exemplifies the earliest mission of Minot AFB as an interceptor base. Completed in 1958, the Fighter Alert Facility was constructed of corrugated asbestos panels, and according to written documents in the History Office files, contained four aircraft bays along with a day room, sleeping areas, and a utility area. Fighter interceptor pilots stayed at the facility while on alert, having only two minutes to be airborne in response to any incoming bomber attack. The Fighter Alert Facility was used for interceptor forces from 1958 through 1988.
The exterior integrity of the facility remains intact. Access to the interior of the facility was unavailable during the field visit, thus the integrity of its features could not be directly observed. However, the real property card indicates no major renovations made to the building. Also, as it has only been six years since it was used as an alert building, and is now used for aircraft maintenance, little change to the interior is likely. Thus interior integrity is also determined to be intact.
The exceptional importance of this facility lies in its sole mission to thwart any surprise attack by the Soviet Union on the United States. This building is important not only to Minot AFB's Cold War context, but also to Cold War history at the national level. This building conveys the United States fear of a Soviet bomber attack from the north and the measures taken to ensure that any such attack would be successfully intercepted. It is a direct result of Congressional approval in the 1950s for the construction of interceptor bases and the NSC-68 recommendations for a massive military build-up to "counteract the increasing threat posed by the Soviet Union" (Lewis et al. 1995). This
35
facility was used for this purpose during Phases II through IV of the Cold War era, and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
The Bomber Alert Facility, constructed of reinforced concrete, was a self-contained community for B-52 bomber crews who were required to live at the facility for seven-day periods and respond to any drill or war situation at a moment's notice. Bedrooms, dining rooms, a recreation room, and a briefing room were all located in the building. Distinctive external features include several ramp tunnels that lead out to the bomber apron. The alert building is a secure facility surrounded by a chainlink and barbed wire fence with a security control entry building. A security police tower is located on the adjacent bomber alert apron. An associated building outside the alert security perimeter was previously used for marital and family activities. Tennis courts are also located outside the alert building. Although the Bomber Alert Facility is currently used for Quality Department office space, alert capabilities have been maintained and the Minot AFB bomber crews carry out alert maneuvers at this facility quarterly.
External integrity of the facility remains intact. Although access to the interior of the facility was unavailable during the field visit, the real property card for the facility indicates no major renovations to the building. The current practices of alert capability maintenance and active alert maneuvers suggest that the building's function and associated features remain intact. Thus interior integrity is also determined to be intact.
The Bomber Alert Facility is extremely important to Minot AFB's Cold War context and to Cold War history at the national level. It 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 the Killian Report, meeting the needs of deterrence through a survivable force and the dispersion of bombers across the country (Lewis et al. 1995). The B-52 force was an integral part of the DoD defense triad and was relied upon as the United State's primary nuclear bomber force
36
for over thirty years. This facility was used for this purpose during Phases II through IV of the Cold War era, and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
This concrete and steel building, built in 1974, served as a Tanker Alert Facility housing operational support and recreational functions. The facility is one of several buildings that served as the tanker alert complex located around the perimeter of the tanker alert apron. Four crew bungalows, containing sleeping and lounge accommodations, were situated at intervals adjacent to the apron. The location of the bungalows allowed tanker crews to sleep directly next to their planes. The complex also contained a maintenance building, security checkhouse, and a house where crew members could spend time with their wives and families. The presence of the Tanker Alert Facility allowed tanker crews to stay close to their planes and have the capability to be airborne in a short span of time in order to support bomber activity. The configuration and placement of the buildings around the alert apron convey the necessity for rapid response under alert conditions.
The Tanker Alert Facility appears to be intact, but not in use. Renovations are underway on this facility, while the other buildings in the complex remain dormant, but the extent of these renovations in unknown. Access to the facility was not available during the field visit; thus the integrity of the facility and any internal alert features remains unknown.
The Tanker Alert Facility was extremely important to the Cold War mission of Minot AFB and was important at the national level during the Cold War era. The Tanker Alert Facility was constructed in response to NSC-68 and the Killian report which recommended the dispersion of bombers around the country (Lewis et al. 1995). The dispersion of bombers required the dispersion of tankers to support them, thus the facility illustrates the concept of deterrence through a survivable force. This facility served this purpose during Phases III and IV of the Cold War era, and meets NRHP criterion (a).
37
The SAGE Facility, located in what is now the Wing Headquarters building, was originally designed and built specifically for the SAGE system, an early warning detection system that detected incoming enemy aircraft, alerted SAC, and dispatched interceptor fighter aircraft stationed in the base's sector. Built in 1960, the building was used for the SAGE system until 1963 and is now utilized as Wing Headquarters.
This building was evaluated because of the presence of several features that convey the building's important SAGE function. Specific Cold War features that are still intact include its nuclear blast resistant, windowless, reinforced concrete construction. The basement of the building originally housed two large computers, mechanical equipment, and a large, well-stocked, fallout shelter. The computers have since been removed, but 4 to 6 inch diameter holes through the concrete ceiling show where the computer cables and conduits penetrated into the rest of the building. The fallout shelter remains, including boxes of Meals Ready to Eat (MREs), empty metal water containers, first aid supplies, and various other equipment. The upper floors contained offices, weapons control system rooms, and support facilities.
The feature of the Wing Headquarters building that best illustrates its use during the Cold War is the SAGE command room. Currently used as the Heritage Center, this room is located on the second floor of the building. This room was the command and control center of the SAGE system at Minot AFB, used by the battle staff to track incoming enemy aircraft and to dispatch interceptor fighters. The room contained radar and communications equipment to accomplish this mission. Battle staff would also meet here to determine appropriate actions. The room is approximately 2000 ft (186 m ) in area and is 35 ft (11 m) tall. It is constructed of poured concrete and contains a glassed-in control booth, a large projection screen, acoustic ceiling tiles, and an interior balcony.
2 2
38
The radar and communications equipment was removed when SAGE sector responsibilities were transferred to Great Falls AFB, Montana.
This building is exceptionally important in illustrating the early Cold War mission of Minot AFB and the base's history. It epitomizes the role of Minot AFB as a first line of defense against a surprise nuclear attack. It is also highly significant to the Cold War era nationally, as it was constructed as part of the early warning detection system, SAGE, called for by the Killian Report (Lewis et al. 1995). The building's design and features convey the U.S.'s fear of a surprise first strike by the Soviet Union and the desire to have early warning and successful interception of such an attack. This building was used for this purpose during Phase II of the Cold War era, and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
6.2.3 Documentation
The Base Engineering drawing files contain architectural drawings of the SAGE facility, a blast resistant, windowless building which housed a variety of computer, radar, and communications equipment. The drawing files document the construction of this building which was designed specifically for the Cold War mission of early detection, warning, and interception of enemy attack. The drawings are generally in good condition, but are threatened by continued use and handling.
The base engineering drawing files contain architectural drawings of the Bomber Alert Facility, a specialized structure designed for 24 hour support of bomber crew members which contains features such as access ramps to allow quick access to awaiting aircraft. The drawing files
39
document the construction of this building which was designed specifically for a Cold War mission. The drawings are in good condition, but are threatened by continued use.
None were evaluated at Minot AFB.
6.4.1.1 Missile Launch Facility Trainer (Resource No. 10106, Real Property No. 690)
This complex is named Uniform-I, an exact nonworking replica of a Minuteman silo. Components of the replica include a concrete and beryllium missile tube, a heavy concrete blast door on rails, steel entry doors, access tubes, and interior components such as batteries and wiring. A concretefilled model is stationed in the replica in place of a working missile. This training facility was built on base to provide missile maintenance crews an opportunity to learn maintenance techniques without the logistical, technical, and security difficulties associated with an active missile silo. The trainer has functioned as a LF trainer since it's construction. Because the facility continues to be used, all aspects of its integrity have been retained.
Uniform-I is an excellent example of a training facility that has provided maintenance practice for Minuteman missile maintenance crews. This replica is therefore an element of the Minuteman system at Minot AFB, which directly resulted from the Killian Report's recommendation that the highest priority be placed on the development of missiles (Lewis et al. 1995). Without the training replica, retrofitting, updating, and repair of missiles and silos could not have been accomplished. This training replica conveys the exceptional significance of the Minuteman role at Minot AFB.
40
This facility was used for this purpose during Phases III and IV of the Cold War era, and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
None were evaluated at Minot AFB.
41
The purpose of the reconnaissance inventory was to provide initial information on the kinds of Cold War resources extant on Minot 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 Minot AFB. These resources should be investigated further for more comprehensive analyses.
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 Minot AFB revealed approximately 80 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 Minot AFB should allot time to researching these documents.
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 lists of informal interviews conducted by the field team at the base and of potential future contacts, are presented in Appendix E.
42
There is an ongoing project to upgrade the interior of the current Wing Headquarters, which threatens the integrity of the original SAGE command and control room in that building. At this point the construction is primarily on the third floor, and the impacts have included blocking in access doors and enclosing the mezzanine with a partition. Although the Heritage Center is currently located in this SAGE room and the Base Historian is committed to preserving the space, there is the possibility of a change in priorities and the loss of the resource through capital improvements programs.
Renovations are also being conducted at the Tanker Alert Facility. While this building appeared intact during the field visit, it was not in use, and no effort at stewardship of the building was apparent. Renovations may impact the integrity of this building.
The resources of the Heritage Center have not been curated or catalogued. The Base Historian intends to inventory the resources, and at some point open the Heritage Center and provide interpretation. It would be beneficial for the Historian to have some assistance with inventorying the collection and establishing the Heritage Center.
There are no other known projects planned at Minot AFB that may impact the resources evaluated in this report.
43
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 Minot 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.
44
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 Minot 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 Minot AFB have not been evaluated, and thus must be considered and treated as eligible until an evaluation and determination of eligibility are made.
45
These
46
47
Recommendations for the evaluated resources at Minot AFB are presented below. Table 9.1 summarizes these recommendations. More than one recommendation may apply to a given
The architectural drawing files for the base are in good condition, but are threatened by frequent handling. It is recommended that the drawings be inventoried and copied, with the copies retained by the base for its use and the originals sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
49
This collection of uniforms, missile components, models, photographs, and scrapbooks is in good condition, under the care of the Wing Historian, but appears to be in disarray. It is recommended that the collection be inventoried and that stewardship of the collection be continued.
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II through IV. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) based on its role to intercept any incursion into United States air space by the enemy 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 determined to be intact based upon partial observation, lack of documented major renovations, and subsequent use of the building for a compatible function over the past six years. 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.
The building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II through 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 determined to be intact based upon partial observation, lack of documented major renovations, and continued use of the building for alert functions. 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.
50
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important to the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases III and IV. It meets NRHP criterion (a) based on its role in sustaining a survivable force to meet the needs of deterrence. Access to the interior was not obtained, so an assessment of intact integrity could not be made. Thus the level of integrity of the building remains unknown. Therefore, this building is recommended as potentially eligible to the NRHP. Further
documentation, to determined the level of integrity and to explore NRHP eligibility, is recommended. Stewardship of the building to retain its current level of integrity is recommended in the interim during this evaluation.
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phase II. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) based on its role as the first line of defense against a surprise attack 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 and its SAGE features is determined to be intact. 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.
The collection of drawings of the SAGE Facility are generally in good condition, but are threatened by continued use and handling. It is recommended that the drawings be inventoried and copied, with the copies retained by the base for its use and the originals sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
51
This collection of drawings of the Bomber Alert Facility is generally in good condition, but is threatened by continued use. It is recommended that the drawings be inventoried and copied, with the copies retained by the base for its use and the originals sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
9.2.9 Missile Launch Facility Trainer (Resource No. 10106, Real Property No. 690)
This structure is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases III and IV. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) based on its role in the survivability of the Minuteman missile system and on its structural components which are unique to this structure and identify it as an example of Cold War military architecture. The integrity of the structure is determined to be intact based on the continued use of the structure as a missile maintenance trainer. Therefore, this structure is recommended as eligible to the NRHP.
Recommendations include stewardship to maintain the integrity of the structure and its features, and further documentation to nominate this resource to the NRHP.
52
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. Department of Defense 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., ed. 1957 A History of the United States Air Force, 1907-1957. D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey. 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. Mueller, R. 1989 Air Force Bases, Volume 1: Active Air Force Bases Within the United States of America on September 1982. Office of Air Force History, United States Air Force, Washington, D.C. 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.
53
Nolan, R. J. 1990 The Air Force Comes to North Dakota: A Study in the Site Selection of Grand Forks and Minot Air Force Bases. Unpublished thesis. University of North Dakota, Grand Forks. Reeves, M. B. 1980 A Brief History of Minot Air Force Base North Dakota 1 November 1955 1 September 1980. Unpublished manuscript. 91st Strategic Missile Wing, Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota. Schaffel, K. 1991 The Emerging Shield: The Air Force and the Evolution of Continental Air Defense 19451960. Office of Air Force History, Washington, D.C. United States Air Force 1991 Minot Air Force Base Comprehensive Plan. Prepared by GRW Engineers, Lexington, Kentucky. 1993a Fact Sheet: 5th Bomb Wing. 5th Bomb Wing Office of Public Affairs, Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota. 1993b Fact Sheet: 91st Missile Wing. 91st Missile Wing Office of Public Affairs, Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota. 1993c 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. United States Army Corps of Engineers n.d. US-133A Minuteman Missile Facilities Minot Air Force Base, Minot, North Dakota. United States Army Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Construction Office, Norton Air Force Base, California.
EVALUATED RESOURCES AT MINOT AFB

Property Description: Collection in Heritage Center including clothing, videos, film, photographs, missile components, and models. Associated Property: 00475 Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: 300 Summit Drive Base Map Date: Base Map Building Number: inside 475 Operational Support & Installations: Memorial Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Museum Collection Statement of Significance: Object useful to the interpretation of base history. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 3 3 3 2 4 1 16
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: No Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: Curate and catalog objects. Object Category: Construction Materials of Object: Year of Manufacture: Object Condition: Period of Association: Comments on Condition: Miscellaneous Wood, metal, plastic, cloth unknown In Storage/Benign Neglect Late fifties to early sixties Objects located in Heritage Center, which has not yet been organized, curated, etc...

Property Description: Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: Base Map Building Number: drawing files, two rows of ten feet tall drawer files Base Engineering, Real Prop No. 450 310 Peacekeeper Place inside 450
Operational Support & Installations: Documentation Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Architectural Drawing Files Statement of Significance: Files include drawings of historic properties Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: No Further Work: Stewardship: National Register Listing: Further Documentation: Preservation/Conservation/Repair: Comments on Resource Management: Object Condition: Record/Document Category: Year of Document: Period of Association: Comments on Condition: No Yes No Yes Yes 2 2 3 2 3 2 14
In Storage/Benign Neglect Architectural Drawing various fifties to nineties Documents in storage but threat involves drafting personnel occasional or frequent use of the files

Property Description: Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: Base Map Building Number: SAGE building 475 Base Engineering, Building 450 310 Peacekeeper Place inside 450
Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Documentation Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Architectural Drawing Files Statement of Significance: The files contain drawings of a historically significant building. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: No Further Work: Stewardship: National Register Listing: Further Documentation: Preservation/Conservation/Repair: Comments on Resource Management: Object Condition: Record/Document Category: Year of Document: Period of Association: Comments on Condition: No Yes No Yes Yes 2 2 3 2 4 2 15
In Storage/Benign Neglect Architectural Drawing 1958 fifties to sixties

Property Description: Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: Base Map Building Number: Crew Readiness Facility (Bomber) drawings Crew Readiness Facility Building 1085 Base Engineering, Bldg. 450 310 Peacekeeper Place inside 450
Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Documentation Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Architectural Drawing Files Statement of Significance: Files contain drawings of historically significant Bomber Alert Facility. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: No Further Work: Stewardship: National Register Listing: Further Documentation: Preservation/Conservation/Repair: Comments on Resource Management: Object Condition: Record/Document Category: Year of Document: Period of Association: Comments on Condition: No Yes No Yes Yes 2 2 3 2 4 2 15
In Storage/Benign Neglect Architectural Drawing 1958 fifties to sixties

Property Description: Wing Headquarters, Pride building; formerly SAGE building dedicated to early warning and atack readiness Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: 300 Summit Drive Base Map Date: 5/1/91 Base Map Building Number: 475 Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Communications Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: SAGE Facility Statement of Significance: The Wing Headquarters (PRIDE) building, originally SAGE building was designed for early warning and detection of Soviet attack over the north pole and for that reason has direct Cold War significance. Also contains currently used Command Room, Wing Headquarters. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: 4 Theme Relationship: 4 Temporal Phase Relationship: 3 Level of Importance: 4 Percent Historic Fabric: 3 Severity of Threats: 3 Total Score for Priority Matrix: 21 Comments on Threats: Building will remain intact but ongoing construction and renovation threatens original functions of rooms and the building in general No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: Exceptionally significant and NRHP eligible. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility Eligible 60 225505 Permanent PRIDE building, wing Headquarters SAGE building/1960-1963 Original use involved radar tracking and communication now utilized as office space Primary Building Materials: Poured Concrete Character Defining Features: No windows, command center intact, concrete frame ceiling, Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use: Other Use/Dates: Comments on Use:

Property Description: Originally Fighter alert facility, now maintenance dock Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: 520 Summit Drive Base Map Date: 5/1/91 Base Map Building Number: 718 Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Alert Facilities Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Fighter Alert Facility Statement of Significance: The building served as an interceptor alert facility and for that reason has direct significance to the Cold War Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 4 4 3 4 4 3 22
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: Exceptionally significant, thus NRHP eligible. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility Eligible Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use: Other Use/Dates: Comments on Use: Primary Building Materials:
20536 Permanent Maintenance dock Fighter Alert Hangar / 1958 - 1988 Corrugated asbestos panels

Property Description: Crew Readiness Facility (Bomber), Space utilized as offices at present but building maintains capability to support Alert activities and alert maneuvers continue to be carried out on a quarterly basis Associated Property: 01089, 01080, 01082 Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: 409 Deterrence Base Map Date: 5/1/91 Base Map Building Number: 1085 Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Alert Facilities Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Bomber Alert Facility Statement of Significance: The building served as a bomber alert facility and for that reason has direct significance to the Cold War Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: 4 Theme Relationship: 4 Temporal Phase Relationship: 3 Level of Importance: 4 Percent Historic Fabric: 4 Severity of Threats: 2 Total Score for Priority Matrix: 21 Comments on Threats: At present, alert capabilities are maintaned reducing the risk of major structural changes, if this function ceases, threats may increase No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: Exceptionally significant, thus NRHP eligible. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility Eligible Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use: Other Use/Dates: Comments on Use: Primary Building Materials: Character Defining Features: 15 28506 Permanent Office space (quality dept) and quarterly alerts Bomber alert facility Poured Concrete Access ramps to runway, building massing

Property Description: Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: Base Map Building Number: Tanker Alert facility 01042 1041,1049, 1047, 1046,1043, 1044 104 Alert Ave. 5/1/91 1040
Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Alert Facilities Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Tanker Alert Facility Statement of Significance: The buidings served as alert facilities for tankers that supported heavy bombers and for that reason have direct significance to the Cold War Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 4 4 3 4 4 3 22
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: Exceptionally significant, but questionable integrity. Potential NRHP eligibility. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility Potential Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use: Other Use/Dates: Comments on Use: Primary Building Materials: 20 3750 Permanent Not presently in use Tanker Alert facility Concrete and steel

Property Description: Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: Base Map Building Number: Uniform-1: Minuteman Missile silo training facility.
315 Minuteman Drive 5/1/91 690
Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Missile Training Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Missile Launch Facility Trainer Statement of Significance: Provided training for the Minuteman Missile system, a substantial role of Minot AFB during the Cold War. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 3 3 2 3 4 1 16
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: Exceptionally significant and NRHP eligible. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility Eligible Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use: Other Use/Dates: Comments on Use: Primary Building Materials: Character Defining Features: 0 100 Permanent Training Facility Extends 87 feet below grade. Poured Concrete and Beryllium Missile tube below surface, blast door, antenna, components
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 Minot AFB, and to provide research materials for this study:
2Lt Tamara Schulman Architect 5th Civil Engineering Squadron (701) 723-4837 SSgt Strom Wing Historian 5th Bombardment Wing (701) 723-3501 SrA Chris Prater Drafter 5th Civil Engineering Squadron (701) 723-4830 Sgt Bret Mineart Autocad 5th Civil Engineering Squadron (701) 723-2872 Mr. Dwain Zodrow Civil Engineer 5th Civil Engineering Squadron (701) 723-4866 Ms. Colleen Johnson Real Estate 5th Civil Engineering Squadron (701) 723-4864
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 Minot AFB history and Cold War context.
SSgt Strom, Wing Historian, 5th Bomb Wing, July 6 - 14, 1994
Col Hugh Smith, 5th Bomb Wing Headquarters, July 11, 1994
E-3
The following individuals were identified during the investigations as people with some knowledge of Minot AFB history during the Cold War. They were either unavailable during the field visit or possess much more information than could be documented during this reconnaissance.
Owen Brenden - former Engineering Design Chief, started working at Minot AFB in 1959. John Sinn - Runway Inspector, still works on base with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Eleanor Mignault - retired Missile Wing Commander Secretary, worked in that position for over 30 years. Matt Klein - former Civilian Deputy to the 5th Civil Engineering Squadron beginning in 1966.
Lyle Dagner - Missile Engineer, knowledgeable on missiles in general and the Minuteman system specifically. Morris Isaacson - former Deputy of 5th Civil Engineering Squadron. Bob Vannett - planning. Ray Juhola - reportedly wired most of the SAGE building. John Fahn, Andy Klouse, Al Johnson, John Bohlig - electricians and carpenters at Minot the early 1960s. Tony Frank - retired Chief Master Sergeant at Minot beginning in 1975. Kevin Nelson - current Deputy to the Commander of the 5th Civil Engineering Squadron. Ed Perdue - has been working at Minot AFB since 1961 when he started as a courier. AFB in
VOLUME II-20: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE AT MOODY AIR FORCE BASE
July 1997
Volume II-20: Moody Air Force Base
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Moody Air Force Base and the Grand Bay Weapons Range were inventoried by Patience E. Patterson and David P. Staley between October 3 and 10, 1994 as part of the Air Combat Command Cold War study under the ongoing Department of Defense Legacy Program. Information concerning base Cold War history and associated buildings was gathered on site from the files of the Real Property Office, Drafting Office, Environmental Office, Community Planning Office, Public Affairs Office, and Wing History Office. An initial photographic inventory of Cold War resources on the base and weapons range was also conducted.
Using the inventory and the information gathered on base history, resources were selected for further documentation and evaluation according to their importance to the base Cold War context. No structures or buildings were determined to be significant to the base Cold War history. However, two sets of documents were identified that significantly contribute to knowledge of base Cold War history and development. These two resources include the Documentary Collection kept in the Wing History Office and the Documentary Collection located in the Drafting Section of Civil Engineering. Further documentation in the form of inventory, stewardship, and conservation are recommended for both of these resources.
ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACC ACHP ACS AFB AGE AS ATC CES CRS CTAF DoD EMS FS FTD FW HABS LANTIRN LOX MAC Mariah NATO NCO NHPA NPS NRHP OCONUS POL RAPCON SAC SALT SDI SHPO START TAC TACAN TFS TFW USAF WRSK
Air Combat Command Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Air Control Squadron Air Force Base Air Ground Equipment Airlift Squadron Air Training Command Civil Engineering Squadron Component Repair Squadron Crew Training Air Force Department of Defense Equipment Maintenance Squadron Fighter Squadron Field Training Detachment Fighter Wing Historic American Buildings Survey Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night (system) Liquid Oxygen Military Airlift Command Mariah Associates, Inc. North Atlantic Treaty Organization Noncommissioned Officer National Historic Preservation Act National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Off the Continental United States Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Radar Approach Control Strategic Air Command Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty Strategic Defense Initiative State Historic Preservation Officer Strategic Arms Reduction Talks Tactical Air Command Tactical Air Navigation Station Tactical Fighter Squadron Tactical Fighter Wing United States Air Force War Readiness Spares Kit
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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
iv
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.
3.0 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 13 3.1 BASE HISTORY AND COLD WAR CONTEXT.............................................................. 13 3.2 BASE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................... 17 4.0 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 23 4.1 INVENTORY ........................................................................................................................ 23 4.2 EVALUATION OF IMPORTANT RESOURCES ............................................................. 24 4.2.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 24 4.2.2 Evaluation of Importance ............................................................................................. 24 4.2.2.1 Cold War Context ............................................................................................... 24 4.2.2.2 NRHP Criteria..................................................................................................... 25 4.2.2.3 Exceptional Importance ...................................................................................... 26 4.2.3 Evaluation of Integrity.................................................................................................. 26 4.2.4 Priority Matrix .............................................................................................................. 27 4.2.5 Resource Organization ................................................................................................. 28 4.3 BASE SPECIFIC METHODS .............................................................................................. 28 5.0 RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY RESULTS ..................................................................... 30 6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS......................................................................................................... 31 6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS ........................................................ 31 6.1.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 31 6.1.1.1 Documentary Collection ..................................................................................... 31 6.1.1.2 Documentary Collection ..................................................................................... 33 6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS ......................................................... 33 6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES ..................................................................... 33
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES ......................................................................................................33 6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES ............................................................................................ 33 7.0 UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 34 8.0 FUTURE THREATS TO RESOURCES ................................................................................... 35 9.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 36 9.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY ............................................................................................................ 36 9.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility.................................................... 36 9.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility ................................................................................ 38 9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 40 9.2.1 Documentary Collection .............................................................................................. 40 9.2.2 Documentary Collection .............................................................................................. 42 10.0 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................. 43 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: ADDITIONAL RESOURCES APPENDIX F: EXTANT SOURCES OF INFORMATION
vii
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Bases Selected for the Air Combat Command Cold War Study .............................. 2 Location of Moody Air Force Base ........................................................................... 6 Moody Air Force Base Layout .................................................................................. 7 Standard Tactical Air Command Base Layout .......................................................... 8 Moody Air Force Base Land Use Diagram ............................................................... 11 Standard Tactical Air Command Base Land Use Diagram ...................................... 12 Moody Air Force Base, 1950-1960 ........................................................................... 18 Moody Air Force Base, 1960-1970 ........................................................................... 19 Moody Air Force Base, 1970-1980 ........................................................................... 21 Moody Air Force Base, 1980-1990 ........................................................................... 22
LIST OF TABLES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is a reconnaissance inventory of Cold War related resources on Moody Air Force Base (AFB). Moody AFB, a former Tactical Air Command (TAC) 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.
The host unit on Moody AFB is the 347th Fighter Wing (FW) under ACC and the Ninth Air Force. The overall mission of the 347th FW is to train assigned forces to a high state of readiness for offensive and defensive air tactics and close air support of friendly ground forces. Additionally, the wing must maintain the capability to deploy its assigned forces worldwide in support of the United States and its allies (Moody AFB 1994).
The 347th FW has been designated a composite wing under the ACC and is currently in transition. The composite wing will consist of F-16 Fighting Falcon, A/OA-10 Thunderbolt II, and C-130 Hercules aircraft. At present, the wing has four flying squadrons. The 68th Fighter Squadron (FS), the 69th FS, and the 307th FS each have 18 F-16 aircraft. The 52nd Airlift Squadron (AS) has 10 C-130 aircraft. The 71st Air Control Squadron (ACS) is also a part of the wing.
The 347th FW consists of four groups: operations, logistics, support, and medical. Under the 347th Operations Group each squadron maintains its assigned aircraft. This maintenance includes aircraft servicing, unscheduled maintenance, preflights, flights, basic postflights, and munitions loading. The 347th Logistics Group's mission is to support the war fighters and includes five squadrons: Maintenance, Logistics Support, Supply, Transportation, and Contracting. The 347th Support Group performs operations, maintenance, and security functions necessary to support all of the organizations assigned and attached to Moody AFB. The group includes five squadrons: Security Police, Civil Engineering, Mission Support, Communications, and the Morale, Welfare, Recreations, and Services Squadron. The 347th Medical Group is dedicated to providing quality and comprehensive medical care. There are currently seven tenant units on Moody AFB (Moody AFB 1993:19).
Moody AFB is located in south central Georgia on the northwestern edge of the Okefenokee Swamp, between the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. It is situated within the boundaries of two counties, Lowndes and Lanier, and is 10 mi (16 km) northeast of Valdosta on State Highway 125 (Figure 2.1). Grand Bay Weapons Range is situated on the eastern adjacent property, 3 mi (5 km) from the main base development. Moody AFB and Grand Bay Weapons Range amount to 11,316 acres (4,580 ha).
Moody AFB and Grand Bay Weapons Range lie within the flat Coastal Plain physiographic province and the Outer Coastal Plain Forest, with a mix of beech, sweetgum, magnolia, pine, and oak. The climate is subtropical with mild winters and hot, humid summers (United States Air Force [USAF] 1993a:3-82 - 3-84). The elevation at the control tower on base is 233 ft (71 m) above mean sea level. The base is surrounded by forest and farmlands, with limited urban development occurring between Moody AFB and Valdosta (Moody AFB 1989:4).
The Moody AFB layout (Figure 2.2) is similar to the standard TAC base layout (Figure 2.3). The central feature of Moody AFB, like all bases, is the airfield portion of the base. Both main runways, the north-south runway and the instrument runway, are positioned in a north/south orientation and are 8,000 ft (2,438 m) long and 150 ft (45 m) wide. Both of these runways have been operational since 1955. Prior to this, the base had four 5,000 ft (1,524 m) runways oriented north-south, eastwest, northeast-southwest, and northwest-southeast. The early runways tightly bounded base
buildings and facilities on the south, east, and northeast and continue to shape the current layout. Portions of these older runways can still be seen as breached expanses of concrete. The old northsouth runway was lengthened in 1955 and incorporated into the present north-south runway. The
southern portion of the old east-west runway is now used for mission buildings and personnel parking lots. The northern portion is a maintenance apron for aircraft.
The majority of the base buildings are located between the four old runways and the northeast-southwest oriented State Highway 125. The main gate is located toward the northern end of the base opposite the entrance to the base housing area. A flight apron is centrally located along the old east-west runway, south of the majority of base buildings, and west of relatively recently constructed F-16 mission facilities. Mission and support buildings are also found wrapping around the inside of the area described by the old runways. Weapons storage facilities are separated from the rest of the base and located on the eastern side of the main runways, as are the new facilities associated with the 71st ACS.
Unaccompanied housing, community areas, and headquarters buildings are centrally located at the base. Accompanied or family housing is located northwest of State Highway 125. Commander's housing is located southeast of the highway at the northern end of the base. This is the only single family housing area located on the southern side of the highway. Recreational areas are found interspersed throughout the base. The base golf course lies adjacent to the family housing in the northwestern part of the base. The youth center is also located there.
2.4 BASE LAND USE
The following is a list of standard TAC land use categories: Base Support Facilities - house base support functions and supplies. 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.
10
Recreation - areas used for athletics, camping, and recreational activities. Unaccompanied Housing - accommodations for single personnel, temporary personnel, and visitors. 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.
Figure 2.4 is a diagrammatic land use plan for Moody AFB, and Figure 2.5 is a diagrammatic land use plan of a standard TAC base. Moody AFB is different from the standard TAC base in some ways. Most notable is that Moody AFB's overall plan, which has been dictated by the original four runways, is irregular and extends away from the runways. The standard base plan is rectangular, with an orientation paralleling the main runways. Also, industrial areas are located along the western edge of the base, adjacent to the highway, and on the other side of the runways away from the mission area. The standard plan has the industrial area along a portion of the runway next to the mission area and no developed areas on the other side of the runway.
Despite these differences, Moody AFB follows the standard plan in a majority of ways. In both plans, mission buildings are found along the flight line, and family housing is located farthest away from the flight line. The headquarters, unaccompanied housing, recreation, base support, and community facilities tend to be located near the middle of the base, separating the mission and family housing areas.
Compared to the standard TAC plan and to other USAF bases included in this study, open spaces at Moody AFB are numerous. The abundance of open spaces on the base has contributed to the preservation of World War II buildings.
13
Moody Field was established on June 2, 1941. The City of Valdosta and the Lowndes County Chamber of Commerce, desiring to benefit from the expanding World War II defense program, promoted the Valdosta area for development of an Air Corps training base (Lancaster 1964:2; 1989:50). The proposed Lakeland Flatwoods Project was approximately 9,000 acres of land in Lowndes and Lanier Counties (Department of the Air Force 1972:1). The Army Air Corps secured legal rights to the Flatwoods property in May of 1941 for development of an Army Air Forces pilot school and bombardier school. Construction of the field started on July 28, 1941, when the Georgia and Florida Railway laid a temporary spur track through a corn field to the training field site. On November 25, the first occupants arrived at Moody Field, and on
December 8, the first aircraft arrived. By February 1942, training had begun in earnest at Moody Field (Lancaster 1989:55).
Moody Field was named in honor of Major George Putnam Moody who had been killed in a May 1941 accident while serving on the inspection board for twin-engine training planes to be sent to Valdosta (Lancaster 1989:54). In addition to the twin-engine advanced flying school, Moody Field operated a bomber-navigator-observer school. The original completion report (War
Department 1942) for the field indicates that black air corps troops were housed and fed separately from the white troops. There are no extant records to indicate which buildings or areas of Moody Field were associated specifically with the black servicemen during its World War II history.
The field maintained a personnel strength of approximately 4,000 throughout the war effort (Lancaster 1989:55). However, Moody Field was deactivated in August of 1946, and its
population shrank to caretaker capacity with one officer and 12 civilians overseeing the
14
installation. For five years, Moody Field was a satellite field in inactive status, administered by the 2421st Base Unit at Barksdale Field, Louisiana (Lancaster 1989:55).
In the summer of 1950, North Korea invaded South Korea, and by late autumn, China had aligned itself with the North. In the context of Cold War policy and strategy, President Truman committed the United States to defend South Korea against Communist expansion (Lewis et al. 1995). An increase in American forces and conventional weaponry was seen as necessary, and as a result, Moody Field was reactivated in May 1951 as a pilot training base. It was now a part of the new Air Force, and was subsequently renamed Moody AFB (Lancaster 1989:55).
An acute housing shortage developed with the reactivation of Moody AFB, and only two-thirds of the military people needing housing could be accommodated in Valdosta and surrounding towns (Lancaster 1964:32). Plans were drawn up for construction of a base trailer court, still located today on the northwestern side of the base, just west of State Highway 125, and east of the Sewer Treatment Plant. One hundred eighty permanent personnel were housed in the bachelor officer quarters; 85% of those personnel were married (Lancaster 1964:33). In October of 1953, the Air Force requested that the Public Housing Administration provide housing for black noncommissioned officers (NCOs) assigned to Moody AFB. The explanation for this request was that no defense housing had previously been built in Valdosta for black military personnel (Lancaster 1964:28-31).
In September 1951, four months after the re-opening of the base, Air Training Command (ATC) took control of the base. Moody AFB was one of nine newly created Crew Training Air Force (CTAF) bases. The base's primary mission was to meet the requirements of the Air Force Pilot Instrument School and Instrument Flying School. The mission aircraft were F-89 Scorpions and F94 Starfires, both all-weather interceptor jets. In 1954, the wing was redesignated the 3550th Combat Crew Training Wing. In 1957, the F-86 Sabrejet became the mission aircraft. The Pilot Instrument School continued at the base until early 1958, when it moved to James Connally AFB in Waco, Texas. Moody AFB was still under ATC and was assigned the 3550th Flying Training
15
Wing with the primary mission of training interceptor pilots for all-weather conditions. Two years later, in 1960, the base had a combined pilot training program that included pre-flight, primary, and basic flight training together. Under this configuration, the 3550th Flying Training Wing was redesignated the 3550th Pilot Training Wing. The wing flew both T-33 and T-37 jet aircraft in its training mission. In 1963, the T-38 Talon replaced the T-33 as the final phase pilot training aircraft (USAF 1992a).
On December 1, 1973, the 3550th Pilot Training Wing was redesignated the 38th Flying Training Wing, but there were no changes in personnel, mission, or aircraft (USAF 1992a). Following the end of United States military involvement in Southeast Asia in 1973, ATC began plans for closing Moody AFB. TAC stressed the need for another fighter base in the southeastern United States and convinced the Air Force to transfer the base to TAC. The 347th Tactical Fighter Wing (TFW) relocated from Thailand to Moody AFB, bringing with it the 68th and 70th Tactical Fighter Squadron (TFS). Three months later, the 339th TFS joined the wing. The 347th TFW became the host unit in December 1975 (347th TFW History Office 1993) when the 38th Flying Training Wing was reassigned. The wing continued the training mission in order to retain readiness as a tactical fighter force. In 1980, the wing became a key element of the newly formed Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (later known as the U.S. Central Command). In 1983, the 339th TFS was deactivated, and the 69th TFS was activated in its place, assuming its personnel, aircraft, and equipment. The wing continued its mission through 1987 (347th TFW History Office 1993).
In the Spring of 1987, the 347th TFW began converting from the F-4E Phantom II to the F-16 aircraft. The wing's three flying squadrons, along with base personnel and facilities, completed the conversion in July 1988. The wing's mission tasks were dedicated to Western Europe and the 347th TFW was included in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) contingency plans (347th TFW History Office 1993). At the end of the Cold War period, the 347th TFW began receiving the first F-16C/D Block 40 aircraft. The 347th TFW was the first TAC F-16 wing to operationally employ the Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night (LANTIRN)
16
system, a system that permits improved low level, high speed navigation and targeting during night or under bad weather conditions (347th TFW History Office 1993).
Grand Bay Weapons Range is located adjacent to the main base's eastern boundary and consists of 5,874 acres (2,377 ha) of fee owned land (Moody AFB 1989:34). Construction on the weapons range complex was completed on October 29, 1987. This range allows Moody AFB pilots to gain maximum training from each mission. The complex contains a bombing pit which is a 600 x 700 ft area, a bomb target on a 600 ft diameter mound of sand, four strafing zones, two 50 ft high observation towers to triangulate bomb positions in relation to the targets, support buildings, and two parking lots. The surrounding property is undeveloped wetlands and forest (Moody AFB 1989:35).
The Base Realignment and Closure Commission announced in April 1991 that Moody AFB would be closed. However, community action to save the base resulted in reversal of the decision in July. In October 1991, the word `tactical' was removed from the wing's and its flying squadrons' designations, leaving the 347th FW and the 68th, 69th, and 70th FS. This reflected the blurring of traditional tactical and strategic roles (USAF 1992b).
In June 1992, Moody AFB became a part of ACC. In the following November, the 307th and 308th FS were reassigned from Homestead AFB to the 347th FW due to destruction of the Florida base by Hurricane Andrew. The acquisition of these two squadrons delayed plans for
transformation of the 347th FW into a composite wing. In 1993, the 71st ACS joined the wing from MacDill AFB, Florida. Later that year, the 308th and 70th FS were deactivated, leaving the 68th, 69th, and 307th FS under the 347th FW.
In May 1993, the Air Force officially announced plans to transform the 347th FW into a projected force composite wing at Moody AFB. The plans called for one ACS squadron, two F16 squadrons, one C-130 squadron, and one A/OA-10 squadron. In July 1994, the 52nd AS was assigned to the wing with 10 C-130 aircraft. This left the base with one ACS squadron, three F-
17
16 squadrons, and one C-130 squadron at the end of 1994. To meet the composite wing plans, one F-16 squadron will be deactivated in 1995, and an A/OA-10 squadron with 18 aircraft will arrive at the base mid-1995 (Moody AFB 1994). With this mix of aircraft, the wing is to provide multiple-role close air support for Army battlefield commanders in air and land battlefield scenarios (USAF 1993a:2-1).
Today, after almost 20 years, the 347th FW remains the host unit for the base. Although the configuration of the wing, its mission tasks, and the accompanying nomenclature have changed somewhat, Moody AFB still performs its critical, supporting mission of training pilots and crews to be battle ready and capable of carrying out the USAF mission.
When Moody Field was inactivated in 1946 it had a four-runway design (Figure 3.1), providing north-south, east-west, northeast-southwest, and northwest-southeast runways. There are 31
facilities which were built in 1941 that remain today. Their uses range from maintenance hangars and other maintenance facilities to headquarters buildings and community facilities. They have been upgraded and refurbished as time and necessity have dictated.
The base was reactivated in 1951 during the Korean Conflict and once again had a training mission. Development included family housing, unaccompanied housing, weapons systems
maintenance facilities, Radar Approach Control (RAPCON) facilities, and two runways built in 1955 and 1956, both 150 x 8,000 ft (Figure 3.1). The two runways extend in a north-south direction and are separated by 1,225 ft. At the time, the western runway was considered to be in poor condition, but necessary and essential if mission aircraft were changed (Moody AFB 1959).
In the 1960s, community facilities were upgraded or added (Figure 3.2) including the gymnasium, base theater, swimming pool and bath house, NCO Open Mess, hospital, and Officer's Open
20
Mess. Several units of family housing were built in 1965 and 1966. Other newly constructed facilities were mission-oriented, such as aircraft maintenance shops, aircraft corrosion control, and base warehousing.
The 1970s brought a change in major command. Responsibility for Moody AFB was formally passed from ATC to TAC, bringing with it a new tactical fighter mission and a change-over of mission aircraft. Upgrading personnel and mission facilities for readiness was necessary
(Figure 3.3). Facilities had to be altered or built to accommodate the F-4 and the 347th's mission. One hundred and one family housing units were constructed (Department of the Air Force 1972:7), and several dormitories were built during this time period. Other new community buildings included a Chapel Center, a Bowling Center, a Youth Center, and a golf course and clubhouse. Several facilities in the weapons storage area were built in 1978.
In the 1980s, Moody AFB continued its tactical fighter/training mission under TAC, and construction projects were minor, though considered adequate and appropriate to support the current mission (Figure 3.4). Construction included two airman dormitories, a small aircraft maintenance dock, two-bay and three-bay hangars, a vehicle operations facility, two sound suppressor foundations, flight line supply facilities, a billeting office, a base exchange mall complex, aircraft maintenance units, and the acquisition and construction of the Grand Bay Weapons Range (Moody AFB 1989:56). In 1986, an upgrade project enlarged the munitions storage area. Maintenance shops, a munitions build-up pad, above ground storage magazines, a hot cargo/aircraft uploading pad with taxiway and apron, and a munitions holding area were constructed (Moody AFB 1989:57).
The end of the Cold War era at Moody AFB was witness to the coming of a new composite wing structure within the Air Force. This has meant upgrades and additions to facilities for the support and operation of three types of aircraft.
23
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the reconnaissance inventory of Moody 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
24
As part of the reconnaissance inventory of Moody 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 The
4.2.1 Documentation
The evaluated resources at Moody 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.
25
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 1993b) 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;
26
27
28
Between October 3 and 10, 1994, Mariah field team members Patience E. Patterson and David P. Staley conducted the base inventory at Moody AFB. Upon arrival, an in-briefing meeting with Mr. Robert Makowski, the Cultural/Natural Resources Officer within the 347th Civil Engineering Squadron (CES), Ms. Gloria Luke, Real Property Officer, and Mr. Carlton Crenshaw, Chief Engineer, provided an opportunity to exchange information and advise Moody AFB personnel of the schedule, objectives, and needs for accomplishing the base inventory.
Mr. Makowski and Ms. Luke provided a base tour to familiarize the field team with the base layout and types of facilities present, and to provide a preliminary assessment of which facilities might be significant within the context of this inventory. A tour of the Grand Bay Bombing Range was also provided for the field team.
Ms. Luke provided an orientation of the Real Property Office holdings, and the field team was given a copy of the Real Property Change List, address cross-references, and access to historic planning documents. Information was gathered from the Real Property Office throughout the
29
week. The field team conducted an inventory of the drawing files in the Civil Engineering Office, and electronic and hard copies of base maps were acquired. Copies of base maps from several decades were also gathered by the field team to assist in the assessment of base development and land use. Current mission statements and historical documents were acquired at the 347th Public Affairs Office.
The collections at the History Office of the 347th FW were researched, including a cursory inventory of files, records, and photographic collections. Copies of histories, fact sheets, and other pertinent documents were collected by the field team. At the Base Planner's Office, Mr. Robert Jefferson described the overall plan for the future of the base and provided copies of portions of the Comprehensive Base Plan and other planning documents identifying proposed developments and demolition.
Throughout the base visit, a photographic inventory of base resources associated with the Cold War era was conducted. Using this inventory and the research materials collected at the various offices, resources were selected for further documentation and evaluation.
30
During the reconnaissance inventory of Moody AFB, 137 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.
31
Two resources were evaluated at Moody AFB, both of them falling under the DoD category of records/documents. 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.
6.1.1 Documentation
The collection of the Wing History Office includes wing histories, reports, files, newsclippings, slides, and photographs. A cursory inventory is presented in greater detail in Appendix E. Although not specifically focused on buildings, the collection contains unique materials pertinent to people, events, and developments at the base, and thereby provides a history of the base and its development throughout the Cold War era. Given that the central mission of the base over the years has been the training of fighter pilots, the collection's training unit "yearbooks" are particularly significant. Many of the photographs in the collection would provide for historic, interpretive displays of Moody AFB's training heritage. The collection is generally in good
condition and is well organized. The photographic component of the collection, however, is only loosely organized.
33
This resource, located in the Drafting Office of the 347th CES, is a set of architectural drawings, plans, base maps, and photographs pertaining to construction, maintenance, and modifications to Moody AFB facilities. The architectural drawings and plans are ink on linen, vellum, or mylar and pertain mostly to specific buildings dating from original base construction to the present. Additional base maps pertain to more general base systems or topics such as roads, parking lots, water systems, lighting, and various comprehensive planning graphics. The collection also includes aerial photographs. A cursory inventory of the collection is presented in greater detail in Appendix E. The collection provides a perspective on historical development of the base and is a source of detailed supporting information about particular facilities. These files are in fair condition and well organized. However, the collection is an actively used resource and, as such, is subject to
continuous wear.
None were evaluated at Moody AFB.
34
The purpose of the reconnaissance inventory was to provide initial information on the kinds of Cold War resources extant on Moody 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 Moody AFB. These resources should be investigated further for a more comprehensive analyses.
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 Moody AFB revealed approximately 150 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 Moody AFB should allot time to researching these documents.
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 is presented in Appendix F.
35
The current establishment of aircraft at the base for the newly formed composite wing has initiated the construction of facilities along the northern end of the runway. However, all construction is located in vacant areas and will have no impact on existing buildings.
The overall plan for Moody AFB is for consolidation of mission and support functions into the Global Power Center. These plans call for the demolition of several World War II vintage structures in the center of the base and the construction of larger multipurpose buildings. It is recommended that these World War II structures be fully documented and evaluated for NRHP eligibility prior to any activities that will affect the integrity of the structures.
36
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 Moody 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.
37
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 Moody 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 Moody AFB have not been evaluated, and thus must be considered and treated as eligible until an evaluation and determination of eligibility are made.
38
These
39
40
Recommendations for the evaluated resources at Moody AFB are presented below. Table 9.1 summarizes these recommendations. More than one recommendation may apply to a given
This collection of histories, reports, files, newsclippings, slides, and photographs provides a history of the base and its development throughout the Cold War era. The collection is in good condition, but some parts are only loosely organized. It is recommended that the collection be inventoried and copied. It is further recommended that the base retain the copies for its use, with the originals sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
42
This collection of maps, pans, and photographs provides information on the development of the base throughout the Cold War era. The collection is in fair condition and well organized; however, the collection is actively used and subject to continuous wear. This has had an adverse effect on the drawings, especially the older, more fragile ones. It is recommended that the collection be
inventoried and copied. It is further recommended that the base retain the copies for its use and that the originals be sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
43
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. Department of the Air Force 1972 Executive Order 11508 Installation Survey Report, Moody Air Force Base, Valdosta, Georgia. Moody Air Force Base, Georgia. Department of Defense 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. Lancaster, J. E. 1964 Moody Field: Its Establishment and Its Effects Upon the Valdosta, Georgia Area. Paper in partial fulfillment of a History Honors Course, Valdosta State College, Georgia. 1989 "Establishment of Moody Field, 1940-1941." The Piney Woods Journal of History, Volume 1:49-66. Lowndes County Historical Society, Georgia. 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. Moody Air Force Base 1959 Study of Facilities and Construction Programs. Moody Air Force Base, Valdosta, Georgia. 1989 Executive Order 12512 Property Survey Report on Moody Air Force Base, Valdosta, Georgia. Real Property Office, 347th Civil Engineering Squadron, Moody Air Force Base, Georgia. 1993 Moody Air Force Base, Installation of Excellence. Publishing, Inc., San Diego. Installation Guide. MARCOA
44
1994 Mission Statements. 347th Public Affairs Division. Moody Air Force Base, Georgia. 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. 347th Tactical Fighter Wing History Office 1993 347th FW History. 347th Fighter Wing, Moody Air Force Base, Georgia. United States Air Force 1992a Fact Sheet. "Moody Air Force Base, Georgia." 347th Fighter Wing, Public Affairs Division, Moody Air Force Base, Georgia. 1992b Fact Sheet. "347th Fighter Wing." 347th Fighter Wing, Public Affairs Division, Moody Air Force Base, Georgia. 1993a Beddown of a Composite Wing at Moody AFB, GA. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia. 1993b 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. War Department 1942 Completion Report Jobs A42-1 & A2, Moody Field, Valdosta, Georgia. War Department, Office of the Area Engineer, Moody Field, Valdosta, Georgia.
APPENDIX E: ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
E-1
INVENTORY OF DOCUMENTARY COLLECTION (RESOURCE NO. 19136, LOCATED IN REAL PROPERTY NO. 743)
File Cabinets: 347th Wing Histories 1975-1988 (Unclassified): 1 File Cabinet 347th Wing Histories (Classified): 2 File Cabinets Active Files: 1 File Cabinet Drawers No. 1 and No. 2 (Top) Administrative Files Historical Research and References Drawer No. 3 Photo Archives Photos of aircraft, people and activities dating from 1940-1990s. Slide collection of various facilities, recent vintage. 4 x 5 negatives of construction, awards, aircraft, celebrity visits, ceremonies, open houses, crash sites. Slide collection of activities, awards, personnel, aircraft, exercises etc. dating to 1970s to 1990s. Drawer No. 4 Photo collection of 1960s awards and personnel. 70th FS T-shirt Training Wing Flags 3550th PTW Histories 1970-1993 1981 Appearance Review photo journal Drawer No. 5 Service Club scrapbooks ca. 1959 3550th PTW Histories 1970-1993 1981 Appearance Review photo journal
E-2
Assorted Data: 1 File Cabinet Drawer No. 1 (Top) Seven scrap books dating 1958-1959, 1960-1961, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1980, and 1987 containing photos and newsclippings of people, places, activities, and awards. Two manila envelopes dated 1962 and 1972-1975 containing photos and newsclippings of base activities. Six aerial photographs of the base dating to 1966 from various angles and perspectives. Drawer No. 2 Aerial Photographs dating to ca. 1955, 1969, 1970, 1972, 1975 1940s copies of base layout map Drawer No. 3 38th TFW History 1973-1975 3550th PTW Histories 1970-1993 1981 Appearance Review photo journal Drawer No. 5 Service Club scrapbooks ca. 1959 3550th PTW Histories 1970-1993 1981 Appearance Review photo journal
Assorted Holdings on Shelves: Training group yearbooks 1958-1971 Set of USAF publications on base history Declassified wing histories and "FOUO" documents
E-3
INVENTORY OF DOCUMENTARY COLLECTION (RESOURCE NO. 19137, LOCATED IN REAL PROPERTY NO. 918)
184 Flat File Drawers: 97 files regarding individual buildings labelled by real property number, includes plans and modifications to real properties. 40 files of general themes (i.e. base parking, railroads, roads, lighting, aprons and taxiways, etc.), contains plans and as-built drawings spanning 1940s-1990s on mylar, vellum, and sailcloth. 25 project files labelled according to individual planners or draftspersons. 12 files associated with current design projects. 7 Master Plan drawing files. 1 Old Master Plan drawing file. 1 miscellaneous file including mylar, paper, and cloth drawings dating to 1941. 1 file labelled Old Archives Dead File which contains 1940s vintage maps and plans of buildings. Aerial photographs: a selection of 1950s and 1960s black-and-white base photographs and several infrared aerial photographs.
F-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 Moody AFB and provide research materials for this study:
Mr. Robert Makowski Natural and Cultural Resource Manager 347th CES 3485 Georgia Street Moody AFB, Georgia 31699 (912) 333-3612 Ms. Gloria Luke Real Property Officer 347th CES 3485 Georgia Street Moody AFB, Georgia 31699 (912) 333-3612 Mr. Carlton Crenshaw Chief of Engineers 347th CES 3485 Georgia Street Moody AFB, Georgia 31699 (912) 333-3612 Sgt Tamara Cabutu CE Drafting Office 347th CES 3485 Georgia Street Moody AFB, Georgia 31699 (912) 333-3612 Mr. Robert Jefferson Community Planner 347th CES 3485 Georgia Street Moody AFB, Georgia 31699 (912) 333-3612
F-2
TSgt M. Tidwell 347th Wing Historian 7248 Robbins Road Moody AFB, Georgia 31699 (912) 333-4143
VOLUME II-21: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE AT MOUNTAIN HOME AIR FORCE BASE
Prepared by James A. Lowe Lori E. Rhodes Katherine J. Roxlau
July 1997
Volume II-21: Mountain Home Air Force Base
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Mariah Associates, Inc. conducted a cultural resource inventory at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, between August 26 and 31, 1994 to ascertain extant Cold War resources important to the base, its history, and its Cold War mission. The inventory was conducted as part of the Air Combat Command Cold War Study, under the ongoing Department of Defense Legacy Program. Environmental scientists James Lowe and Lori Rhodes were welcomed by Robert Dews, the point of contact from the Environmental Office. Following a discussion concerning objectives and needs for completing the base inventory, the Mariah team was given an orientation tour of the base by Brandon Smith of the Environmental Office. A variety of repositories were
inventoried at Mountain Home Air Force Base: the Wing History Office, the Public Affairs Office, the Civil Engineering Office and the Drafting Department, the Real Estate Office, and the Environmental Office. A photographic reconnaissance of the base was conducted to inventory Cold War resources as well as representative architecture on the base.
The Mariah team selected two buildings to further document and evaluate: the Bomber Alert Facility and the Over the Horizon Backscatter Facility. These facilities represent United States Air Force alert posture and deterrence capability during the Cold War era at Mountain Home Air Force Base. The Wing Historian's Office Files, Public Affair's Base Newspaper Collection, and Civil Engineering's Documentary Collection were also evaluated for their illustration of base development throughout the Cold War.
Recommendations for the Base Newspaper Collection and Documentary Collection include stewardship, further documentation, and conservation. Stewardship alone is recommended for the Office Files. The Bomber Alert Facility is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places, with stewardship and further documentation the recommended actions. The Over the Horizon Backscatter Facility is also recommended as eligible for NRHP listing; stewardship and further documentation are recommended.
ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACC ACHP AFB AGE ARC AREFS BMG BMW BS CRS DoD ECRS ECS EMS FTD HABS ICBM LOX MAC Mariah MATS NCO NHPA NPS NRHP ORI OTH-B POL SAC SALT SAW SDI SHPO SMS START TAC TACAN TFS TFTS TFW TRW
Air Combat Command Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Air Force Base Air Ground Equipment Air Resupply and Communications Air Refueling Squadron Bombardment Group Bombardment Wing Bomb Squadron Component Repair Squadron Department of Defense Electronic Combat Range Squadron Electronic Combat Squadron Equipment Maintenance Squadron Field Training Detachment Historic American Buildings Survey Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Liquid Oxygen Military Airlift Command Mariah Associates, Inc. Military Air Transport Service Noncommissioned Officer National Historic Preservation Act National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Operation Readiness Inspection Over the Horizon Backscatter Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Strategic Air Command Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty Strategic Aerospace Wing Strategic Defense Initiative State Historic Preservation Officer Strategic Missile Squadron Strategic Arms Reduction Talks Tactical Air Command Tactical Air Navigation Station Tactical Fighter Squadron Tactical Fighter Training Squadron Tactical Fighter Wing Tactical Reconnaissance Wing
iii
USAF - United States Air Force WRSK - War Readiness Spares Kit
iv
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. 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 longrange 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. 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.
Over the Horizon Backscatter - one of two principal radar techniques for locating and identifying airborne objects. Unlike the limited line-of-sight radar, which is restricted by the curvature of the earth, OTH-B radar has a comparatively long range and can detect objects flying beyond the horizon. OTH-B radar is used for a variety of purposes, including detection of enemy attack and missile test flights. 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.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ................................................................................................... i
LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................ ii GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................ iv 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 9
5.0 RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY RESULTS ................................................................ 31 6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS ................................................................................................... 6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS .................................................... 6.1.1 Documentation ...................................................................................................... 6.1.1.1 Office Files .................................................................................................... 6.1.1.2 Base Newspaper Collection........................................................................... 6.1.1.3 Documentary Collection................................................................................ 6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS .................................................... 32 32 32 32 34 34 34
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.2.1 Alert Facilities ........................................................................................................ 6.2.1.1 Bomber Alert Facility.................................................................................... 6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES ................................................................ 6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES ................................................................................................ 6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES....................................................................................... 6.5.1 Radar ...................................................................................................................... 6.5.1.1 OTH-B Facility.............................................................................................. 34 34 35 36 36 36 36
7.0 UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 38 8.0 FUTURE THREATS TO RESOURCES .............................................................................. 40 9.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 9.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY ...................................................................................................... 9.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility............................................... 9.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility ........................................................................... 9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 9.2.1 Office Files ............................................................................................................. 9.2.2 Base Newspaper Collection.................................................................................... 9.2.3 Documentary Collection......................................................................................... 9.2.4 Bomber Alert Facility............................................................................................. 9.2.5 OTH-B Facility....................................................................................................... 41 41 41 43 45 45 47 47 47 48
viii
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Bases Selected for the Air Combat Command Cold War Study .......................... 2 Location of Mountain Home Air Force Base ....................................................... 5 Mountain Home Air Force Base Layout .............................................................. 7 Standard Tactical Air Command Base Layout ..................................................... 8 Mountain Home Air Force Base Land Use Diagram ........................................... 11 Standard Tactical Air Command Base Land Use Diagram .................................. 12 Mountain Home Air Force Base, 1943-1950 ....................................................... 18 Mountain Home Air Force Base, 1950-1960 ....................................................... 20 Mountain Home Air Force Base, 1960-1980 ....................................................... 22 Mountain Home Air Force Base, 1980-1990 ....................................................... 23
LIST OF TABLES
Table 6.1
Table 6.2 Table 9.1
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
This report is a reconnaissance inventory of Cold War related resources on Mountain Home Air Force Base (AFB). Mountain Home AFB, a former Tactical Air Command (TAC) 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.
The host unit at Mountain Home AFB is the 366th Wing. Known as the 366th Tactical Fighter Wing (TFW) prior to the creation of ACC, its current mission is "to develop, maintain, and train combat air crews for worldwide mobility by using a composite wing concept of coordinated weaponry" (Oak Ridge National Laboratory 1994:8). Squadrons that make up this composite wing include the 22nd Air Refueling Squadron (AREFS) with KC-135 Stratotankers, the 389th Tactical Fighter Training Squadron (TFTS), the 390th Electronic Combat Squadron (ECS), the 391st Tactical Fighter Squadron (TFS) using F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft, and the 34th Bomb Squadron (BS) utilizing the B-1B Lancer bomber (Wing History Office 1994:20-21).
Mountain Home AFB consists of approximately 6,700 acres (2,711 ha) located 50 mi (80 km) south of Boise and 10 mi (16 km) west of Mountain Home in Elmore County, Idaho (Figure 2.1). The base is situated on the Mountain Home Plateau at an average elevation of 3,000 ft (914 m) above mean sea level. The Snake River, approximately 2 mi (3 km) south of the base, borders the plateau on its southern and southwestern boundary; a series of intermittent streams are found on the plateau that drain to this river. The plateau is bordered on the north and east by a small mountain range known as the Bennett Hills. The region around the base is a rolling upland plain consisting of wind blown sediments utilized for cattle grazing and limited agriculture. Overall, the area is representative of a high, northern desert environment with flora and fauna characteristic of the Sonoran Desert life zone (Oak Ridge National Laboratory 1994:7-8; Real Estate Office 1988:2; Woodward-Clyde 1992:2-1;
Mountain Home AFB (Figure 2.2) resembles the standard TAC base layout (Figure 2.3) with few exceptions. The 13,500 ft main instrument runway, associated taxiways, and parking aprons are oriented northwest/southeast, bisecting the base into two sections - one northeast of the runway, the other southwest. Virtually all buildings and facilities are located northeast of the runway.
The main gate and visitor center are located on the northern perimeter of the main base, northwest of the hospital. Family housing units, airmen's dormitories, and officer's housing are all located in the northeastern quadrant of the base, north of the runway and south of the main gate and hospital. The base elementary school is centrally located within the housing area.
The mission oriented buildings are located northeast of the runway and adjacent to the taxiways and parking aprons for the full length of the flight line. Wing Headquarters and the base command post are centrally located between the flight line and the housing area. The firefighting training area is located at the southeastern end of the mission area and northwest of the alert apron.
A mixture of community and industrial buildings and facilities is centrally located north of the mission buildings. Recreational facilities and the base chapel are also located within this area. The base golf course is situated on the eastern side of the base, south of the housing area and north of the alert apron. The weapons storage area is located on the extreme northern side of the base, near the northeastern end of the parking apron.
The sewage treatment facility and lagoons are found near the northern end of the section of the base southwest of the runway. The landfill area is in the extreme southwestern corner of the base, south of the sewage treatment facility. A training area is also located in the southwestern section of the base, south of the control tower and along the extreme southern perimeter of the base.
Deviations from the standard TAC layout include the locations of the engine test stands and the flight control tower. The two engine test stands are located on opposite ends of the runway adjacent to the parking apron and mission buildings. In the standard TAC layout, they are found away from the runways and the developed part of the base. The flight control tower is located on the undeveloped side of the main runway at Mountain Home AFB; on the standard diagram it is located among the mission buildings. Finally, because this base was previously under Strategic Air Command (SAC), it has an alert facility and apron, located in the southeastern corner of the base on the extreme southeastern end of the runway, and a command post and weapons storage area. The standard TAC diagram does not show these facilities.
2.4 BASE LAND USE
The following is a list of standard TAC land use categories: Base Support Facilities - house base support functions and supplies. 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. 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
10
Mountain Home AFB (Figure 2.4) is similar to the standard TAC land use diagram (Figure 2.5) with few exceptions. The 13,500 ft main instrument runway bisects the base into two sections: one northeast of the runway, the other southwest. Virtually all buildings and facilities are located northeast of the runway.
Family housing units and officer's housing are located in the northeastern corner of the base, farthest from the runway, and next to a recreation area. The mission oriented buildings (hangars and base operations) are located north of the runway adjacent to the taxiways and parking aprons for the length of the flight line. The area between the mission and family housing areas is occupied with unaccompanied housing, base support, community, and recreation developments. Industrial areas are located to one end of the main base development.
Differences between this base and the standard TAC base diagram include the location of the flight control tower on the side of the runway opposite the mission buildings. The location of training and industrial areas on the southwestern portion of the base also differs from the standard diagram, which shows no facilities on the side of the runway opposite main base development.
Because of Mountain Home AFB's earlier history as a SAC base, it has some land use areas not shown on the standard TAC diagram. These areas include an alert facility, command post, and weapon and warhead storage area.
13
During the early years of World War II, the Army needed bases to train aircrews for combat. This necessity was the catalyst for the evaluation and construction of what would become Mountain Home AFB. A site near Jerome, Idaho was considered first. However, the cost of construction on land already partially developed proved to be too high, and the site could not be built as quickly as on undeveloped land. The present site of Mountain Home AFB was
undeveloped at the time and the terrain was relatively flat, factors that would greatly reduced the cost and the time required to construct an operational base (Blue 1988:1; Public Affairs Office 1982:1; Wing History Office 1994:1). Public land at the site was temporarily withdrawn for construction in April 1943, and a permanent withdrawal was effected by Public Land Order 987 in 1954 (Real Estate Office 1988:17).
Construction of Mountain Home Army Air Base commenced November 30, 1942 with plans for three operational runways on land totaling 5,760 acres. Initial base construction was completed by the Army Corps of Engineers and the firm of J.A. Tertling and Sons of Boise, Idaho on August 21, 1943. The base was officially opened on August 7, 1943 and renamed Mountain Home Army Air Field on December 2, 1943 (Mueller 1989:427,430; Wing History Office 1994:1-2).
Throughout World War II, the mission at the new base was to train air groups and individual crews for combat. The 470th Bombardment Group (BMG) was activated at the base in May 1943 to train flight crews for the B-24 bomber and to deploy them for combat. However, the 470th BMG instead remained at the base to train other units for combat and assumed base host responsibilities. Host responsibility for operations at the base were transferred to the 20th Base Headquarters and Air Base Squadron in November 1943, and the 20th continued the training of aircrews for combat readiness. Responsibility for the base changed hands in April 1944, when
14
the 213th Army Air Forces Base Unit replaced the 20th. Until August 1945 and the end of the war, the base continued to train aircrews as aircraft technology replaced the B-24 with the shortlived B-32, followed by the B-29 Superfortress. After the end of the war, training at the base was discontinued, the base was temporarily deactivated October 5, 1945, and its status reverted to that of a sub-base of Gowen Field in Boise, Idaho (Mueller 1989:431; Public Affairs Office 1982:3-5; Wing History Office 1994:2-4).
Following the creation of an independent Air Force in 1947, the name of the base was changed to Mountain Home AFB, though the base remained on inactive status (Mueller 1989:427,431; Wing History Office 1994:4). SAC assumed control of the base in December 1948, activating the base under the 311th Air Division, Reconnaissance; host responsibilities passed at this time to the 4205th Air Base Group. The base was again deactivated eight months later in August 1949.
The base was finally reactivated on a permanent basis February 1, 1951, when control of the base passed from SAC to the Military Air Transport Service (MATS). Base host responsibilities for the base were assigned to the 1701st Air Transport Wing. Three separate air resupply and communications wings (ARC) trained at Mountain Home AFB for deployment overseas during the next three years, which spanned United States involvement in the Korean conflict (Mueller 1989:431; Real Estate Office 1988:14; Wing History Office 1994:4-5). These wings "trained in psychological warfare, covert operations, and other forms of unconventional warfare" (Wing History Office 1994:5).
SAC assumed control of the base once again on May 1, 1953, and the ARC wings departed from the base. The arrival of SAC was the beginning of a long period of stability at Mountain Home AFB. Operating the B-29 bomber and KB-29 refueling aircraft, the 9th Bombardment Wing (BMW) was assigned host responsibilities at Mountain Home AFB. In September 1954, the 9th BMW began the transition to the B-47 Stratojet bomber and the KC-97 tanker. The deterrence capability of the 9th BMW was augmented in the early 1960s with the construction of three
15
Titan I intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) sites in the area. When completed, the sites were controlled by the 569th Strategic Missile Squadron (SMS) assigned to the 9th BMW. In preparation for the addition of missiles to its bomber force, the 9th BMW was redesignated the 9th Strategic Aerospace Wing (SAW) in April 1962. Its routine was altered briefly in 1962, when the wing temporarily dispersed its aircraft to other bases around the United States during the Cuban Missile Crisis (Blue 1988:1; Mueller 1989:430; Public Affairs Office 1982:8; Wing History Office 1994:5).
The 9th SAW sustained its Cold War mission of deterrence until the mid-1960s. The missile sites were deactivated in June 1965 (Mueller 1989:430-431; Wing History Office 1994:5). During this same time frame, the United States Air Force (USAF) was retiring the aging B-47. The 9th SAW was reassigned to Beale AFB, California, to function as a reconnaissance wing. As part of the planned B-47 phaseout, control of the base was assumed by TAC on January 1, 1966, with host responsibilities going to the 67th Tactical Reconnaissance Wing (TRW). The 9th SAW remained until June 1966 to retire its tankers and bombers before relocating to Beale AFB (Mueller 1989:431; Public Affairs Office 1982:8; Wing History Office 1994:5-6).
Host responsibilities changed hands twice between 1966 and 1972. The 67th TRW conducted reconnaissance operations in RF-4C Phantom aircraft and trained replacement crews for overseas assignments. The unit became responsible for the training of tactical fighters with the June 1968 addition of a squadron of F-4D aircraft. The F-4D force and the 67th TRW were reassigned to Bergstrom AFB in May 1971, and the 347th TFW, utilizing the F-111 aircraft, was assigned to the base and became the host unit. The 347th TFW consisted of two squadrons, the 389th and the 391st TFS. The following year, the 347th was inactivated, but all personnel and equipment remained at Mountain Home AFB. Stationed at an air base in Takhli, Thailand, the 366th TFW returned to the United States from duty in Southeast Asia in October 1972 with the 390th TFS and absorbed the equipment, assets, and host responsibilities of the 347th. The day to day
16
operations at the base remained unchanged during this reorganization (Real Estate Office 1988:15; Wing History Office 1994:6,18; 1972:1,23).
Upon its arrival at Mountain Home AFB, the mission of the 366th TFW was to "execute tactical fighter missions to destroy enemy military forces, supplies, equipment, communications, systems and installations, with nuclear or conventional weapons and engage and destroy enemy aircraft in either an offensive or defensive role by visual interception, airborne radar, or air control and warning systems" (Wilson 1982; Wing History Office 1972:24).
The 388th ECS was activated in 1981 to fly the EF-111A, a modified version of the F-111. The mission of this squadron was to support United States military operations by providing electronic countermeasures to protect strike forces from enemy radar detection. The supply of F-111 sent out for conversion was taken from the other squadrons of the 366th TFW. This resulted in the deactivation of the 390th TFS in 1982 due to a shortage of tactical aircraft in the wing. Shortly afterward, the 388th ECS was deactivated and the 390th was reactivated in its place, assuming the ECS mission (Blue 1988). The mission of the 366th TFW remained the same during this decade, but was augmented to provide training for these F-111 and EF-111 aircrews (Wilson 1982:1). This was done by designating the 389th squadron as a TFTS.
In the late 1980s, a tenant organization, Detachment 1 of the Northwest Air Defense Sector, occupied a new building constructed on base to house the Over the Horizon Backscatter (OTHB) radar facility. This facility was utilized within the sector's air defense network to locate, identify, and provide warning of aircraft or missiles approaching United States airspace (Real Estate Office 1988:149).
Operations at the base continued unchanged throughout the late 1980s. The mission of the 366th TFW, with the 389th TFTS, 390th ECS, and the 391st TFS, remained the same: to maintain its peacetime role of training aircrews and, if necessary, to fulfill its combat mission if called upon in a crisis situation (Blue 1989:6; Wing History Office 1994:7). The 389th TFS, now converted
17
to a TFTS, conducted its sole function of aircrew training. In 1985, the 392nd Electronic Combat Range Squadron (ECRS) was assigned to the base to provide electronic threat simulation support to Mountain Home AFB and to other bases and ranges, including those overseas (Real Estate Office 1988:143-144; Wing History Office 1994:113). In 1991, the base was chosen to become the home of the USAF's air intervention composite wing. Mountain Home AFB began receiving F-15 and F-16 aircraft. In 1992, the 22nd AREFS, with the KC-135 tankers, and the 34th BS, from Ellsworth AFB, were added, rounding out the composite wing with the B-52G. Also during this year, the base was assumed under command of ACC, and the 366th TFW became the 366th Wing. In February 1994, the B-1B was added to the wing's arsenal, replacing the B-52G (Wing History Office 1994:8).
Important to the mission of the 366th Wing are the bombing exercises conducted by aircraft from Mountain Home AFB at Saylor Creek Gunnery Range located 20 mi southeast of the base in Owyhee County, Idaho. Established in 1944 by the Army Corps of Engineers, the range became part of Mountain Home's property inventory in 1954 by Public Land Order No. 1027 (Public Affairs Office 1982:2; Real Estate Office 1988:3,18,143). Saylor Creek encompasses
approximately 110,000 acres of land. Approximately 97,000 acres are leased for grazing, with the remaining 13,000 acres utilized exclusively by the USAF for exercises that include "air-to-ground weapons deliveries and tactical reconnaissance procedures" (Real Estate Office 1988:3,143).
The Army needed bases to train aircrews for combat during the early years of World War II. Construction of the initial base at Mountain Home began November 30, 1942 and ended in August 1943. Completed facilities included three runways with taxiways and aprons, support facilities, maintenance hangars, an engineering building, a headquarters building, and administration facilities (Figure 3.1). In the late 1940s, classroom buildings, a theater, a dining hall, barracks, a hospital, warehouses, power and water plants, and fuel storage facilities were
19
constructed (Public Affairs Office 1982:2; Wing History Office 1994:1).
During the brief
occupation of the base by SAC, buildings and flight control and communications facilities were readied for strategic reconnaissance operations in 1949.
The activation of MATS in February 1951 precipitated further construction in 1951 and 1952 to renovate the base. During this time, a warehouse, fire station, fuel storage tank, and 400-unit family housing project were completed (Figure 3.2). SAC returned to the base in 1953, and, during the same year, runways, utilities, and various buildings for B-29 operations were completed (Mueller 1989:430; Public Affairs Office 1982:6,8). Following SAC's return to
Mountain Home AFB, construction and expansion proceeded during the decade. The 10,000 ft northwest-southeast runway was extended 2,000 ft to accommodate the B-47 in December 1954. In April 1954, nine permanent airmen's barracks were completed. Available family housing units on base were increased with the construction of a 500-unit Wherry housing project during 1954-1955, and a 270-unit Capehart project completed in 1959. A new base hospital was completed in 1958 to care for the increased base population.
Further improvements and new construction occurred between the mid-1950s and 1960 (Figure 3.2). New facilities included shops for aircraft maintenance, armament, and electronics, a parachute building, a cold storage plant, field lighting, and storage facilities for fuel and ammunition. The SAC alert apron and facility were completed in 1960.
Progress in missile development led to further construction at Mountain Home AFB during the early 1960s. Three Titan I missile complexes were built in the vicinity of the base, each capable of launching three Titan I ICBM missiles. The complexes were completed and activated by April 1962; but after a short period of standing alert, these complexes were deactivated in June 1965 and the property sold to private landowners.
In preparation for the arrival of TAC, construction and renovation of facilities for RF-4C operations were completed between 1964 and 1965. The base golf course dates between the late
21
1950s and early 1960s (Figures 3.2 and 3.3). Prior to the arrival of the 366th TFW, a 226-unit family housing project was finished in December 1971 (Figure 3.3). Further construction
included two F-111 flight simulators commissioned in 1974 and 1977. An enlisted men's dormitory for 194 men, and a noncommissioned officer (NCO) club were completed in 1978.
New construction and renovation projects continued during the 1980s to meet the needs of the base and provide the best working and living conditions for base personnel. A new hospital and Wing Headquarters building were completed in 1989 (Figure 3.4). One of the most important buildings constructed during the late 1980s was the OTH-B radar facility completed in 1988. This building was used through the end of the Cold War in conjunction with operations conducted by the Northwest Air Defense Sector.
24
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the reconnaissance inventory of Mountain Home 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 department of Defense (DoD) Legacy Program outlines three general catagories 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).
25
As part of the reconnaissance inventory of Mountain Home 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 The
4.2.1 Documentation
The evaluated resources at Mountain Home 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.
26
27
d) have yielded or be likely to yield information of importance to United States Cold War history. 4.2.2.3 Exceptional Importance
28
29
Upon arrival at Mountain Home AFB, the Mariah field team met with Robert Dews, the Natural/Cultural Resource Coordinator at the base. An orientation tour of the base followed a discussion outlining the team's needs and objectives. The team began their research on base with photography to inventory Cold War properties and representative architecture on base. This included photographs in secured areas along the flight line with an escort from the Public Affairs Office.
The Wing History Office supplied Wing histories that augmented base historical information provided by the Public Affairs Office. These histories were examined to identify the mission at Mountain Home AFB and to link the base to significant events that occurred during the Cold War era as discussed in the historic context written for the study (Lewis et al. 1995). The drawing files in the Drafting Department of the Civil Engineering Office were inventoried and decade maps were selected to reference base development. The Drafting Department also
supplied the Mariah team with base layout maps on computer discs, as well as current hard copies of base maps. Property cards from the Real Estate Office provided information pertinent
30
to the resources chosen to be further documented and evaluated for their Cold War significance. The Environmental Office provided reports that were helpful in establishing the geographic nature of the base. Finally, informal interviews were conducted with two members of the environmental staff and a NCO from the intelligence and planning building.
31
During the reconnaissance inventory of Mountain Home AFB, 135 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.
32
Five resources were evaluated at Mountain Home AFB, two of them falling under the DoD category of real property and three under records/documents. 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 either of the evaluated buildings could not be secured. In these instances,
documentation describing any changes to the buildings was consulted to provide insight into the integrity of the buildings' interiors.
6.1.1 Documentation
This collection is located in the Wing Historian's Office at Wing Headquarters. It consists of microfilm copies of wing histories from 1953-1987 and hard copies from 1988-1992. These histories provide valuable information and insight into the activities of the 366th TFW from 1953-1992, and about the individual bases where it was assigned. Specifically, the histories from 1972-1992 provide information regarding the development of Mountain Home AFB during the Cold War era and the role of the wing in major Cold War events.
These histories are stored in a secured area in the Wing History Office, so the threat to this resource is low. They are also on file at the USAF Historical Research Center at Maxwell AFB, Alabama.
34
6.1.1.2 Base Newspaper Collection (Resource No. 15134, Located in Real Property No. 512)
This collection is located in the Public Affairs Office at Wing Headquarters. It is a complete collection of the base newspaper for the time period 1966-1992, and includes one copy of a 1943 edition. The collection provides substantial information concerning activities and development at Mountain Home AFB during the Cold War era. This collection is currently stored in file cabinets and is deteriorating due to improper curation. The newspapers are yellowed, brittle, and, in some cases, torn.
This documentary collection is located in a vault in the Civil Engineering Office and includes architectural drawings and photographs. The drawings represent most buildings extant on base, as well as utilities, landscapes, runways, Saylor Creek Bombing Range, and base master plans. Drawings are extant dating back to 1943 and span all four phases of the Cold War era. Included in the collection are mylar, linen, sepia, vellum, and blueprint drawings. The photograph
collection includes aerial photographs and large-format black and white photographs. This documentary collection is significant for its illustration of base development throughout the Cold War era.
The Bomber Alert Facility, built in 1960, is a permanent, 32,997 square foot building, constructed primarily of reinforced concrete. Located at the extreme southeastern end of the runway between the taxiway and the alert apron, the two story building is characterized by
35
ramped entrances found on all four sides of its exterior and a sloped earthen berm extending up the four sides of the building to cover its first story. This facility was constructed for SAC alert crews of the 9th BMW stationed at Mountain Home AFB. It was designed to house crews standing alert duty and to facilitate rapid egress from the building to aircraft parked on the adjacent alert apron during an emergency situation or Operational Readiness Inspection (ORI). Since TAC assumed command at Mountain Home AFB in 1966, this facility has been utilized as TAC Squadron Operations, Headquarters Air Base Group, and as a NCO Professional Military Education Center. This facility is no longer in continuous use; however, it is used periodically for temporary duty air crews stationed at Mountain Home AFB.
The exterior integrity of the alert building is intact, with berms and tunnels. As access was not secured to the building, interior integrity was not visually assessed. During the past 28 years of use as an operations building, a headquarters, and an education center, major renovations may have occurred. Therefore, interior integrity is questionable.
This facility is exceptionally important to Mountain Home AFB's Cold War mission and history, and to Cold War history at the national level. It 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 the Killian Report, meeting the needs of deterrence through a survivable force and the dispersion of bombers across the country (Lewis et al. 1995). This facility was used for this purpose during Phases II and III of the Cold War and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
None were evaluated at Mountain Home AFB.
36
None were evaluated at Mountain Home AFB.
6.5.1 Radar
6.5.1.1 OTH-B Facility (Resource No. 15059, Real Property No. 2215)
This radar facility, built in 1988, is a permanent, 55,455 square foot building, constructed primarily of concrete masonry materials. Centrally located approximately four blocks northeast of the flight line, the facility is a large, three story, rectangular shaped building, characterized by a tall, barbed wire fence at the entrance and two dish-antennas located near the northwestern end of the building. This facility was utilized at the end of the Cold War era as a state of the art radar and communications center linked to the Northwest Air Defense Sector. The building is
currently used for the Operations, Plans, and Intelligence offices of the 366th Wing.
The exterior integrity of the building remains intact. Access to the building was not secured, thus visual assessment of interior integrity was not possible. Based on the real property card, the building has undergone some minor interior modifications to accommodate the three wing offices. However, the OTH-B equipment and computers are still intact within the building (personal communication, Ronald Stonebreaker, December 15, 1994). This is due to a USAF decision that while the radar system is shut down, the equipment and building will remain intact should it be necessary to have the system go back on-line on short notice. Therefore, interior integrity of the building is intact.
This exceptionally important facility was specifically designed and constructed to house the OTH-B radar technology that played an important role in protecting United States airspace by
37
providing the Northwest sector with the capability for locating and identifying aircraft and missiles at a great distance. By identifying a hostile attack at a greater distance, this radar improved the survivability of the continental forces, thus strengthening the United States deterrence position. This facility was used for this purpose during Phase IV of the Cold War and meets NRHP criterion (a).
38
The purpose of the reconnaissance inventory was to provide initial information on the kinds of Cold War resources extant on Mountain Home 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 Mountain Home AFB. These resources should be investigated further for a more comprehensive analyses.
Mariah team members inquired about the potential for historic properties at Saylor Creek Gunnery Range located 20 mi (32 km) southeast of Mountain Home AFB in Owyhee County, Idaho. Base personnel from the Wing History Office and the Environmental Office informed the Mariah team that properties extant at Saylor Creek include maintenance buildings, range management offices, and two towers for scoring accuracy (personal communication, Brandon Smith, August 26, 1994; personal communication, Airman Larin Hennesey, August 30, 1994). Based on prior inventories at other AFBs, these types of resources are not considered significant within the context of this study. The decision was made by the Mariah field team not to visit Saylor Creek.
The Wing History Office has a photograph collection that is currently in the possession of a private consulting firm to be returned at a later date. Photograph topics include base construction and base commanders. This collection should be assessed in the future for its value and
importance in relation to the Cold War and activities at Mountain Home AFB.
This base contains buildings that are greater than 50 years in age, but that were not evaluated due to the lack of significance within the base Cold War context. An example is the base chapel, built in 1943 and located one block from the mission area. This building is scheduled for removal or possible destruction in the near future. It is recommended that this building be
39
evaluated for eligibility to the NRHP prior to implementation of any plans that will affect building integrity.
The USAF Historical Research Agency at Maxwell AFB, Alabama, is the repository for all Air Force historical documents. The vast majority of these documents are available on microfilm. Future studies of Cold War history at Mountain Home AFB should allot time to researching these documents.
40
No historic preservation plan has been implemented at Mountain Home AFB, and there are no immediate plans for one in the near future.
The threat to the Bomber Alert Facility and the OTH-B Facility appears to be low as both of these buildings are currently in use. The Office Files and the Documentary Collection are stored in secure areas, thus any threat to these resources is also low. The Base Newspaper Collection, however, is in a state of benign neglect, resulting in newspapers that are yellowed, brittle, and, in some cases, torn. Immediate conservation of this resource is recommended.
41
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 Mountain Home 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.
42
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 Mountain Home 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
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 Mountain Home AFB have not been evaluated, and thus must be considered and treated as eligible until an evaluation and determination of eligibility are made.
43
44
45
Recommendations for the evaluated resources at Mountain Home 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.
The collection of histories is in good condition and is stored in a secure area. Copies of the histories are also on file at the USAF Historical Research Center at Maxwell AFB, Alabama. Therefore, stewardship of the collection at Mountain Home AFB is recommended.
47
9.2.2 Base Newspaper Collection (Resource No. 15134, Located in Real Property No. 512)
This collection of base newspapers spans 1966-1992, and includes one copy of a 1943 edition. The collection is currently deteriorating due to improper curation, with the newspapers yellowed, brittle, and torn. It is recommended that the collection be inventoried and copied onto microfilm. It is further recommended that the base retain the microfilm for its use, and that the originals be sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
This collection of drawings and photographs is organized and stored in a secure room. However, the resource is continually used by base engineers, resulting in wear on the drawings. It is recommended that the collection be completely inventoried and copied. It is further
recommended that the base retain the copies for its use, and that the originals be sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II and III. 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. However, the integrity of the building may have been compromised during almost three decades of use as an operations, headquarters, and education center. building is recommended as potentially eligible to the NRHP. Therefore, this
Further documentation, to
determine the level of integrity and to explore NRHP eligibility, is recommended. Stewardship of the building to retain its current level of integrity is recommended in the interim during this evaluation.
48
9.2.5 OTH-B Facility (Resource No. 15059, Real Property No. 2215)
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phase IV. It meets NRHP criterion (a) based on its role in protecting U.S. airspace and increasing the survivability of the continental forces. The integrity of the building and its features is intact due to a decision to have the facility kept in a continuous ready-to-operate condition. 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 the resource to the NRHP.
49
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. Blue, D.L. 1988 History of the 366th Tactical Fighter Wing, 1 July-31 December 1988. On file, Wing History Office, Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho. Department of Defense 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. 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. Mueller R. 1989 Air Force Bases: Active Air Force Bases Within the United States of America on 17 September 1982. Office of Air Force History, United States Air Force, Washington, D.C. 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.
50
Oak Ridge National Laboratory 1994 Environmental Compliance Assessment and Management Program (ECAMP) Environmental Findings Final Report for Mountain Home Air Force Base and Saylor Creek Air Force Range Idaho. Submitted to Headquarters Air Combat Command by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed by Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. Langely Air Force Base, Virginia. Public Affairs Office 1982 History of Mountain Home AFB, Idaho. On file, Public Affairs Office, Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho. Real Estate Office 1988 Mountain Home AFB, Idaho, Real Property Survey. Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho.
On file, Real Estate Office,
United States Air Force 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. Wilson, C. SSgt. 1982 History of the 366th Tactical Fighter Wing, Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, 1 April-30 June 1982, vol. 11. On file, Wing History Office, Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho. Wing History Office 1972 366th Wing History, November 1, through December 31, 1972. (Title page is missing). Microfilm Reel No. 64. On file, Wing History Office, Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho. 1994 From Richmond to Mountain Home: A Historical Review of the 366th Wing and its Components. On file, Wing History Office, Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho. Woodward-Clyde 1992 Installation Restoration Program, Operable Unit No. 3 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. On file, Environmental Office, Mountain Home Air Force Base,Idaho. Woodward-Clyde, Omaha, Nebraska.
E-1
BASE CONTACTS
The following people were contacted during the base visit by the field team to help identify Cold War material culture and provide research materials.
Robert Dews Natural/Cultural Resource Coordinator 366 CES/CEV 1100 Liberator Street Mountain Home AFB, Idaho 83648 (208) 828-6351 Gina Johnson Environmental Public Affairs Officer 366 CES/CEV 1100 Liberator Street Mountain Home AFB, Idaho 83648 (208) 828-6351 Brandon Smith Environmental Protection Specialist 366 CES/CEV 1100 Liberator Street Mountain Home AFB, Idaho 83648 (208) 828-6351 SSgt Dennis Pittman Flight Development Specialist 366 CES 1030 Liberator Street Mountain Home AFB, Idaho 83648 (208) 828-6344 TSgt Albert Lewis Wing Historian 366 WG/HO 335 Gunfighter Avenue Mountain Home AFB, Idaho 83648 (208) 828-6318
E-2
SrA Sonja Rushton Editor/Base Newspaper 366 WG/PA 335 Gunfighter Avenue Mountain Home AFB, Idaho 83648 (208) 828-6800 TSgt Douglas Pippin Intelligence Planning/Operations 360 Gunfighter Avenue Mountain Home AFB, Idaho 83648 (208) 828-2693 SSgt Troy Prine Chief of Internal Information 366 WG/PA 335 Gunfighter Avenue Mountain Home AFB, Idaho 83648 (208) 828-6800 TSgt Dougan Facility Security Officer 366 CS/SCCS 365 3rd Avenue, Building 510 Mountain Home AFB, Idaho 83648 (208) 828-6776 Lucille Hampton/Donna Walker Real Estate Officer 366 CES/CERR 1030 Liberator Street Mountain Home AFB, Idaho 83648 (208) 828-6306 Ronald Stonebreaker General Engineer/Architect 366 CES/CECM 1030 Liberator Street Mountain Home AFB, Idaho 83648 (208) 828-6344
E-3
INFORMAL INTERVIEWS
The following people were informally interviewed by the Mariah field team while at the base. They were identified as people possessing extensive knowledge of Mountain Home AFB's history and Cold War context.
Brandon Smith, Environmental Protection Specialist, August 26, 1994 TSgt Douglas Pippin, Intelligence Planning/Operations, August 30, 1994 Bob Dews, Natural/Cultural Resource Coordinator, August 31, 1994
VOLUME II-22: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE AT NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE
Prepared by James A. Lowe Lori E. Rhodes Katherine J. Roxlau
August 1997
Volume II-22: Nellis Air Force Base
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Nellis Air Force Base and Cuddeback Gunnery Range were inventoried for Cold War resources by James A. Lowe, Lori E. Rhodes, and Scott W. Kamber of Mariah Associates, Inc., between May 24 and June 7, 1994, and June 8, 1995, as part of the Air Combat Command Cold War Study under the ongoing Department of Defense Legacy Program. Information was gathered at the base from the Weapons and Tactics Center Historian, Wing Historian, Cultural and Natural Resources staff, Drawing Room staff, and at the Civil Engineering, Real Property, and Public Affairs Offices. Onsite inspections were also conducted. During this research and inventory, property types were identified and photographed.
A significant amount of material culture was identified as relating to the Cold War era, and thus to the scope of this study, most involving important training activities. As a result, 10 resources on the base were further documented and evaluated as important within the base Cold War context.
Recommendations for these resources include further documentation, stewardship, and National Register eligibility for the Command Center (Real Property No. 620), Maintenance Hangar (Real Property No. 292), RED FLAG Facility (Real Property No. 201), Weapons School (Real Property No. 282), and the Threat Facility Collection (located in Real Property No. 470). Further
documentation, stewardship, and conservation are recommended for four Documentary Collections and one Photograph Collection.
ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACC ACHP AFB AFR AGE ARDC ATC BLM CCTW CES CRS DoD EMS FMS FTD FWW GR HABS LOX MAC Mariah NCO NHPA NPS NRHP OCONUS POL SAC SALT SDI SHPO START TAC TACAN TFW TFWC TR&D USAF WRSK WTC
Air Combat Command Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Air Force Base Air Force Range Air Ground Equipment Air Research and Development Command Air Training Command Bureau of Land Management Combat Crew Training Wing Civil Engineering Squadron Component Repair Squadron Department of Defense Equipment Maintenance Squadron Field Missile Squadron Field Training Detachment Fighter Weapons Wing Gunnery Range Historic American Buildings Survey Liquid Oxygen Military Airlift Command Mariah Associates, Inc. Noncommissioned Officer National Historic Preservation Act National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Off the Continental United States Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Strategic Air Command Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty Strategic Defense Initiative State Historic Preservation Officer Strategic Arms Reduction Talks Tactical Air Command Tactical Air Navigation Station Tactical Fighter Wing Tactical Fighter Weapons Center Test, Research, and Development United States Air Force War Readiness Spares Kit Weapons and Tactics Center
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. 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. 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. 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.
iv
3.0 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 12 3.1 BASE HISTORY AND COLD WAR CONTEXT.............................................................. 12 3.1.1 Nellis AFB.................................................................................................................... 12 3.1.2 Auxiliary Air Fields and Ranges.................................................................................. 20 3.1.3 Cuddeback GR ............................................................................................................. 22 3.2 BASE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................... 23 4.0 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 30 4.1 INVENTORY ........................................................................................................................ 30 4.2 EVALUATION OF IMPORTANT RESOURCES ............................................................. 31 4.2.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 31 4.2.2 Evaluation of Importance ............................................................................................. 31 4.2.2.1 Cold War Context ............................................................................................... 31 4.2.2.2 NRHP Criteria..................................................................................................... 32 4.2.2.3 Exceptional Importance ...................................................................................... 33 4.2.3 Evaluation of Integrity.................................................................................................. 33 4.2.4 Priority Matrix .............................................................................................................. 34 4.2.5 Resource Organization ................................................................................................. 35 4.3 BASE SPECIFIC METHODS .............................................................................................. 35 5.0 RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY RESULTS ..................................................................... 37 6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS......................................................................................................... 38 6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS ........................................................ 38 6.1.1 Base and Command Centers ........................................................................................ 38 6.1.1.1 Command Center ................................................................................................ 38
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.1.2 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 42 6.1.2.1 Documentary Collection ..................................................................................... 42 6.1.2.2 Documentary Collection ..................................................................................... 43 6.1.2.3 Documentary Collection ..................................................................................... 44 6.1.2.4 Documentary Collection ..................................................................................... 45 6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS ......................................................... 46 6.2.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 46 6.2.1.1 Photograph Collection ........................................................................................ 46 6.2.2 Maintenance Hangars/Docks ....................................................................................... 47 6.2.2.1 Maintenance Hangar ........................................................................................... 47 6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES ..................................................................... 48 6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES...................................................................................................... 48 6.4.1 Combat Training .......................................................................................................... 48 6.4.1.1 RED FLAG Facility ............................................................................................ 48 6.4.1.2 Threat Facility Collection ................................................................................... 49 6.4.1.3 Weapons School ................................................................................................. 51 6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES ............................................................................................ 51 7.0 UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 52 8.0 FUTURE THREATS TO RESOURCES ................................................................................... 53 9.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 54 9.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY ............................................................................................................ 54 9.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility................................................... 54 9.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility ............................................................................... 56 9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 58 9.2.1 Command Center ........................................................................................................ 58 9.2.2 Documentary Collection ............................................................................................. 60 9.2.3 Documentary Collection ............................................................................................. 60 9.2.4 Documentary Collection ............................................................................................. 60 9.2.5 Documentary Collection ............................................................................................. 61 9.2.6 Photograph Collection................................................................................................. 61 9.2.7 Maintenance Hangar ................................................................................................... 61 9.2.8 RED FLAG Facility .................................................................................................... 62 9.2.9 Threat Facility Collection ........................................................................................... 62 9.2.10 Weapons School......................................................................................................... 62 10.0 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................. 64
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
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
viii
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Bases Selected for the Air Combat Command Cold War Study .............................. 2 Location of Nellis Air Force Base ............................................................................. 5 Standard Tactical Air Command Base Layout.......................................................... 7 Nellis Air Force Base Land Use Diagram ................................................................. 10 Standard Tactical Air Command Base Land Use Diagram ...................................... 11 Nellis Air Force Base, 1940s ..................................................................................... 24 Nellis Air Force Base, 1950s ..................................................................................... 26 Nellis Air Force Base, 1960 to present...................................................................... 27
LIST OF TABLES
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.
This report is a reconnaissance inventory of Cold War related resources on Nellis Air Force Base (AFB) and the associated Cuddeback Gunnery Range (GR). Nellis AFB, a former Tactical Air Command (TAC) 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.
Units at Nellis AFB today maintain training for composite strike forces that include every type of aircraft in the United States Air Force (USAF) inventory, as well as air and ground units of the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, and air units from allied nations. The Weapons and Tactics Center (WTC) is responsible for graduate-level weapons training for mission-ready aircrews throughout the worldwide combat air forces. The base also conducts operational testing and tactical
development and evaluation using modern weapons systems that equip United States combat air forces. The operational element of the center is the 57th Wing. Major units of the wing include the 57th Operations Group, 57th Test Group, 57th Logistics Group, U.S. Air Force Weapons School, U.S. Air Force Demonstration Squadron (the Thunderbirds), U.S. Air Force Combat Rescue School, and the 66th Rescue Squadron.
Nellis AFB is located within the Basin and Range physiographic province in the northeastern portion of the Las Vegas Valley. The base is found in the southeastern corner of the state of Nevada, approximately 8 mi (12.9 km) northeast of the city of Las Vegas in Clark County (Figure 2.1). The base itself encompasses 11,496 acres (4,652 ha). The total land area covered by Nellis AFB and its restricted ranges is more than 4,742 mi (12,280 km ). An additional 7,700 mi (19,941 km ) of airspace north and east of the restricted ranges is available for military flight operations. The climate in the area surrounding Nellis AFB is typical of the southwestern portion of the Basin and Range province, with hot temperatures and little moisture due to the valley's proximity to the rain shadow of the mountain ranges to the west.
2 2 2 2
Cuddeback GR is located approximately 30 miles north of Victorville in southern California, about 7 mi east of Highway 395. The range consists of 7,564 acres spread across 11 sections of land, a portion of which is located on the dry Cuddeback Lake bed.

2 2
The 18 mi (46 km ) of Nellis AFB land are divided into three areas: Area I contains the main base; Area II includes the Munitions Storage Area; and Area III consists of Manch Manor housing and an industrial area. The main base occupying Area I is bounded on the north by U.S. Highway 91/93 (Las Vegas Boulevard), on the west by Nellis Boulevard, on the south by private development, and on the east by Hollywood Boulevard, which is surrounded by open space at the base of the Sunrise and Frenchman mountains. Other boundaries are generally defined by a perimeter road.
The main entrance to Area I (Main Gate) is located at the intersection of Las Vegas Boulevard and Craig Road. A second entrance, the Hollywood Gate, is located across the runway along the eastern edge of Area I. The main area of base buildings occupies an extensive portion of the overall base property between U.S. Highway 91/93 and the primary runway, which is aligned northeastsouthwest. This alignment varies from the typical TAC fighter home base (Figure 2.2), in which the secondary runway abuts the flight line and the primary runway is an offshoot, beginning at one end of the flight line then running at a tangent away from the main base. Aircraft operations and maintenance facilities line the flight line east of Tyndall Avenue, with certain areas devoted to specialized training buildings. Near the northern end of the flight line is the Weapons School and training maintenance hangars. The RED FLAG training group hangars are located near the southern end of the runway with the actual administrative building just across Tyndall. Also located on the western side of Tyndall, near the center of the flight line, is the Threat Facility academic exhibit building.
The remaining lands occupied by Nellis AFB in Area I are traversed by taxiways, secondary roads, and, at either end of the primary runway, clear zones where no development may occur. The periphery of Area I adjacent to the perimeter road is lined by housing (primarily mobile home parks), the golf course, and ancillary facilities such as the sanitary landfill and fire training areas. The typical TAC fighter base exhibits fewer ancillary buildings in these peripheral zones, perhaps because of the situation of the primary runway through these areas.
Area II is located over a mile to the northeast of the main base and is primarily accessed from Area I via Forrestal Boulevard off of Highway 91/93. Nestled between Sunrise Mountain and a range of foothills, the majority of Area II is defined by an exterior maintenance road and security fence system. Interior fences segregate portions of the munitions storage area from the remainder of Area II, which houses the Red Horse engineering administrative buildings as well as a federal prison facility.
Area III is just northwest of Area I, the two being separated only by Las Vegas Boulevard. Area III is bounded by Craig Road on the south and Range Road on the east, the latter connecting Areas I and III and also providing access to the small arms rifle range. The North Gate, flanked by a tank farm and substation, is located at the intersection of U.S. Highway 91/93 and Range Road. Additional tank farms, the Caffarelli Court mobile home complex, and a hazardous waste storage area are located further north along Range Road in Area III.
2.4 BASE LAND USE
The following is a list of standard TAC land use categories: Base Support Facilities - house base support functions and supplies. 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.
The main base (Area I) land use at Nellis AFB (Figure 2.3) is not entirely analogous to the standard plan TAC base (Figure 2.4). First, the headquarters, or Base Operations building, at Nellis AFB is located at the extreme northeastern end of the primary runway; in the standard plan, it is situated away from the flight line among community, recreation, and housing areas. In addition, mission buildings occupy virtually the entire length of the flight line at Nellis AFB, this area on the standard plan is shared by both mission and industrial facilities. Industrial buildings at Nellis AFB are widely dispersed with some located near the northern end of the flight line and others located in Areas II and III. Base Support buildings also are widely dispersed within Area I at Nellis AFB. Housing locations are similar, being separated from the main flight line area in both cases. Recreational areas at Nellis AFB are dispersed, with one large area adjacent to the mission buildings at the southern end of the flight line. The community area separates the family housing areas from the mission activities, a characteristic which is partially true for the standard TAC base plan. Overall, the primary differences between Nellis AFB and the standard plan seem attributable to the development of areas on the southern side of the Nellis AFB airfield and the expansion of base facilities into Areas II and III.
12
3.1.1 Nellis AFB
The origins of Nellis AFB date to 1926 when Western Air Express (later Western Air Lines) opened an air field from which it operated an airmail and passenger service between Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles. Western Air Express constructed four dirt runways, a water well, and a main operations building on the future site of Nellis AFB, located 8 mi (13 km) north of Las Vegas in southern Nevada. By 1940, this air field served the only commercial airline for the city of Las Vegas (Nellis AFB 1993:16; Office of History 1993:54-55; USAF 1972a; Wing Historian's Office 1993:5).
President Roosevelt expanded national defense in 1936 by creating the Army air program. The new U.S. Army Air Corps recommended that several new combat bases be established, and that they be located far enough in the interior of the United States that enemy aircraft would have difficulty locating them. In determining appropriate sites in the West for the new bases, one potential site in Nevada was chosen north of Las Vegas near Tonopah. This site would later become one of Nellis AFB's bombing ranges.
The Army Air Corps had formulated a plan in 1939 that would produce combat ready tactical groups in two years. As the number of projected combat groups increased, it was declared by General Henry "Hap" Arnold that combat units would require both local practice ranges and larger ranges for aerial gunnery and bombing exercises (Office of History 1993:54). In October 1940, President Roosevelt, with Executive Order 8578, created the Las Vegas Bombing and Gunnery Range, located to the north and northwest of Las Vegas and the current base. This particular range would later become Nellis Air Force Range (AFR) (USAF 1972b; War Department 1946:9).
13
Because most of the acreage of the ranges set aside in the West was public domain, mining, grazing, and homestead claims had to be adjudicated. This process delayed the use of the land until late 1941, and the Army Air Corps looked elsewhere to locate potential sites for future installations. The Western Air Express air field drew attention as a desirable location. Major David M. Schlatter arrived at the Western air field on October 1, 1940 under orders to locate an ideal site for an aerial gunnery school. From his previous surveys, he decided that the Western Air Express site was ideal for the gunnery school (Office of History 1993:54-55). The Army Air Corps selected the site for the Air Corps Gunnery School, Las Vegas, in December 1940. The Army and the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce mutually agreed that the City of Las Vegas would simultaneously develop the air field as a municipal airport (Office of History 1993:55-56).
Construction of the school proceeded through 1941. The buildings consisted mostly of temporary, wood-frame structures. The Air Corps Gunnery School, Las Vegas, was officially established June 11, 1941. However, on September 15, 1941, the facility was renamed Las Vegas Airfield. The new municipal airport was designated McCarran Field in honor of the Nevada senator (Hinds 1976:5-7; Mueller 1989:439).
The air field was renamed Las Vegas Army Gunnery School in 1942, and was finally designated Las Vegas Army Airfield in April 1943. The advent of World War II shifted emphasis in gunnery training from ground gunnery training to aerial gunnery instruction, and facilities were expanded to keep pace with the wartime demand. The air field graduated 600 gunnery students and 215 copilots every five weeks during the height of World War II. During the latter part of the war, the air field also became the site for primary and advanced pilot training. The airfield population peaked in 1945 with over 11,000 officers and enlisted personnel, of which 4,700 were students (Hays 1968:84; Office of History 1993:56-57; Wing Historian's Office 1993:5-6).
Las Vegas Army Airfield served as a separation center for returning servicemen following the surrender of Japan in August 1945. Although several plans were proposed between 1945 and 1946 for keeping the air field operational, it was deactivated January 31, 1947. The air field
14
served as a standby field for about two years, until reactivation in January 1949 (Hinds 1976:22-23,26; Office of History 1993:57).
The world geopolitical situation was still uncertain following the end of World War II, especially during 1947-1948 with the unrest in the Balkan region and the Berlin Blockade in Germany, and the United States needed its military airpower. Las Vegas Army Airfield still retained those characteristics that had made it desirable before World War II, but the newly established USAF did not want to reactivate the airfield with joint use by a civilian airport. Air Force officials asked city officials to relocate McCarran Field, and the City of Las Vegas, wishing to keep the military facility in the area, passed a $750,000 bond issue to construct a new separate airport (Hinds 1976:24-25; Office of History 1993:58).
The newly reactivated Las Vegas AFB became the home of Air Training Command's (ATC) 3595th Pilot Training Wing for advanced single engine training. The 3595th Air Base Group was the host unit at the base. This training drew attention to the need for a formal school on weaponry principles and techniques. The USAF Aircraft Gunnery School was established at the base in May 1949, and eventually developed into the present-day USAF Fighter Weapons School. The emphasis on stateof-the-art training in a variety of exercises with continually advancing technology allowed the base to play a significant role in USAF strategy throughout the remainder of the Cold War (Hinds 1976:26-28; Wing Historian's Office 1993:6).
The base was renamed Nellis AFB on April 30, 1950 in honor of First Lieutenant William H. Nellis. A Nevada resident from Searchlight, Nellis was a member of the 513th Fighter Squadron when he was killed on his 70th mission in Europe over Bastogne, Belgium in 1944 (Hinds 1976:30; Mueller 1989:439; Office of History 1993:58).
The outbreak of the Korean War focused the mission at Nellis AFB on fighter gunnery training (Hinds 1976:29). Virtually every pilot who flew missions in Korea received final training at Nellis AFB. Due to the greater numbers of modern enemy aircraft found in Korea, the training at
15
the base increasingly emphasized air-to-air missions with less emphasis on air-to-ground training. Following the cease-fire in 1953, the mission at Nellis AFB evolved from furnishing pilots for immediate front line duty to a peacetime role with greater focus on quality training, flying safety, and sound management techniques (Hays 1968:85-86; Hinds 1976:36,39,41; Office of History 1993:58).
Two programs at Nellis AFB played an integral role in advanced USAF training programs during the mid-1950s: the Combat Crew Training School and the completion of fighter pilot training, and the Fighter Weapons School, which trained instructor pilots and managers to supervise fighter weapons programs. Personnel and facilities at Nellis AFB were also called upon to conduct Fighter Weapons and Gunnery Meets among USAF units to hone skills learned in the classroom and in the air (Hinds 1976:55; Office of History 1993:78).
Nellis AFB acquired the prestigious Air Demonstration Squadron (Thunderbirds) on June 1, 1956. They were designated the 3595th Air Demonstration Flight and assigned to the 3595th Combat Crew Training Wing (CCTW) (Hinds 1976:56). The Thunderbirds are still an active squadron at Nellis AFB. They perform "precision aerial demonstrations throughout the world to reflect the professional skill and capability of the United States Air Force" (Wing Historian's Office 1993:1). During a national emergency, the Thunderbirds are very capable of making the transition from exhibition to active combat if necessary.
The Air Force transferred Nellis AFB and the Fighter Weapons School to TAC on July 1, 1958, and the 3595th host wing was redesignated as the 4520th CCTW (Tactical Fighter) and its assigned units were also redesignated. The Thunderbirds were redesignated as the 4520th Air
Demonstration Flight, and, in October 1960, they were designated a squadron. The 12th Air Force gained operational control of the base and, late in 1958, the F-105 Thunderchief became the primary mission aircraft (Hinds 1976:63-64; Office of History 1993:59).
16
The mission at Nellis AFB was augmented with its redesignation to TAC. In addition to its original training mission, Nellis AFB was now to "provide support facilities and training as required for tactical unit rotational training and to train for and maintain an air defense capability . . ." (Hinds 1976:65). ATC, now a tenant at the base, maintained a test, research, and development (TR&D) branch at Nellis AFB, and TAC established a similar program in February 1959. This latter TR&D program "assisted in the development of all fighter weapons systems used by TAC" (Office of History 1993:60).
During the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, the 4520th CCTW provided TAC with 22 F-105s and approximately 100,000 pounds of equipment between October 21 and December 17 to assist in preventing the establishment of hostile missile bases in Cuba (Hinds 1976:90-91).
The mission of the 4520th CCTW and TR&D remained the same during the early 1960s. However, the entire training program was overhauled and the whole base structure at Nellis AFB was reorganized in 1965. The war in Southeast Asia served as the catalyst for this reorganization (Hinds 1976:102). The Fighter Weapons School was reorganized late in 1965 because the Combat Analysis Division was moved from TAC Headquarters to the Fighter Weapons School at Nellis AFB. The school became a named unit on January 1, 1966 (Hinds 1976:102-03; O'Burke 1965:5).
Planning for the Wild Weasel Training program, to be conducted by the 561st Fighter Squadron, was initiated in April 1966 and classes began in June. "Wild Weasels," in specially modified F-105s and F-4s, were trained to eliminate enemy surface-to-air missiles with air-to-surface missiles by homing in on the defender's radar system. This program was very effective in Vietnam. Although transferred from Nellis AFB in 1975, the 561st was reassigned to Nellis AFB February 1, 1993, and is the oldest operational "Wild Weasel" unit still active (Office of History 1993:37,87; Wing Historian's Office 1993:2).
17
TAC in the early 1960s required faster and more comprehensive responses from tactical mission areas to meet the growing demands of the conflict in Southeast Asia. Therefore, TAC established and organized various centers which provided operational expertise and resources.
Project Sand Dune, a programming plan for the 4520th CCTW, reflected a strategy of flexible response (part of the new Kennedy strategic policy) that required multiple global warfare options for non-nuclear limited warfare such as that going on in Vietnam. On September 1, 1966, TAC programming plan 2066 (based on the concepts outlined in Sand Dune) organized and established the Tactical Fighter Weapons Center (TFWC) at Nellis AFB (Mueller 1989:442; O'Burke 1966:6-7; Office of History 1993:8-9,14). At Nellis AFB, the center utilized existing resources controlled by the 4520th CCTW, especially the Fighter Weapons School (O'Burke 1966:9; Office of History 1993:6,8). The center was the key institution and command unit at Nellis AFB during the remainder of the Cold War period following 1966.
The commander in charge of the steering committee that produced the plan, Brigadier General Frank Everest, succinctly stated that "The importance of this program cannot be overemphasized: it is directly in support of the TAC mission and directly related to the war in Southeast Asia" (O'Burke 1966:6-7; Office of History 1993:8). The choice of Nellis AFB to receive the TFWC was appropriate for a base that had been known as the home of the fighter pilot since the Korean War.
With the inception of TFWC, Nellis AFB became a multi-wing base.
The 4520th CCTW
relinquished its position as the highest echelon of command at the base, and TFWC assumed that role. The 4520th Air Demonstration Squadron (Thunderbirds), the 4520th CCTW, and the 4525 Fighter Weapons Wing (FWW) were all assigned to TFWC, and the 4525th FWW took over the Fighter Weapons School.
18
The 4520th Combat Support Group became the host unit to "operate and maintain Nellis AFB in support of the USAF Tactical Fighter Weapons Center and assigned or attached organizations" (O'Burke 1966:1-3,11-12). In addition, The Center became the central authoritative agency fully knowledgeable in the employment of USAF tactical fighter forces worldwide. The Center commander reported directly to the Commander Tactical Air Command for the conduct of all assigned test operations . . . (Hays 1968:87; Office of History 1993:14-16). The 474th Tactical Fighter Wing (TFW) was assigned to the TFWC at Nellis AFB in January 1968 and assumed base host responsibilities, and the 4520th CCTW was discontinued.
The 57th FWW was assigned to the TFWC October 15, 1969. On February 1, 1970, the base was officially reorganized. Responsibility for the base was transferred from the 474th TFW back to the TFWC and the 57th FWW. This restored the base structure to much the same alignment as that in 1966-1968 (Hinds 1970:3-4). The 57th FWW assumed base host responsibilities, and is currently the host unit at Nellis AFB. The 474th TFW was deactivated 30 September 1989, as part of the Base Realignment and Closure Act (Office of History 1993:27).
Nellis AFB began to host realistic combat exercises during the mid-1970s to prepare air and ground forces from all the U.S. military services and Allied/NATO countries for real war should the situation arise. These exercises, called RED FLAG, originated from the realization, through the Vietnam War, that USAF pilots lacked realistic combat training. A study of loss rates indicated that a pilot's survivability rate increased significantly after 10 combat sorties. From this bloody "lesson learned," the Air Force and TFWC established RED FLAG. "This . . . exercise provides a pilot with his first ten . . . sorties in the most realistic combat flying training environment anywhere in the world" (Office of History 1993:10-11). The first RED FLAG exercise was conducted in November 1975 (Mueller 1989:442).
The TFWC and the 57th FWW controlled all flying operations at Nellis AFB, including the RED FLAG training exercises. These exercises duplicated predicted combat situations by pitting blue
19
forces against red forces and utilizing a variety of simulated Soviet air-to-air and ground-to-air threats coupled with real and simulated ground targets to accomplish the goal of a realistic combat scenario (Nellis AFB 1993:7-8; Shoemaker 1981:12). These exercises are currently coordinated by the 414th Training Squadron at Nellis AFB.
The 554th Operations Support Wing was activated and assigned to TFWC on March 1, 1980, to assist in these exercises (Office of History 1993:24). The 554th Support Group "provides logistics and support functions for Nellis and Indian Springs Air Force Auxiliary Field" (Nellis AFB 1992). Within the 554th Support Group is the 554th Range Squadron which "develops, operates, and maintains all range facilities and threat simulators to provide a realistic combat environment for aircrew training and testing" (Nellis AFB 1992; 1993:10-11). The 547th Adversary Threat Squadron continues to provide intelligence support to the USAF Weapons and Tactic Center; provides intelligence on adversary threat capabilities to support tactics analysis, test and evaluation, instructional functions and training exercises . . . ; continually evaluates and defines the threat to combat air forces focusing on foreign tactics employment; and develops threat training programs of instruction for aircrews, intelligence and support personnel (Nellis AFB 1993). Nellis AFB continued to provide TAC with the best fighter pilots, proven weapons systems, and refined warfare tactics during the 1980s. The facilities at Nellis AFB provided training and coursework by proficient instructors; pilots then utilized that knowledge in realistic war exercises staged at the ranges near Nellis AFB to perfect the tactics and doctrine espoused by TAC. Since the Vietnam conflict, the training programs at Nellis AFB have distinctly shifted away from combat crew training toward the more advanced fighter weapons instructor and electronic warfare courses. During the military buildup of the Reagan years, Nellis AFB was responsible for the activation and readiness of the first F-117A Stealth fighter unit. These exercises were conducted over the ranges controlled by Nellis AFB. As of June 5, 1992, following the reorganization of the USAF, the creation of ACC, and the assignment of Nellis AFB to this new command, the TFWC was renamed the WTC. However, the flight and combat training mission of the WTC remained the same.
20
3.1.2 Auxiliary Air Fields and Ranges
The Nellis Range Complex, also known as the Nellis Bombing and Gunnery Range, consists of approximately 3,000,000 acres (1,214,100 ha) of land set aside exclusively for military use. The origins of the complex date to October 29, 1940, when President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8578 creating the Las Vegas Bombing and Gunnery Range (Office of History 1993:54; USAF 1972b). On August 25, 1941, a federal judge condemned 983,040 acres (397,836 ha) of land in Nye County and signed an order giving possession to the United States for a five year period. This tract of land was named the Tonopah Bombing Range. These two tracts of land were the beginning of the current Nellis Range Complex. In September 1941, President
Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8954 that set aside 68,533 acres (27,735 ha) of public domain for machine gun ranges just 10 days before the American entry into World War II (Hinds 1976:10; Office of History 1993:63). Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9019 on
January 12, 1942, amending the acreage withdrawn for military use to 3,200,000 acres (1,295,040 ha). Since 1942, the Nellis Ranges have undergone a series of executive orders, public land orders, and civil suits. These legal actions combined have dealt with local grazing issues, the wild horse refuge, the Desert Game Range and mountain sheep habitat, additional land sought by the Atomic Energy Commission (now the Department of Energy) for the Nevada Test Site, and other land exchanges too numerous to mention in this report (USAF 1972b). Control of the ranges was transferred to the TFWC to support its mission, which included pilot training, weapons delivery, and war exercises.
The air field at Indian Springs, located 48 mi (77 km) north of Las Vegas and just off U.S. Highway 95, dates to World War II. In January 1942, a training camp was established at Indian Springs to facilitate air-to-air gunnery practice on the Tonopah Range. Three dirt runways and nearby dry lake beds created such a dust problem that the camp was abandoned in March. In July 1942,
construction of buildings, roads, runways, taxiways, and utilities began, and the Indian Springs subpost was completed in February 1943 (Hinds 1976: 9,15-16; Nellis AFB 1993:17;
21
USAF 1972c). With the end of the war in 1945 and the cessation of air-to-air training, the sub-post was deactivated in December 1945 (Hinds 1976:23-24).
Indian Springs AFB was reactivated by the 3595th Installations Squadron during the Korean War in October 1950. Its mission was "to provide adequate ranges and facilities for the training of Fighter Gunnery Students" (Hinds 1976:31; Office of History 1993:72; USAF 1972c). The base had grown to 1,652 acres (668 ha) by March 1952 and was busy training crews in air-to-air tactics. The base was transferred from ATC to Air Research and Development Command (ARDC) in July 1952, but ATC remained in control of the Tonopah Range. The base was then transferred from ARDC to TAC in April 1961 and was redesignated as an auxiliary field April 1, 1964 (USAF 1972c; 1994:5). The mission of Indian Springs Auxiliary Air Field during the 1970s and 1980s under the 57th Combat Support Squadron was the construction and maintenance of targets, maintenance of roads, and cleanup of the range areas. Currently it serves in other capacities as well: as an emergency airfield for aircraft with malfunctioning high explosive ordnance; as a practice field for the Thunderbirds; as a training base for aircraft to alleviate congestion at Nellis AFB; as a support field for RED FLAG exercises; and as a support field for the current USAF Desert Warfare Training Center (USAF 1972c; 1994:9). Indian Springs Auxiliary Air Field played an important role during the Cold War era in supporting the training mission at Nellis AFB.
Area II is primarily a munitions storage facility consisting of over 100 storage igloos (USAF 1972a). The area is also home to the 57th Maintenance Squadron, which provides munitions handling in support of the combat mission, the 896th Aviation Depot Squadron, and the 820th Red Horse Civil Engineering Squadron (CES). A minimum security federal prison also occupies the premises under agreement with the Air Force (Nellis AFB 1993:17).
Area II was known as Lake Mead Base until 1969 and functioned as a munitions storage area for the U.S. Navy. During the early 1950s, this area originally consisted of 15,014 acres (6,076 ha). It was permitted from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the Army Corps of Engineers
22
and utilized by the Defense Atomic Support Agency. Because defense agencies could not hold real property, the Navy carried the property on its inventory. Between 1954-1956, 6,999 acres (2,832 ha) were no longer required and this acreage was relinquished to the Department of the Interior leaving 8,015 acres (3,244 ha). Lake Mead Base was transferred to the Air Force by permit September 30, 1969. Although permits have been renewed by the BLM to the Air Force, the permitting process is on-going between the BLM and the Corps of Engineers (USAF 1991:1-3).
3.1.3 Cuddeback GR
Cuddeback GR was originally established by the U.S. Army in the 1940s as an artillery training range. Records are unclear when the property was turned over to George AFB, but it appears sometime in the 1950s. The USAF and Navy utilized Cuddeback GR as an air to ground GR for pilot proficiency training. Pilots trained at dropping a wide variety of practice ordnance including conventional and nuclear weapons. A description of the training ordnance that was used at Cuddeback GR can be found in USAF 1992.
The only documented use of the dry Cuddeback Lake bed is a letter agreement dated September 1961 between Edwards AFB Flight Test Center and George AFB to designate the dry lake bed as an emergency landing strip for the X-15 project. Documents indicate that landing markers were erected but there are no records that the lake bed was ever used for that purpose (USAF 1992).
In 1982, the Cuddeback GR was officially deactivated and has not been maintained or monitored since that time. Control of the range was transferred to Nellis AFB in approximately 1993 after George AFB was closed. Because of significant concerns about trespassing, vandalism, and public safety, Nellis AFB authorized the razing and removal of all existing buildings and structures, including the water well and underground storage tanks, from Cuddeback GR in 1994. Due to the long history of bombing and gunnery practice at the range, a significant amount of
23
ordnance still exists at the target portion of the range. The Air Force does not currently plan to utilize the range and Nellis AFB personnel are evaluating what actions are required to return control of the property to the Bureau of Land Management. However, due to the extensive amount of munitions located at the range, the high estimated cost to decontaminate the range, and the documented presence of the endangered Desert Tortoise at the range, there are no immediate plans for any new actions at the Cuddeback GR.
Construction activity throughout the years tried to keep pace with the expansion related to World War II, Korea, and the increased importance of Nellis AFB as a training base for fighter pilots (Figure 3.1). The first construction by the Merrill Corporation consisted of 173 temporary, frame clapboard buildings. These included, among others: barracks, supply rooms, mess facilities, administration buildings, a fire station, guard house, post exchange, theater, warehouse, clinic, post office, chapel, and the training and operations buildings. Other firms were contracted to complete electrical systems, runway lighting, a repair hangar, and the clearing, grading and paving of runways. The Peabody Construction Company constructed the original 500 ft (152 m) runway by September 1941. As was the case with most World War II construction, the buildings were of temporary design, and "the idea that the installation might be needed on a permanent basis never occurred to anyone" (Hinds 1976:6-7).
Construction at the base continued during 1942-1944.
Fifty-three additional barracks were
constructed for cadets, enlisted men, and officers. Numerous other buildings were built as well to further the operational status of the base: mess halls, post headquarters, operations building, post exchanges, motor repair shop, an armament maintenance building, and additions to the base hospital (Hinds 1976:16).
Congress passed the Wherry-Spence Act in August 1949; this helped to alleviate the housing shortage as well as to upgrade the quality of housing for married personnel (Armstrong
25
1976:630-31). The Nellis housing project (currently Nellis Terrace) was approved under the auspices of the Wherry Act, and 400 units were completed by early 1952 at an average cost of $10,000 each (Figure 3.2). Although an additional 400 Wherry homes were completed by 1954, the base did not actually gain possession of the 800 houses from the contractor until 1958 (Hinds 1976:32,47,68; Mueller 1989:442; USAF 1972a). Additional 1954 construction on the base included two 1,000 ft (304 m) extensions to the runways and three new taxiways, communications and navigational facilities, and two maintenance hangars (Hinds 1976:46-47; Mueller 1989:442).
Construction continued apace during 1955-1956. A laundry, squadron operations building, parachute shop, officers' mess, and additions to the commissary were completed in 1955. Three squadron operations buildings, two maintenance hangars, a cold storage building, five senior officers' quarters, and a golf driving range were completed in 1956. A contract was awarded in March 1956 for an additional 395 housing units to be built adjacent to the base (Hinds 1976:53,58).
Congress passed the Capehart Amendment to the National Housing Act in August 1955; this act permitted the expansion of Wherry housing. Construction of further government housing at Nellis AFB commenced 21 August 1958, and 200 units were completed 12 February 1960. This housing complex, located in Area III, was dedicated Manch Manor in honor of Lt. Colonel Jacob E. Manch who was killed in a 1958 plane crash. All the streets in the complex were named after deceased officers and airmen who had died in the line of duty (Armstrong 1976:633; Hinds 1976:69; Mueller 1989:442).
Extensive construction projects were conducted between 1960-1965 and focused primarily on eliminating "a living monument to the World War II camp building program" and transforming Nellis AFB into a modern air base (Hinds 1976:82) (Figure 3.3). A jet engine inspection and repair shop was completed in 1960, and plans were finalized for a new base hospital and chapel.
28
A TAC Intelligence School, Radar Prediction Center, and a F-105 Diagnostic Center were established the following year (Hinds 1976:82-83).
In 1962, two enlisted men's barracks, a dining hall, and ammunition and auto maintenance buildings were completed. The first half of 1963 witnessed the completion of base storage facilities, a combat operations center, airmen's dining hall, recreation workshop, gymnasium, a supply and equipment warehouse, and swimming pools. The base chapel was completed in April 1963. Buildings and facilities completed during the last half of 1963 included: a new control tower that replaced the vintage World War II tower, a fire station, four aircraft weapons calibration shelters, eight aircraft maintenance docks, a helicopter pad, an addition to the parachute and dingy repair shop, and base ammunition storage and small arms storage buildings. Work commenced on the new base hospital in 1963, and it was completed in May 1965 (Hinds 1976:92-93; Mueller 1989:442; Office of History 1993:86).
Construction continued at Nellis AFB as the old buildings and facilities gave way to the new. Between 1964-1966, the Apex obstruction light annex, shops, warehouses, an electrical power station building, and base service station were completed. A bowling alley, commissary building, and nine-hole golf course were also completed during this time frame (Hinds 1976:94; Office of History 1993:15).
Construction at Nellis proceeded into the 1970s. The TFWC was under construction in 1969 and dedicated 8 December 1972, in honor of Major Joseph W. Howard. A new, 21,000 ft (1,981 m ) gymnasium was completed earlier the same year (Office of History 1993:18-19). Other projects completed by 1972 or proposed for completion in 1973 included an aircraft parking apron, new control tower, and avionics shop. Planned construction for fiscal year 1973 included: an airmen's dormitory, an air conditioned airmen's dining hall, sewage treatment and disposal facility, an addition to the service club, and family housing. The additional nine-hole golf course and
2 2
clubhouse improvements were also completed in March 1972 (USAF 1972a). In 1974, the new Nellis Recreation Center and base pool were opened to base personnel and families, and
29
construction began on dormitories near the main gate that would accommodate over 300 people. In 1978, a contract was awarded to build a new base commissary (Office of History 1993:20,23).
New buildings and facilities continued to be proposed and built at Nellis AFB during the last decade of the Cold War. The Range Control Center was completed March 1981. The new RED FLAG facility began operations in July of 1984. The new Fighter Weapons School building was completed in August 1984 which nearly doubled the available classroom space. The base library was also opened in the renovated Base Recreation Center in 1984 (Office of History 1993:24-25).
Construction continued unabated at Nellis AFB into the 1990s and is on-going at present. The new officers' club was completed and officially opened March 9, 1990, and the new Nellis Air Traffic Control Tower began operations October 6 the same year. The Nellis Federal Prison Camp, located in Area II, was dedicated December 12, 1990. The old dormitories were
renovated to accommodate prisoners and provide for administrative functions (Office of History 1993:27-28).
Prior to deactivation, Cuddeback GR was composed of two concrete block buildings that were used for sleeping quarters, officers' space, kitchen, and common areas for the personnel who operated and maintained the range. There were also three prefabricated metal buildings used for vehicle maintenance and as a fire station. Three range towers used for spotting targets, a water well, and a small asphalt runway were also present. All of these buildings and structures have since been razed and removed. According to available records, no buildings or structures were ever constructed on the dry lake bed portion of the Cuddeback GR.
30
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the reconnaissance inventory of Nellis 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
31
As part of the reconnaissance inventory of Nellis 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 The
4.2.1 Documentation
The evaluated resources at Nellis 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.
32
33
34
35
The Mariah field team arrived at Nellis AFB on May 24, 1994 and met with point of contact Mr. Eric Watkins of the Natural and Cultural Resources office. The team was informed that their visit began during a period of training exercises, thus scheduling during the first week would be difficult. The team discussed the Cold War project with Mr. Watkins and Mr. Jim Pedrick and set a proposed itinerary for the visit, which included a visit to Areas II and III. Information on previous surveys at the base was gathered. The team then visited Dr. Cate Wilman, WTC Historian, and informed her of project methodology and goals. Dr. Wilman assisted the team with understanding the base history and operations, then referred the team to the Public Affairs Office where they briefly explained their project to Sgt J.C. Marcom, Public Affairs Officer, and collected brochures describing the base. Sgt Marcom set a time with the team to tour the flightline in the secured areas and photograph representative and important properties.
The team spent the afternoon of May 24 visiting the other offices on base where information would be gathered. They met with Stan Fuller in the Civil Engineering drawing room and briefly perused the engineering drawing files to estimate the time needed to record them. The team then
36
met with Judy Pace and Joe Lepore, Real Property Specialists in the Real Property Office to discuss scheduling for accessing real property cards. These two offices were visited
intermittently by the team between May 24 and June 7, to record records/documents and to gather information from property cards and maps for the evaluated resources. The remainder of the first day on base was spent taking photos of inventoried resources in unsecured base areas.
On May 25, Mr. Pedrick escorted the team to Areas II and III. At the latter, photographs were completed. Area II, however, required additional security escorts because a portion of that area has been converted to a federal prison facility. A tour for Area II was rescheduled for May 31, and photographs in that area were completed on that day. On May 26, Sgt Marcom escorted the team on the tour of the flight line in secured areas. Photographs were taken to document the range of flight line resources. He also assisted with a brief base tour, identifying the resources outside the flight line that he believed could contribute to our Cold War study. Photographs of examples of property types and important resources outside the flight line were taken without an escort for the remainder of the day.
After sending security information through the appropriate channels, the team toured the Threat Facility on June 1, as part of a larger group tour of U.S. Marines. Other facilities visited included the Thunderbird Hangar and Museum and Dr. Cate Wilman's office, where an intensive inventory of WTC historical information was completed. The base visit ended on June 7, with the team taking a few additional photographs of some of the evaluated resources.
On June 7, 1995, Scott W. Kamber of Mariah conducted a review at Nellis AFB of all available records concerning the Cuddeback GR. On June 8, he was escorted to Cuddeback GR for reconnaissance by Mr. Roger Christensen, Hazardous Waste Compliance Specialist at Nellis AFB in charge of the decontamination project at the range.
37
During the reconnaissance inventory of Nellis AFB and Cuddeback GR, 194 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.
38
Ten resources were evaluated at Nellis AFB, five of them falling under the DoD category of real property and five under records/documents. 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
6.1.1.1 Command Center (Resource No. 6001, Real Property No. 620)
The WTC Headquarters accommodates the staff offices of the various organizations that comprise the WTC. The WTC is one of three remaining Command Centers in the United States responsible for localized, specific mission areas vital to the Air Force. These centers were established during the 1960s to meet the growing demands of overseas conflicts during that portion of the Cold War period. The WTC was formerly named the TFWC between its inception and the reorganization of the Air Force in 1992 under ACC.
The WTC Headquarters is a permanent, three-story building constructed in 1969 entirely of reinforced concrete with a built-up roof. Original square footage was 21,560 (2,003 m ) with an immediate addition of 10,836 ft (1,006 m ), for a total square footage of 32,396 (3,009 m ). The
2 2 2 2
41
building is clearly identified by a large exterior sign, and landscaping includes a series of groomed trees and a relatively large front yard area. A circular drive allows direct access to the front door of the building. Exterior stairways are on either end of the building, and a bomb shelter is located subsurface. The headquarters building, located near the main base entrance, has housed the WTC since its construction, just three years after the Command Center's inception.
The headquarters building exhibits intact external integrity. Access to all of the building was not obtained, thus visual assessment of the entire building's interior integrity was not possible. However, the real property card for the building indicates that no major renovations have occurred, and the building has been used only for the WTC since it was constructed, thus interior integrity is also determined to be intact.
This Command Center is exceptionally important to the base and national Cold War contexts. It exemplifies the flight and combat training mission of the base and the importance of fighter capability to the nation during the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and for any future war in Southeast Asia. The Center provided the nation's premier flight and combat training, and provided this training not only to all four branches of the U.S. military, but also to pilots of other friendly nations. The importance of this building is exhibited in its combined characteristics, such as reinforced concrete construction, a bomb shelter, and formal landscaping, typical of a significant administration center during the Cold War period. The WTC Headquarters fulfilled this
exceptional role during Phases III and IV of the Cold War era, and meets NRHP criterion (a).
42
6.1.2 Documentation
This documentary collection is located in the Civil Engineering drawing room, which is secured, and contains two cabinets of flat files with a total of 20 drawers. This collection includes numerous historical maps, original base master layouts, and construction and utility project maps of Nellis AFB, Indian Springs Auxiliary Air Field, and other related facilities. The maps and drawings are of paper, linen, mylar, vellum, and blue line. Topographic maps, aerial photographs, Government Land Office maps, standard photographs, and archaeological survey maps are present as well.
The flat file collections span the decades from the 1940s to 1990s, including all the Cold War periods, and provide information on several topics. Some of the maps in the flat files that are most pertinent to the Cold War period include the following: (1) maps that immediately pre-date the Cold War including a 1943 Government Land Office map and a 1943 Air Force Flexible Gunnery School Fire Reporting Telephone/Ruby Globe locational map for "Las Vegas Airport;" (2) maps from Phase I, including miscellaneous base surveys from 1945, original utility plans from the 1940s-1950s on linen and paper, and a 1949 Indian Springs layout; (3) maps from Phase II, including a 1953 ordnance storage map, a 1955 Las Vegas Bombing & Gunnery Range map, a 1957 map of Tonopah Air Force Station, and a map dated June 9, 1959 titled "USAF Special World Aeronautical Chart" that covers southern Nevada, southern California, southwestern Utah, northwestern Arizona, and Mexico and has Lake Mead 405-S labeled; (4) maps from Phase III, including a 1967 Nellis AFB master plan, a 1969 base map, and a 1973 mylar range operation map; and (5) a set of 80, 1"=100 scale aerial photographs of the base and surrounding facilities (some are processed and others are large negatives).
In addition to the flat files, the drawing room contains cabinets with individual building specifications in hanging files, all of which are locked. There are 23 cabinets total: 19 are
43
arranged by real property number, two are labeled "Master Plan Files" and contain utility mylars from at least the 1980s, another is labeled "Area II", and the last includes master plans for projects by fiscal year from 1987-1993. In the corner of the room are a few rolled maps in wooden floor cabinets, the most significant being a roll of original ink on linen utility plans from 1944-1945.
These files include numerous maps and photographs that are a valuable source of information regarding base development and history. In general, the resources are kept in a secure, climate controlled room. The older, more fragile ones are not being preserved separately, and some have been torn through use.
The Real Property Office, located in the Civil Engineering building, maintains a collection of historical resources. These include books, maps, photographs, aerial photographs, and brochures pertaining to Nellis AFB and its associated facilities. Some of those that are most relevant to the Cold War period include the following: (1) data for Phase I, including Historical Property Surveys such as a 1946 Analysis of Existing Facilities in a master planning document for Las Vegas Army Airfield, a 1951 map for a Preliminary Master Plan for Nellis AFB, and Installation Survey Reports for Nellis AFB, Nellis AFR, and Indian Springs detailing history and mission; (2) data for Phase II, including a 1957 Real Property Study; (3) data for Phase III, including a Base Civil Engineering Information Brochure by TAC in 1970 and base maps from 1977-1982; (4) data for Phase IV, including a Real Property Study from 1986 with base maps and aerial photographs in an appendix.
These historical resources offer valuable data regarding base development, particularly for the earliest Cold War phases. They are also useful as a resource for evaluating real property. The collections are carefully preserved by the office staff, but the fact that they are not in a truly secured area increases the chance for inadvertent damage or removal.
44
A documentary collection is maintained in the secured WTC Historian's office in the WTC Headquarters building. This collection includes photographs, newspapers, oral histories, video tapes, maps, histories, guidebooks, posters, banners and flags (one for the Fighter Weapons Center and one for the 443rd Tactical Training Group), and certificates of merit.
One drawer contains various black and white and color photographs, slides, and negatives that document commemorative ceremonies with personnel and aircraft. Aerial photographs depict such activities as RED FLAG exercises and illustrate Indian Springs. There are 23 bound volumes of slides, which depict Nellis AFB, the 474th and 57th Wings, aircraft, and MAPLE FLAG, RED FLAG, and GUNSMOKE exercises. Another album contains photographs of Indian Springs and the Nevada Test Site. These volumes also contain black and white 8 x 10 inch photographs of early officers from the 1950s. There are three boxes of miscellaneous photographs, one box of dry mounted photographs, and loose dry mounted photographs of bombing range/test sites and landing strips in the desert. Finally, one large aerial of Nellis AFB from 1964 is maintained.
A collection of various newspapers is also kept by the historian. The collection includes the base newspaper, which spans the years from 1959 to 1986. It also includes the 1952 to 1953 and the 1974 to 1986 Nellis Bullseye and the 1959 to 1973 Nellis Century newspapers.
Cassette tapes containing oral interviews, along with movie reels and video tapes, are also included in this documentary collection. A brief inventory revealed 31 tapes of interviews with 26 individuals, six movie reels, and videos of Desert Storm, Vietnam, and other combat footage. The true nature of this resource is undetermined, yet it could be of great value especially due to its nature as an irreplaceable data source. The interviews may contain insights into Cold War
45
issues from persons who experienced them directly. The movie reels and video tapes were most likely filmed during the Cold War.
The historian also maintains a historical collection in her office. The collection includes various histories, some of which contain photographs, letters, and newspaper clippings, and some base maps. Histories of most relevance to the Cold War study include early wing and unit histories from 1939 to the 1980s, several with photographs of Nellis AFB, personnel, and aircraft. Also important are approximately 54 bound volumes with various historical documents pertaining to Indian Springs, support groups, miscellaneous events, biographies, photographs of facilities, and Nellis AFB background. One bound volume of memorabilia regarding the Manch Manor Capehart Housing dedication of 1960 is maintained. Maps include three Disaster Preparedness maps, one of the main base for 1977 and two for 1985, one layout map of the entire base, and a second of Area II with its weapons storage bunkers.
This documentary collection of resources is important due to its illustration of base history and development, and its connection with WTC operations. The collection is located in a secured area and is well organized and maintained by the historian.
The 57th Wing Historian maintains a historical and memorial collection in his office, located in the 57th Wing Headquarters building. The historical collection consists of various histories, historical photographs, and maps, including wing histories from 1981-1989, a set of 13 framed photographs of various aircraft types, a 1948 aerial photograph of the base, and a more recent base master plan showing Area II.
The memorial collection consists of various banners, hats, patches, plaques, trophies, relics, and photographs, including a captured Russian rifle (from Vietcong) presented to the 429th Tactical Fighter Squadron in 1965, several awards from Korea, a large collection of various hats and
46
badges (some displayed on the office walls), plaques, framed and dry mounted photographs, and awards from 1981-1989. Outside the office are photographs of the Wing Commanders from 1969-1993, the 57th Fighter Squadron from 1940-1945, 57th Interceptor Group/Wing from 1946-1953 and 1960-1968, and 57th Weapons Wing 1969-1972, and five wall plaques with "ACC vision, quality, mission, style, and goals."
The resource is important due to its connection with the 57th Wing and mainly reflects wing activities during Phase IV of the Cold War period. The collection also illustrates the overall base role during the Cold War. The collection is being protected, and is well organized and in good condition.
6.2.1 Documentation
The Real Property Office, located in the Civil Engineering building (No. 812), maintains a collection of photographs of weapons storage facilities in Area II of Nellis AFB, taken in 1969. Buildings photographed include trash incinerators, warehouses, sheds, electrical stations, flammables, munitions bunkers, EVAC AMMO concrete bunkers, loading docks, a water tower, watch towers, flammables sheds, and observation posts.
These photographs provide valuable documentation of weapons facilities at Nellis AFB. They were taken during the height of use of the area for weapons storage during the Cold War. The exact nature of the weapons stored there is unclear. The photographs are particularly important because they document an area that is secured, even today. These photographs, however, are not stored in a secured area.
47
6.2.2 Maintenance Hangars/Docks
6.2.2.1 Maintenance Hangar (Resource No. 6051, Real Property No. 292)
This Maintenance Hangar supports aircraft maintenance, repair, and inspection activities for the Thunderbird Air Demonstration Squadron fleet. A portion of the hangar has been converted to a museum, housing Thunderbird memorabilia from 1953 to the present.
Built in 1942, the building exhibits a rounded roof and sliding solid doors. The hangar is a permanent building constructed of corrugated metal siding, walls, and roof, with a concrete floor and reinforced concrete foundation. Its square footage is 45,023 (4,182 m ), with no additions since its original construction apparent from the Real Property card. Renovations include the removal of metal rollup doors in 1960, numerous utility updates, and the addition of partitions in 1967. In general, the hangar has been well maintained and regularly repaired and improved since its construction. The exterior is distinctively painted white with red and blue accents and labeled with emblems for the Thunderbirds. At some point, the museum portion of the hangar must have been renovated to accommodate exhibits and tours, but the exact date is not apparent from the Real Property card. The hangar's original use was as a maintenance hangar, then utilization was changed to a shop for aircraft engine inspection and repair, then to a squadron operations building, then back to a maintenance hangar, all for the Thunderbird squadron.
2
Despite the renovations that have occurred in upgrading and maintain this hangar, no major renovations have occurred, according to the Real Property documentation. Therefore, external and internal integrity are determined to be intact.
The Thunderbirds are exceptionally important not only due to their prestige within the Air Force as an elite flying squadron; they also maintain the capability to be transitioned into active service in a national emergency. The Thunderbirds epitomize Nellis AFB's slogan "Home of the Fighter Pilot." Finally, the Thunderbirds travel throughout the world, performing precision flight
48
demonstrations, reflecting the world-class ability of the USAF to both allies and adversaries. This hangar is the only one at Nellis AFB that maintains a direct link with the squadron it supported through three decades of the Cold War. It performed this function through Phases II, III, and IV of the Cold War era and meets NRHP criterion (a).
None were evaluated at Nellis AFB.
6.4.1 Combat Training
6.4.1.1 RED FLAG Facility (Resource No. 6066, Real Property No. 201)
This building is used as an operational building for RED FLAG training activities, planning, mission assessment debriefings, and administration. RED FLAG is a joint training squadron providing air power in direct support of the U.S. Army National Training Center in Fort Irwin, California. It is one in a series of advanced training programs that result in increased combat capability of the United States and Allied forces, and is operated by the WTC.
2 2
This permanent building, constructed in 1971 with 25,920 ft (734 m ), has concrete masonry unit walls with a five-ply built up roof, on a concrete floor and foundation. In 1980, an audio control booth was added, and, in 1984, a significant construction addition of 47,216 ft (1,337 m ) was added. Several utility renovations were undertaken through 1989, along with the construction of a concrete ramp, pads, and stoops. The current square footage is 73,136, (2,071 m ). The building is clearly marked with RED FLAG logos and signs.
2 2 2
49
The exterior integrity of the building is intact. Since the building has retained its original function, and the Real Property Office documentation indicates that the only additions made were to assist in the building's function, interior integrity is also determined to be intact.
The association of RED FLAG with the Cold War is exceptional, having been developed as a result of losses in Vietnam. To ensure improved readiness for future conflicts, RED FLAG provided pilots with the most realistic combat flying training, thereby increasing the success and survivability rates of U.S. and allied forces. The RED FLAG operations further strengthened Nellis AFB's distinction as the premier fighter training base and played an exceptionally important role in the preparation of U.S. and allied fighter forces. This facility, built to house RED FLAG operations, fulfilled this role during Phases III and IV of the Cold War era, and meets NRHP criterion (a).
6.4.1.2 Threat Facility Collection (Resource No. 6072, Located in Real Property No. 470)
The Threat Facility Collection, maintained by the 547th Adversary Threat Squadron, is located west of the flight line in the southern portion of the base. The collection provides simulated enemy technology and weaponry for realistic war training using captured, donated, and recreated display exhibits. Some of the collection dates to World War II; however, the majority is from the Cold War period. Portions of the collection are classified and were not available for assessment by the field team.
The facility complex consists of an entryway, exhibit hall, and auditorium in the main building, with exhibits including relics and memorial items, a Yemen flight suit, mounted aerial photographs depicting the development of the building, framed Soviet propaganda posters, framed information sheets on various enemy aircraft and tanks, numerous gun displays, and scaled aircraft models mounted on the wall that represent all Soviet aircraft between the 1950s and today.
50
The large weaponry is displayed in an adjacent outdoor enclosure and is generally organized by categories including anti-aircraft, surface to surface, air to surface, infantry fighting vehicles, strategic surface to air, armored vehicles and tanks, and radar devices. Aircraft are kept in an adjacent enclosed room. Each display is labeled with an informational sign. The majority of the large weaponry was used in Cold War period conflicts such as the Vietnam War; however, more recent material, such as that used in Desert Storm, is displayed as well.
The collection of items at the Threat Facility is used for training fighter pilots to prepare them for combat situations both in the United States and abroad. Though the objects are not removed from the facility and actually put to use, they are used as training aids, enabling the pilot to become familiar with weaponry and aircraft used by potential enemies. The integrity of the collection and the individual items within the collection remains intact.
The Threat Facility building itself, constructed of metal walls and roof with a concrete floor and foundation, was built in 1972 as a permanent building with a square footage of 7,700 (715 m ). Although the exact order of previous uses is unclear, it apparently functioned as a heavy equipment shop and vehicle maintenance shop prior to being chosen in 1976 to house the threat collections. At this point, the Real Property card describes the building as having been relocated and renumbered. Remarks on the card include "Butler Building, surplus B-58 shelter, moved to Nellis main base NE." After 1976, several improvements were made, including utility upgrades and expansions to accommodate exhibits, resulting in a current square footage of 17,321 (5,279 m ).
2 2
The Threat Facility Collection is exceptionally important to the base and national Cold War contexts for the role it plays within the fighter training complex at Nellis AFB and for the unique training experience it provides not only to USAF fighter pilots, but to pilots of all four branches of the military and to pilots from allied nations. Use of this collection improves the success and
survivability of fighter forces during combat situations. This collection has performed this training mission during Phases III and IV of the Cold War era, and meets NRHP criterion (a).
51
6.4.1.3 Weapons School (Resource No. 6130, Real Property No. 282)
The Weapons School provides state-of-the-art training in weapons technology for squadron instructors. Built in 1969 as a permanent building, the original nomenclature for this building was as aircraft and weapons training. Currently, it is classified as a flight training classroom.
The school is a single story, concrete masonry building with exterior signage relating to its ACC mission and function. Remarks on the property card refer to a mechanical equipment yard, block wall, and concrete stoop and ramp. It is also noted that the building was dedicated "Waxman Hall" on June 12, 1969 after Major Saul Waxman. A large addition to the building's original square footage of 22,240 (2,066 m ) came in 1985 with the construction of an electric substation, compressed air plant, and other utility improvements resulting in the current square footage of 42,383 (3,937 m ). The building retains its exterior integrity. Although additions to the main building have been made, the real property card indicates no major renovations. As the building has retained the same function since being built, its interior integrity is determined to be intact.
2 2
The Weapons School is exceptionally important in that it epitomizes the fighter training role of Nellis AFB during the Cold War and played a major role in preparing all Air Force fighter squadrons for combat. It also trained pilots of the other military branches and pilots from allied nations. This school functioned in this role during Phases III and IV, and meets NRHP criterion (a).
None were evaluated at Nellis AFB.
52
The purpose of the reconnaissance inventory was to provide initial information on the kinds of Cold War resources extant on Nellis 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 Nellis AFB. These resources should be investigated further for a more comprehensive analyses.
Almost all buildings and structures have been removed from Cuddeback GR. The only surface evidence that buildings once existed there is the presence of concrete foundations where the buildings once stood. Remaining structures and objects at the range include the asphalt runway, which is very short, narrow, and in serious disrepair, a few target vehicles, ordnance casings, and a barbed wire fence.
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 Nellis AFB revealed approximately 560 citations. Most of these are unit histories and special collections. More specific topics include the histories of various flight and combat training programs. The vast majority of these documents are available on microfilm. Future studies of Cold War history at Nellis AFB should allot time to researching these documents.
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 is presented in Appendix E.
53
The base is consistently updating its facilities, primarily through the demolition of old buildings and construction of new. No list was available that identified these buildings, thus it is currently unknown whether substantial modification or demolition is planned for any of the evaluated properties. During the base visit, the demolition of one of the last remaining World War II buildings was observed.
54
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 Nellis 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.
55
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 Nellis 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
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 Nellis AFB have not been evaluated, and thus must be considered and treated as eligible until an evaluation and determination of eligibility are made.
56
These
57
58
Recommendations for the evaluated resources at Nellis AFB are presented below. Table 9.1 summarizes these recommendations. More than one recommendation may apply to a given
9.2.1 Command Center (Resource No. 6001, Real Property No. 620)
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases III and IV. It meets NRHP criterion (a) based on its role in providing the premier flight and combat training to not only U.S. forces, but also to pilots of allied nations. The integrity of the building is determined to be intact based upon partial observation, the lack of documented major renovations, and use of the building as the WTC Headquarters since its construction. Therefore, this building is recommended as eligible to the NRHP.
60
This collection, consisting of maps, drawings, and photographs from all four Phases of the Cold War era, is stored in a secure area in the drawing room of Civil Engineering. The older items are stored with the newer, more frequently used ones, thus they are accessed regularly and subject to wear. It is recommended that this collection be inventoried and copied, with the copies going to the base for its use and the originals sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
This collection of books, maps, photographs, and brochures is treated carefully; however, it is not in a secure area and could easily be damaged. It is recommended that the collection be
inventoried and copied. It is further recommended that the copies be retained by the base for its use and that the originals be sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
This collection of photographs, newspapers, oral histories, video tapes, maps, histories, and objects of memorabilia is located in a secure office, and is well organized and maintained by the historian. It is recommended that the memorabilia be retained by the historian for inventory and stewardship. It is recommended that the oral history tapes be transcribed to provide a hard-copy of the interviews' contents. Finally, it is recommended that the photographs, newspapers, oral histories, video tapes, maps, and histories be inventoried and copied, that the base retain the
61
copies for its use, and that the originals be sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
This collection of historical and memorial items is protected, well organized, and in good condition. It is recommended that the historic collection of histories, photographs, and maps, and the photographs in the memorial collection be inventoried and copied, with the copies retained by the base for its use and the originals sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation. It is recommended that the remaining objects in the memorial collection be kept at the base, inventoried and stewarded by the wing historian.
This collection of photographs of the weapons storage facilities in Area II of Nellis AFB record facilities in active use during Phase III of the Cold War era. It is recommended that the collection be inventoried and copied, with the copies retained by the base for its use and the originals sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
9.2.7 Maintenance Hangar (Resource No. 6051, Real Property No. 292)
The Thunderbird Maintenance Hangar is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II through IV. It meets NRHP criterion (a) based on its direct and continuous link to the Thunderbird elite flying squadron. The integrity of the building is determined to be intact based on the lack of documented major renovations and its continuous use as a hangar for the Thunderbird fleet. 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.
62
9.2.8 RED FLAG Facility (Resource No. 6066, Real Property No. 201)
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases III and IV. It meets NRHP criterion (a) based on its association with RED FLAG operations and the preparation of U.S. and allied fighter forces and on its role within Nellis AFB's fighter training complex. The integrity of the building is determined to be intact based upon partial observation, the lack of documented major renovations, and the use of the building for the same purpose since its construction. 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.
9.2.9 Threat Facility Collection (Resource No. 6072, Located in Real Property No. 470)
This collection is evaluated as exceptionally important to the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases III and IV. It meets NRHP criterion (a) due to its role in the advanced training mission conducted by Nellis AFB for U.S. military pilots and pilots from allied nations. The integrity of the collection is determined to be intact. Therefore, this collection is recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Recommendations include stewardship to maintain the integrity of the collection and further documentation to nominate this resource to the NRHP.
9.2.10 Weapons School (Resource No. 6130, Real Property No. 282)
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important to the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases III and IV. It meets NRHP criterion (a) based on its direct association with the Weapons School and its role in the fighter combat training of pilots from the USAF, the other military branches, and allied nations. The integrity of the building is determined to be intact based upon the lack of documented major renovations and sole use of the building for the Weapons School. Therefore, this building is recommended as eligible to the NRHP.
63
Recommendations include stewardship to maintain the integrity of the building, and further documentation to nominate this resource to the NRHP.
64
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. Armstrong, E. L., ed. 1976 History of Public Works in the United States, 1776-1976. American Public Works Association, Chicago, Illinois. Department of Defense 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. Hays, J. R. 1968 History of the 474th Tactical Fighter Wing, Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, 1 January through 30 June 1968. Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. Hinds, J. R. 1970 History of the USAF Tactical Fighter Weapons Center, 57th Fighter Weapons Wing, USAF Air Demonstration Squadron, 1 January 1970 - 30 June 1970. Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. 1976 Epitome of the History of Nellis Air Force Base, 1940-1966. United States Air Force Tactical Fighter Weapons Center, Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. 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. Mueller, R. 1989 Air Force Bases: Active Air Force Bases Within the United States of America on 17 September 1982. Office of Air Force History, United States Air Force, Washington, D.C.
65
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. Nellis Air Force Base 1992 554th Support Group/Fact Sheet. On file at the Public Affairs Office, Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. 1993 Nellis Air Force Base, 1994. Marcoa Publishing, Inc., San Diego, California. O'Burke, R. 1965 History of the 4520th Combat Crew Training Wing (Tactical Fighter), Twelfth Air Force, Tactical Air Command, 1 July through 31 December 1965. Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. 1966 History of the United States Air Force Tactical Fighter Weapons Center, Twelfth Air Force, Tactical Air Command, 1 September through 31 December 1966. Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. Office of History 1993 Brief History of USAF Weapons and Tactics Center (Air Combat Command) and Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. Office of History, Weapons and Tactics Center, Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. Shoemaker, E. S. 1981 History of the 57th Fighter Wing, Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, 1 April 1981-30 June 1981 Tactical Fighter Weapons Center, Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. United States Air Force 1972a Installation Survey Report, Nellis Air Force Base. On file at the Real Property Office, 558th Civil Engineering Squadron, Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. 1972b Installation Survey Report, Nellis Air Force Range. On file at the Real Property Office, 558th Civil Engineering Squadron, Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. 1972c Installation Survey Report, Indian Springs Auxiliary Airfield. On file at the Real Property Office, 558th Civil Engineering Squadron, Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. 1991 History of Area II, Formerly Known as Lake Mead Base. On file at the Real Property Office, 558th Civil Engineering Squadron, Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada.
66
1992 Final Report, Informational Summary of U.S. Air Force Operations at Cuddeback Gunnery Range. 35th Civil Engineering Squadron, George Air Force Base, California. 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. 1994 Indian Springs Air Force Auxiliary Field, Nevada, Real Property Utilization Survey. On file at the Real Property Office, 558th Civil Engineering Squadron, Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. War Department 1946 Analysis of Existing Facilities for Master Planning, Las Vegas Army Air Field, Las Vegas, Nevada. On file at the Real Property Office, 558th Civil Engineering Squadron, Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. Wing Historian's Office 1993 Brief History of the 57th Wing (Air Combat Command) and Nellis Air Force Base. 57th Wing Headquarters, Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada.
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 Nellis AFB, and to provide research materials for this study:
Mary Ann Cox Chief of Real Estate Real Property Officer 558 CES/CER 6048 McGouch Pkwy Nellis AFB, Nevada 89191-7247 (702) 652-3302 SrA Kenneth Lewis Wing Historian 57 Wing/HQ 4430 Grissom Avenue, Suite 206 Nellis AFB, Nevada 89191-6521 (702) 652-2801 Lila Edwards Public Affairs WTC/PA 4370 N. Washington BLVD, Suite 223 Nellis AFB, Nevada 89191-7078 Captain Foti Drawing Room Civil Engineering Office 558 CER/CERR 6048 McGouch Pkwy Nellis AFB, Nevada 89191-7247 (702) 652-8442 Jim Patrick Cultural Resources Management WTC/EV 4553 Devlin Drive Nellis AFB, Nevada 89191-5000 (702) 652-9367
VOLUME II-23: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE AT OFFUTT AIR FORCE BASE
Prepared by Lori E. Rhodes Patience Elizabeth Patterson Katherine J. Roxlau
October 1997
Volume II-23: Offutt Air Force Base
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Offutt Air Force Base was inventoried by Patience Elizabeth Patterson and Lori E. Rhodes of Mariah Associates, Inc., between July 6 and 19, 1994, as part of the Air Combat Command Cold War study. Information was gathered at the base from the United States Strategic Command Historian, the Wing Historian, the Chief of Cultural and Natural Resources and his staff, 55th Civil Engineering Squadron Drawing Room staff, and the Real Property Office personnel. On-site inspections were also conducted. identified and then photographed. During this research and inspection, property types were
A significant number of material culture resources were identified as relating to the Cold War era, and thus to the scope of this study. Most of these relate to the role of Offutt Air Force Base as Strategic Air Command headquarters during all phases of the Cold War period, as described in the historic context and methodology document produced for this project (Lewis et al. 1995).
Twenty resources on the base were more fully documented and evaluated as important to the base and national Cold War context. The most significant buildings evaluated are those related to Strategic Air Command Headquarters and the Commander in Chief, and to the Post-Attack Command & Control System and National Emergency Airborne Command Post operations, and to reconnaissance and communications survivability. One building, the Strategic Air Command Memorial Chapel, was identified as an important property reflecting the social aspects of the Cold War period. The Silver Creek low-frequency transmitter site, located off-base, was an additional focus of this study due to its significant role as a vital, survivable communication link for Strategic Air Command during the last two Cold War phases. Archival resources and memorabilia were evaluated as well, many of them associated with these significant resources.
Recommendations for treatment of these evaluated resources range from stewardship to nomination for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Two resources are already listed on the National Register of Historic Places, six are recommended as eligible, and one is
ii
recommended as potentially eligible.
Five resources do not currently meet the eligibility These resources are Stewardship is
requirements for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
recommended for re-evaluation when they meet the 50 year criterion.
recommended for a collection of objects, and further documentation, stewardship, and conservation are recommended for the six documentary resources.
iii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACC ACCS ACHP ACOM AFB AFIA AFMC AFSPACECOM AGE ALCS AMC AMMS AMS CES CINCSAC CINCSTRAT CMAH DoD EMP FMS FTD GWC HABS ICBM JSTPS MAC Mariah MMS NCO NEACP NHPA NORAD NPS NRHP OCONUS OMS PACCS PAS PME RAPCON SAAC
Air Combat Command Airborne Command and Control Squadron Advisory Council on Historic Preservation United States Atlantic Command Air Force Base Air Force Intelligence Agency Air Force Materiel Command Air Force Space Command Air Ground Equipment Airborne Launch Control System Air Mobility Command Airborne Missile Maintenance Squadron Avionics Maintenance Squadron Civil Engineering Squadron Commander in Chief of Strategic Air Command Commander in Chief of the United States Strategic Command Commander in Chief Mobile Alternate Headquarters Department of Defense Electromagnetic Pulse Field Maintenance Squadron Field Training Detachment Global Weather Central Historic American Buildings Survey Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff Military Airlift Command Mariah Associates, Inc. Munitions Maintenance Squadron Non-Commissioned Officer National Emergency Airborne Command Post National Historic Preservation Act North American Aerospace Defense Command National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Off the Continental United States Organizational Maintenance Squadron Post Attack Command and Control System Primary Alerting System Precision Measurement Equipment Radar Approach Control Center Strategic Analysis and Application Center
iv
SAC SALT SDI SHPO SIOP SLBM START STRATCOM TAC USAAF USAF USAFE
Strategic Air Command Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty Strategic Defense Initiative State Historic Preservation Officer Single Integrated Operational Plan Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile Strategic Arms Reduction Talks United States Strategic Command Tactical Air Command United States Army Air Force United States Air Force United States Air Forces in Europe
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. Berlin Airlift - when the Soviet Union blocked all routes into the city of Berlin in an attempt to take control of the city, the west responded by airlifting food and other supplies into the city. 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. Flexible Response - a military strategy adopted by President Kennedy whereby the type of response to enemy aggression is dependent upon the nature and seriousness of that aggression. Under this strategy, nuclear weapons are used for only two purposes: for deterrence and as a weapon of last resort. 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. 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 Command Authority - the President and the Secretary of Defense,who are responsible for making final decisions about the use of U.S. nuclear weapons. National Emergency Airborne Command Post - one of three National Military Command Centers that directly supports the National Command Authorities and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In the event of a national emergency, this airborne command post provides a survivable means of executing National Command Authority war orders.
vi
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. 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. Post Attack Command and Control System - a system of airplanes that could serve as U.S. command posts should command centers on the ground become inoperable. These modified Boeing 707 aircraft were originally supervised by the Strategic Air Command. They are now under the control of U.S. Strategic Command. 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. Single Integrated Operational Plan - the top-secret U.S. plan for fighting a full-scale nuclear war. It is a comprehensive plan that takes into account all details for waging a nuclear war, and includes Great Britain's war plans. It was first developed during the Eisenhower administration, and is continually updated to keep abreast of changes in world politics and technology. 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 deterioration of United States and Soviet Union relations in the late 1970s, both sides agreed to abide by its terms.
vii
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.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... i LIST OF ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................... iii GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................................................ v 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 5 5 7
3.0 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 13 3.1 BASE HISTORY AND COLD WAR CONTEXT.............................................................. 13 3.2 BASE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................... 21 4.0 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 30 4.1 INVENTORY ........................................................................................................................ 30 4.2 EVALUATION OF IMPORTANT RESOURCES ............................................................. 31 4.2.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 31 4.2.2 Evaluation of Importance ............................................................................................. 31 4.2.2.1 Cold War Context ............................................................................................... 31 4.2.2.2 NRHP Criteria..................................................................................................... 32 4.2.2.3 Exceptional Importance ...................................................................................... 33 4.2.3 Evaluation of Integrity.................................................................................................. 33 4.2.4 Priority Matrix .............................................................................................................. 34 4.2.5 Resource Organization ................................................................................................. 35 4.3 BASE SPECIFIC METHODS .............................................................................................. 35 5.0 RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY RESULTS ..................................................................... 37 6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS......................................................................................................... 38 6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS ........................................................ 38 6.1.1 Base and Command Centers ........................................................................................ 38 6.1.1.1 Major Command Headquarters .......................................................................... 38 6.1.1.2 Major Command Headquarters .......................................................................... 42 6.1.1.3 Major Command Post ......................................................................................... 43 6.1.2 Communications .......................................................................................................... 44
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.1.2.1 Low Frequency Transmitter Complex................................................................ 44 6.1.3 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 45 6.1.3.1 Architectural Drawing Files ............................................................................... 45 6.1.3.2 Documentary Collection ..................................................................................... 45 6.1.3.3 Documentary Collection ..................................................................................... 46 6.1.3.4 Photograph Collection ........................................................................................ 46 6.1.3.5 Office Files .......................................................................................................... 47 6.1.3.6 Photograph Collection ........................................................................................ 47 6.1.4 Housing ........................................................................................................................ 48 6.1.4.1 Unaccompanied Housing.................................................................................... 48 6.1.4.2 Commander Housing .......................................................................................... 49 6.1.5 Memorial ...................................................................................................................... 50 6.1.5.1 Memorial Chapel ................................................................................................ 50 6.1.5.2 Museum Collection............................................................................................. 52 6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS ......................................................... 53 6.2.1 Alert Facilities .............................................................................................................. 53 6.2.1.1 Command and Control Alert Facility ................................................................. 53 6.2.1.2 Command and Control Alert Facility ................................................................. 54 6.2.1.3 Command and Control Alert Facility ................................................................. 54 6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES ..................................................................... 55 6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES...................................................................................................... 55 6.4.1 Flight Training.............................................................................................................. 55 6.4.1.1 Flight Simulator .................................................................................................. 55 6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES ............................................................................................ 56 6.5.1 Communications .......................................................................................................... 56 6.5.1.1 Satellite Communications Complex ................................................................... 56 6.5.2 Weather Reconnaissance ............................................................................................. 57 6.5.2.1 Global Weather Service ...................................................................................... 57 7.0 UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 58 8.0 FUTURE THREATS TO RESOURCES ................................................................................... 59 9.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 60 9.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY ............................................................................................................ 60 9.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility.................................................... 60 9.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility ................................................................................ 62 9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 63 9.2.1 Major Command Headquarters.................................................................................... 66 9.2.2 Major Command Headquarters.................................................................................... 67
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 9.2.3 Major Command Post .................................................................................................. 67 9.2.4 Low Frequency Transmitter Complex ......................................................................... 68 9.2.5 Architectural Drawing Files ......................................................................................... 68 9.2.6 Documentary Collection .............................................................................................. 68 9.2.7 Documentary Collection .............................................................................................. 68 9.2.8 Photograph Collection.................................................................................................. 69 9.2.9 Office Files ................................................................................................................... 69 9.2.10 Photograph Collection ............................................................................................... 69 9.2.11 Unaccompanied Housing ........................................................................................... 69 9.2.12 Commander Housing ................................................................................................. 70 9.2.13 Memorial Chapel........................................................................................................ 70 9.2.14 Museum Collection .................................................................................................... 70 9.2.15 Command and Control Alert Facility ........................................................................ 70 9.2.16 Command and Control Alert Facility ........................................................................ 71 9.2.17 Command and Control Alert Facility ........................................................................ 71 9.2.18 Flight Simulator ......................................................................................................... 71 9.2.19 Satellite Communications Complex .......................................................................... 72 9.2.20 Global Weather Service ............................................................................................. 72 10.0 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................. 74 APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D: APPENDIX E: RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY BASE LAYOUT MAPS SHOWING INVENTORIED RESOURCES PHOTOGRAPHS OF INVENTORIED RESOURCES DATA BASE DOCUMENTATION FOR EVALUATED RESOURCES EXTANT SOURCES OF INFORMATION
xi
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Figure 3.5 Bases Selected for the Air Combat Command Cold War Study .............................. 2 Location of Offutt Air Force Base............................................................................. 6 Standard Strategic Air Command Base Layout ........................................................ 8 Offutt Air Force Base Land Use Diagram................................................................ 10 Standard Strategic Air Command Base Land Use Diagram ................................... 11 Offutt Air Force Base 1940s...................................................................................... 22 Offutt Air Force Base 1950-1960 .............................................................................. 24 Offutt Air Force Base 1960-1970 .............................................................................. 26 Offutt Air Force Base 1970-1980 .............................................................................. 28 Offutt Air Force Base 1980-present .......................................................................... 29
LIST OF TABLES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
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 Alamogordo, 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.
This report is a reconnaissance inventory of Cold War related resources on Offutt Air Force Base (AFB). Offutt 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.
The 55th Wing is the host unit at Offutt AFB. The current mission of the 55th Wing of the ACC, under the 12th Air Force, is to conduct strategic reconnaissance on a global scale. The 2nd Airborne Command and Control Squadron (ACCS) operates, maintains, and supports the United States Strategic Command's (STRATCOM) airborne command post, the Post Attack Command and Control System (PACCS), commonly known as "Looking Glass." The 1st ACCS conducts airborne and ground alert operations in support of the National Emergency Airborne Command Post (NEACP) for the National Command Authorities. These squadrons provide personnel and aircraft capable of successfully accomplishing the PACCS mission or the NEACP mission, respectively. The 38th, 343rd, and the 45th Strategic Reconnaissance Squadrons at Offutt AFB fulfill the requirements of the National Emergency War Order as directed by proper command authority. The 55th Operations Squadron is tasked with the daily operations, maintenance, and training for the Commander in Chief of STRATCOM (CINCSTRAT) Mobile Alternate Headquarters (CMAH). When directed by CINCSTRAT, the 55th Operations Squadron becomes an integral part of the CMAH battle staff responsible for generation, deployment, communications, emergency actions, and support staff sustaining the STRATCOM during transition and post attack capability. Air Force Global Weather Central (GWC), another part of Offutt AFB, provides tailored meteorological information and data to major air commands, higher levels of the Department of Defense (DoD), and to all weather service units.
There are 34 tenant units, detachments, and operating locations on Offutt AFB. These are part of several major commands, including ACC, Air Force Space Command (AFSPACECOM), the Air Force Intelligence Agency (AFIA), Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC), and Air Mobility Command (AMC). Another major tenant on the base, STRATCOM, is a unified command. STRATCOM exists to deter a major military attack on the United States and its allies and, should deterrence fail, to retaliate. STRATCOM conducts operations worldwide through a joint-service
mix of the most sophisticated weapon systems available (United States Strategic Command 1994). Its staff is primarily made up of personnel from the Air Force and Navy. The
headquarters of STRATCOM is located at Offutt AFB and the CINCSTRAT, a rotating position between the Air Force and Navy, is currently a Navy Admiral.
Offutt AFB is located in the rolling hills of the Central Lowlands of the north central United States. It is located in eastern Nebraska, approximately 7 mi (11 km) south of downtown Omaha, and adjacent to the city of Bellevue in Sarpy County, Nebraska (Figure 2.1). As of 1991, Offutt AFB had under its jurisdiction 4,060 acres (1,643 ha) on and off the installation, and there were eight off-base sites in operation (United States Air Force [USAF] 1991). As of 1994, some of the Communication Annexes have been or are in the process of being deactivated. Elkhorn Communications Annex No. 2 is located approximately 35 mi (56 km) northwest of the base. It is comprised of 372 acres (151 ha) and is operational at this time. Deactivated annexes include the Hastings Radar Bomb Scoring Site and its attendant family housing, which consists of 55 acres (22 ha) located 165 mi (265 km) southwest of Offutt AFB, and the Silver Creek Communication Annex No. 4, located 110 mi (177 km) west of Offutt AFB and including approximately 375 acres (152 ha).
Offutt AFB is bounded on the west by U.S. Highway 75, although a housing extension exists west of this highway along Capehart Road). The southern boundary is Offutt Creek, and the Missouri Pacific Railroad runs adjacent to the base to both the west and south. The eastern boundary generally abuts a wooded area. These boundaries are defined by a perimeter road (Gemini Boulevard). The northern boundary is adjacent to a residential area of Omaha. The main base area occupies the southern portion of the overall base area, with a smaller cluster of primary buildings in the northwestern quadrant. This positioning of important base buildings
varies from the typical SAC fighter home base (Figure 2.2), where one side of the primary runway is utilized almost exclusively.
The primary runway at Offutt AFB, aligned northwest-southeast, joins with the main base flight line on the northeast. A secondary runway runs perpendicular to the primary one, intersecting it just east of the northwestern building cluster. The SAC Museum is positioned at the northern extremity of this secondary runway. A third, closed runway runs north-south, bisecting the other two runways. This runway arrangement is not entirely unlike the standard layout, where secondary runways running in similar configurations exist at one end of the primary runway.
The remaining base lands include Offutt Lake, located near the southeastern corner of the base, and a few clear zones where generally no development is to occur, although some existing buildings fall within these zones. Ancillary facilities such as an obstacle course, the working dog kennels, and the small arms range are located south of Gemini Boulevard.
2.4 BASE LAND USE
The following is a list of standard SAC land use categories: Alert Facilities - 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 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. Weapon 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.
Overall, Offutt AFB (Figure 2.3) exhibits an alternative land use plan to the standard SAC land use configuration (Figure 2.4), although there are some similarities. Similar to the standard plan, the current land use configuration of the main base at Offutt AFB includes mission buildings which run parallel to the flight line and the primary runway. Maintenance docks are located directly on the apron. Support buildings, such as propulsion and avionics, are located adjacent to the mission area. Community, recreation, and housing areas are generally located on the edge of the base, away from the flight line. Industrial areas on both plans are located on the outskirts of base development. Interestingly, the location of the Command Post in the standard plan corresponds to the location of the STRATCOM Command Post at Offutt AFB.
The plans are more different than similar. In terms of land use areas, there are two main areas of base support facilities at Offutt AFB, one at the northern end of the runway and including the Martin Bomber Building and the Law Center (old SAC Command Post), and one near the southern end of the runway adjacent to the NEACP and PACCS operations areas. Only one main base support area is identified in the standard plan. Community areas are relatively sparse at Offutt AFB and are interspersed within other base areas whereas the standard plan includes a large, central area devoted to community buildings. Family housing at Offutt AFB deviates from the standard plan in that housing is nearer the runway and mission areas, although it is still
12
separated from the flight line by community buildings, recreation, and base support areas. Weapons storage areas are lacking at Offutt AFB. Off the base and across U.S. Highway 75, is a base development that contains only family housing, community, and recreation areas. Locating land use areas off-base is another deviation from the standard plan.
The significant variation in the two plans is likely related to Offutt AFB's previous mission as SAC headquarters. Instead of being built around the typical bomber alert facility, with a flight line area and tanker flight line areas, Offutt AFB was arranged to accommodate the more specified missions of the PACCS and NEACP operations. These two operations occupied their own portions of the overall mission area, with the NEACP hangar, squadron operations, and support buildings at the extreme southern end of the runway and the PACCS facilities located further north. Neither of these alert areas was far from the SAC Command Post, located between the PACCS and NEACP operations areas and the rest of the base. The noncombat nature of this base resulted in the lack of a weapons storage area, thus Offutt AFB was able to develop on both sides of the runway. The lack of a weapons storage area and concomitant development on both sides of the runway are the most obvious deviation of this base plan from the standard SAC base land use plan.
13
Offutt AFB history begins in 1888 when Congress authorized the construction of an Army post near Omaha, Nebraska (USAF 1991:3). The post was named Fort Crook in honor of Major General George Crook, a prominent Civil War figure and famed Indian fighter. Construction of the
Officers' Quarters and other barracks began in 1891. By 1896, construction of Fort Crook was completed, including the main barracks across the parade field, now Real Property Nos. 40 and 49, and the guard house, now Real Property No. 42, and used for Security Police Operations. The first occupants of Fort Crook upon its completion in 1896 were the members of the 22nd U.S. Army Infantry. They were veterans of rugged duty in the Dakotas. In 1898, with the advent of the Spanish American War, Fort Crook became a recruiting center and way station for Army troops on their way to Cuba and the Philippines (DoD 1972:12).
The first aviation unit, the 61st Balloon Company, arrived at the Fort just prior to World War I. After entry of the United States into World War I in April 1917, Fort Crook became a training center for balloonists (DoD 1972:13). A 260 acre (105 ha) corn field, formerly leased to a farmer, was plowed, leveled, and seeded to provide a landing strip for military and government planes on cross-country flights so they could land for refueling. In May of 1924, the unnamed landing field was officially designated by the War Department as Offutt Field in honor of 1st Lt. Jarvis Jennes Offutt. Lt. Offutt, Omaha's first air casualty in World War I, lost his life in 1918 while flying with the Royal Air Force in France (Ryon n.d.). The main use for Offutt Field during the mid-1920s was as a stop-over and refueling point for United States mail planes that flew between Chicago, Cheyenne, and other cities. Between the two World Wars, Offutt Field was also a training center for thousands of reservists (Muir Planning Corporation 1986:1-7,1-8).
The first military use of air power was to allow observation of the battles being waged on the ground. Gradually, the airborne observers became fighters and bombers (Yenne 1985:37-40).
14
American military leaders of the time held traditional views of combat and war and would not accept the value of strategic air power. Immediately after World War I, this value was proven to them by Brigadier General Billy Mitchell, who was court-martialed in 1925 for his outspoken beliefs (Yenne 1985:40-41).
With the beginning of World War II in 1939, allies of the United States in Europe and Asia were in need of war materials, especially combat aircraft. Those demands began a change in the U.S. aircraft industry as the United States realized its weakness in air power. The decisive and
humiliating air attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese propelled the United States into the war with great vigor and resolve. It also compelled the U.S. military to recognize the validity of Billy
Mitchell's conviction regarding the value of strategic air power. These factors brought about a major transformation in the aircraft industry.
The War Department decided that the government would build two new plants for bomber and fighter assembly. They also decided that those plants should be built in the interior of the country at least 200 mi (322 km) from the borders. In February of 1941, the United States government and the Glenn L. Martin Company signed a contract for the construction and operation of one of the aircraft assembly plants at Fort Crook. The bomber assembly plant was the design work of famous industrial architect Albert Kahn. He was known for his strikingly novel approach to factory design, especially for assembly-line plants such as his Ford Motor Company plants in the Detroit area (Gowans 1992:228-229). The Martin-Nebraska Company built an assembly plant (the current Martin Bomber Building), a Personnel building (Real Property No. 302), an aircraft modification center (the current Real Property No. 321 remains), several runways, and six large hangars. The assembly plant became operational on
January 1, 1942 and eventually produced 1,585 B-26C Marauder light bombers and first retooled and then produced 531 B-29 Superfortress bombers. At the peak of production in November of 1943, there were 15,000 people on Martin's payroll at the plant. The last B-29 rolled off the line in September 1945 (Muir Planning Corp 1986:1-8).
15
Fort Crook, Offutt Field, and the Martin-Nebraska Company all played a part in the national strategy to eliminate the need to invade the Japanese home islands and thus save two million Allied lives, moreover to keep Russia out of Japan after the war. The strategy (code named the Manhattan Project) at the highest levels of government was to develop a nuclear weapon. In the fall of 1944, the Martin-Nebraska Company was asked to design a carrier capable of hauling a special bomb. Plant engineers worked seven days a week for six weeks to complete the design of the new B-29 bomber. Colonel P.W. Tibbetts, Jr., future pilot of the Enola Gay, brought a facsimile of the real bomb for trial installation. The Martin-Nebraska Company assembled 20 of these specially
designed planes. Two of these specially engineered B-29s, the Enola Gay and Bock's Car, took part in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945, and in World War II's subsequent ending (USAF 1988:10; Yenne 1985:52-55).
In 1946, following the war, Fort Crook was turned over to the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) and renamed Offutt Field. The 2nd Army Air Force Headquarters was moved to Offutt Field, and the base again became a training center for air reserve units (Muir Planning Corporation 1986:1-8).
Recognizing post-World War II changes in military organization supports understanding of the next phase of Offutt AFB's history. In March of 1946, the Continental Air Forces of the USAAF were divided into three separate components: Tactical Air Command (TAC), Military Airlift Command (MAC), and SAC (Lewis et al. 1995). This division was the first step toward the creation of an independent Air Force. SAC's first headquarters was the old Continental Air Forces Headquarters at Bolling Field in Washington, D.C. When General George Kenney arrived to take official command of SAC on October 15, 1946, the headquarters was moved to Andrews Field, Maryland (Yenne 1985:57-59).
The National Defense Act, passed in July 1947, created the office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Agency, and on September 18, 1947, the United States Air Force (Lewis et al. 1995). On January 13, 1948,
16
Offutt Field officially became Offutt AFB. At one minute after midnight on November 9, 1948, SAC headquarters was permanently established at Offutt AFB, Nebraska. With the
establishment of SAC headquarters, the squadrons of the 3902nd Air Base Wing, whose mission was to support the command headquarters, were relocated to Offutt AFB. From this point on, the histories of Offutt AFB and SAC are inextricably intertwined.
General Curtis Emerson LeMay became the Commander in Chief of SAC (CINCSAC) on October 15, 1948. His previous record was an impressive one: he had presided over the defeat of the Japanese in World War II as commander of the 21st Bomber Command, had been the commander of United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE), and had organized the Berlin Airlift (Yenne 1985:63). His influence on SAC and therefore on Offutt AFB was no less impressive. He arrived at Offutt AFB with an understanding acquired in Berlin of the roots of the Cold War and that these tensions would escalate for the next 40 years.
With the demobilization of the military forces after the war, LeMay found SAC to be in a demoralized and less-than-combat-ready state. He was determined to build a command from his headquarters at Offutt AFB that could meet the challenge of its global mission, which was the capability to mount a strategic air offensive anywhere, anytime (Yenne 1985:63-66). This mission became increasingly vital as the Cold War intensified.
With the advent of the Korean War in 1950, the Cold War became multifaceted. The Soviet Union was one direct focus of concern but there were other, indirect foci as well, such as China. SAC had been experimenting at Offutt AFB and other bases for several years with in-flight re-fueling as a means of extending the range of its aircraft. KB-29 tankers (converted B-29 bombers) were flown in combat in Korea to refuel RF-80s and RB-45s.
Construction of the new SAC Headquarters at Offutt AFB commenced in 1955. In that same year, SAC acquired a portion of Scribner State Airport, Scribner, Nebraska, to establish an Ionospheric Sounding Station. The Scribner Site or Offutt Communications Annex No. 3 is
17
located approximately 70 miles northwest of Offutt AFB on Nebraska State Highway 91. For some time prior to 1957, when SAC headquarters moved into its new building with its underground command post, the 30th Communications Squadron out of Offutt AFB was busily engaged in activities at the Scribner site. Although constructed and known to the public as an Ionospheric Sounding Station, it was a closely guarded secret that this was the alternate SAC Command Post (USAF 1972a:10-11). Scribner was the transmitting site for a High Frequency Single Side Band radio System supporting the command post and its world-wide command control communications. In 1991, the site went to an unmanned status as technological advances allowed for the installation of an automated system.
General LeMay ended his tenure at Offutt AFB as CINCSAC on July 1, 1957. His legacy was a state-of-the-art equipped command ready to execute its global mission. He turned over
command of a larger and much improved force to General Thomas S. Power, who would see SAC into a new era of ballistic missiles, supersonic bombers, and reconnaissance aircraft (Yenne 1985:73-74).
The SAC Headquarters and Command Center at Offutt AFB was replete with multiple fail-safe devices and back-up systems. These all reflected the worst case scenario for nuclear war. When it opened, it contained 422,459 ft (39,246 m ) of floor space. There were seven floors: three above ground, a basement, and a three-story underground. The underground was specifically designed with a 24 inches (61 cm) thick base, 24 inches (61 cm) thick walls and two 10 inches (25 cm) thick intermediate floors made of reinforced concrete. The roof varied from 24 to 36 inches (61 to 91 cm) thick (SAC 1977). A special wing was added to the headquarters just to house computer equipment for the missile force. The Command Center was housed in the threestory underground, and included supporting communications and computer equipment, personnel from the Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff (JSTPS), and intelligence, logistics, and operations activities.
2 2
18
A unique feature of the SAC underground complex was that it could be self-contained in time of war. After the large steel blast doors were sealed, access was through an alternate entrance decontamination unit. This, in conjunction with the underground emergency power system, rations, and artesian wells, allowed for extended, continuous operation without outside support. The Command Post was impervious to almost everything except a direct hit. The Commander in Chief and his battle staff members had designated positions in the command center and the Primary Alerting System (PAS), and dedicated telephone circuits enabled the SAC controller to speak directly to approximately 200 operating locations throughout the world, including all of the underground missile launch control centers. Through this "Red Phone" system, each SAC base received coded messages giving notice of an actual or practice alert.
Several detection and warning systems throughout the United States and Canada provided the CINCSAC with both Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) and submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) attack warning. This information was processed at the command center through high-speed computers for display on 16 ft (5 m) high screens and video screens at the warning system controller's position. These detection systems, along with summary information and attack assessment from North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), permitted the CINCSAC to protect his force pending any Presidential decisions (only the President can order nuclear strikes).
During Kennedy's presidency, 1961-1963, his defense strategy of "Flexible Response" required an increase in conventional forces and a change in nuclear weapons focus from a reliance on strategic bombers to a larger missile capacity (Lewis et al. 1995). This massive military build-up required a better command and control system to control fire-power, and ultimately caused the development and operation of PACCS.
The underground Command Post, despite its advanced technology, could not survive a direct missile hit. In the event that the SAC Command Post was disabled, control of the SAC force was passed to one of several alternate ground command posts or to an airborne command post, which
19
was in the air 24 hours daily (USAF 1986). To meet this objective, SAC developed and put into operation the PACCS airborne command post code-named "Looking Glass." The PACCS
command posts, of which there are five, are EC-135 aircraft. These aircraft are assigned to the 2nd ACCS of the 55th Wing at Offutt AFB. Prior to the deactivation of SAC, the airborne command post had on board the same type of command (a SAC general officer) and battle staff that were in the SAC underground command post: it "mirrored" the SAC command post. These airborne command posts were completely equipped to take control of SAC's nuclear forces and execute the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) at the direction of the National Command Authority. The Airborne Launch Control System (ALCS) would permit the PACCS command post to control the entire Minuteman fleet if any or all of the ground launch control centers were out of action. These airborne command aircraft flew on constant alert status, 24 hours a day from 3 March 1961 through 1991 (Lewis et al. 1995; 55th Wing Headquarters 1994). The fact that PACCS was as effective in 1991 as it was in 1961 underscores the vision and commitment of those who designed and put the system in operation. The PACCS is now used by STRATCOM as its airborne command post.
In the fall of 1962, the Soviets attempted to deploy missiles in Cuba. Perhaps at no other time had the Cold War reached such a fevered pitch as it did that fall when Kennedy brought the United States to its most potent defense posture ever (Lewis et al. 1995). The SAC underground command post at Offutt AFB placed all aircraft on full alert, the bombers were armed with nuclear weapons, and SAC's missile squadrons were configured to accept their final targeting instructions. The Soviet ships altered their course at the last minute, and a potential nuclear battle was averted (Lewis et al. 1995).
In 1969, SAC Headquarters brought into operation a survivable low frequency communications system at Communications Annex No. 4 near Silver Creek, Nebraska, approximately 110 mi (177 km) west of Offutt AFB. Its mission was to provide essential control communications in support of SAC emergency operations before, during, and after a nuclear attack (USAF 1972b:3-12).
20
As Offutt AFB was responsible for the PACCS airborne command post, it also was responsible for the airborne command post of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the National Command Authorities. The NEACP (pronounced "knee-cap"), code-named "Nightwatch," and commonly referred to as the "Doomsday Plane," was introduced in 1974 and is operated by the 1st ACCS at Offutt AFB. The NEACP is situated in modified Boeing 747 aircraft with the designation E-4B. There are four aircraft which have this designation and fly "tours of duty" (55th Wing Headquarters 1994). NEACP is the airborne command post of the National Command Authority (the President), the Secretary of Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This redundant level of command, control, and communications operated at the highest level of authority. Looking Glass was SAC's redundant command and control center in the air. Lewis et al. (1995) illustrate the chain of command where these two aspects of PACCS are concerned. A large hangar and support facility for NEACP was completed at Offutt AFB in 1979.
In 1984, SAC established plans to construct a new command center and upgrade its operations. The new two-story completely subterranean structure was joined to the old SAC command center. Electromagnetic pulse (EMP) protection was provided for critical command, control, and communications equipment and supporting utilities. An EMP is a brief, intense electromagnetic field generated by a nuclear blast in the atmosphere. It can propagate for thousands of kilometers with a peak strength of 50,000 volts per meter, causing severe damage to sensitive electronic equipment. Serious disruptions to the nation's ability to communicate and loss of command and control functions made protective measures against EMP imperative. One protective measure is metal shielding for electronic components. This allowed the CINCSAC to continuously exercise command over SAC forces, even in the disturbed electromagnetic environment which would follow a high altitude nuclear burst. The new underground command facility was completed in 1989. As SAC completed its new and improved version of the famed command post so that it could continue to provide a deterrent to nuclear attack, the Eastern European countries were beginning to disassociate themselves from the Soviet Union.
21
In June 1992, SAC, TAC, and MAC were dissolved and ACC was activated. As a former SAC base, Offutt AFB is now under the command of ACC, which is the air component of the United States Atlantic Command (ACOM).
Real Property No. 500, once the headquarters and command post for SAC, is currently the headquarters for STRATCOM and its attendant organizations. STRATCOM is a unified command that consolidates Air Force and Navy strategic forces for deterrence of, and retaliatory strike against, the use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons (Canan 1994:26; United States Strategic Command 1994). As a unified command, STRATCOM does not own or maintain any installations or weapons systems; these are kept by the services themselves. It does control the PACCS and NEACP airborne command posts. However, when a strategic situation arises,
STRATCOM assumes control over these forces including ICBMs, SLBMs, and bomber, tanker, and reconnaissance aircraft.
The development of Offutt AFB is preceded by a long military history that reaches back to the late 1880s. Land was first purchased in 1889 and construction was begun on Fort Crook in 1891. The fort was completed in 1896. Officers' quarters and main barracks, now Real Property Nos. 40 and 49, and the guard house, now Real Property No. 42 and called the Security Police Operations building, still stand today. They surround a parade ground and are included in the Fort Crook Historic District which was listed on the NRHP in December 1976 (Muir Planning Corporation 1986). Quarters 16 has always been the Post Commander's Quarters. When SAC was moved to Offutt AFB, it became the residence of the CINCSAC, and it is now the residence of the CINCSTRAT. The buildings which date prior to the Cold War era are located in the central portion of the base and are incorporated within the 1940s development period (Figure 3.1).
23
The 1940s was one of the periods of greatest expansion for Fort Crook and Offutt Field due to the need to produce combat aircraft for the United States and its allies. The Martin-Nebraska Company constructed an aircraft assembly plant in 1941 (Real Property No. 301, the Martin Bomber Building). Administrative buildings were completed in 1941 (Real Property No. 302); two huge aircraft modification buildings were completed in 1943 (Real Property No. 321 remains); and several runways and six large hangars were also built in 1943 (Real Property No. 306) (DoD 1972).
With the outbreak of the Korean War in the 1950s, Offutt AFB was the scene of many construction projects (Figure 3.2). Six hundred forty-three Wherry housing units were built in 1952 on the northern boundary of the base. These units were badly needed to keep up with expansion as more men and women were assigned to SAC headquarters to handle the added responsibility.
General LeMay took a personal interest in the welfare of his troops. One of his projects was the construction in 1953 and 1954 of the first "SAC-type" dormitories for enlisted personnel (Real Property Nos. 416 and 417). These were a far cry from the World War II-style open barracks with cots and metal lockers lined up on each side of the building. The LeMay barracks featured twoperson rooms with connecting baths and centrally located lounges on each floor. The dormitories were built of prefabricated steel units laid on concrete slabs. They were virtually fireproof and cost less per person housed than the old style barracks (Ryon n.d.).
In 1955 Offutt's instrument runway was lengthened to 9,620 ft (2,932 m) and widened to 300 ft (91 m). It was upgraded to concrete to accommodate larger aircraft such as the fully loaded KC-135 refueling aircraft (DoD 1972). Construction of SAC's new headquarters (Real Property Nos. 500 and 501) began in 1955 and was completed in 1957. It is located near the southern boundary of the base. In 1956, the Base Chapel (Real Property No. 463) was completed. It was dedicated as the SAC Memorial Chapel and stained glass windows were installed in 1960. It is located at the southwestern end of the Parade Ground. In the late 1950s, a 187 acre (76 ha) lake
25
with a marina, pavilion, picnic area, and playground were created at the eastern edge of the base (SAC 1977). To the southeastern side of the Instrument Runway, several maintenance hangars were built in 1959 to accommodate the KC-135s, the aerial re-fueling aircraft for which SAC had assumed responsibility. Offutt AFB was also the site of three Atlas D missile launch areas. The construction of these areas took place between April 1959 and July 1960. These sites were disposed of in 1968-1970 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1960).
In 1960, there was a shortage of base housing. In 1961, additional unaccompanied housing was completed. It was located to the west of Wherry housing and to the north of the Martin Bomber Building. To alleviate the family housing shortage, 783 (317 ha) acres were purchased
approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) west of the main base area (Figure 3.3). Over 2,000 Capehart Housing units were constructed in 1962. In addition, the area also has basic community services such as a cinema, youth center, chapel, swimming pool, service station, and shoppette. There are three schools which are on federally owned land but are operated by the City of Bellevue School District. There is also an 18-hole golf course located to the east of the Capehart area. In 1965, the Ehrling Bergquist Hospital was completed. It is situated adjacent to the Capehart Housing area west of the main base area (USAF 1991). Also constructed in the 1960s was a nine-hole golf course at the southwestern boundary of the main base, close to Papillion Creek, as well as other construction and additions. H Wing was added to SAC Headquarters in 1964. Additional storage tanks and pump stations were added in the southern portion of the base. Finally, a munitions storage and disposal area was completed on the eastern side of the base just north of the southeastern end of the instrument runway (55th Civil Engineering Squadron 1994).
In 1971, the instrument runway was again lengthened to accommodate the largest aircraft possible. This was in direct association with the NEACP mission of SAC. Another missionrelated facility completed during the 1970s was the 105 ft (32 m) control tower located to the north of the instrument runway, just off the north/south taxiway (DoD 1972). In the mid-1970s, between 1973 and 1976, the base commissary, service station, library, and other community
27
facilities were completed on the western side of the base, just north of the nine-hole golf course (Figure 3.4).
In 1959, CINCSAC authorized the SAC Aerospace Museum to perpetuate the history of the aircraft used by SAC. In 1972, the State of Nebraska leased 43 acres (17.2 ha) of land on the northeastern portion of the close runway and constructed a building to house the museum. The lease is for 50 years, and terms include an agreement by the state that the museum will operated as a SAC historical facility only (DoD 1972) (Figure 3.4).
Of importance to the PACCS and NEACP missions of SAC were the operations and alert facilities for those units of the 55th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing. Real Property Nos. 464 and 524 were completed in 1975 and 1979 respectively (Figure 3.4).
During the 1980s, there were at least two major missions, NEACP and reconnaissance, which required additional facilities (Figure 3.5). A large maintenance hangar and support facility for the NEACP mission was completed in 1981. This building houses support and maintenance facilities for the E-4B aircraft and the 1st ACCS. The hangar is located just to the south of the southern end of the instrument runway. The other SAC mission which has seen a need for construction and development is the photo reconnaissance and intelligence functions. These are housed in the Strategic Analysis and Application Center (SAAC), Real Property No. 515, which was completed in 1988. This facility contains classified equipment and materials involved with the processing, analysis, and assessment of intelligence data for use in support of the SIOP development and contingency planning. This is now called the Strategic Joint Intelligence Center. It is located adjacent to Real Property No. 500 (USAF 1991).
30
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the reconnaissance inventory of Offutt 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
31
As part of the reconnaissance inventory of Offutt 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 The
4.2.1 Documentation
The evaluated resources at Offutt 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.
32
33
34
35
The Mariah field team arrived at Offutt AFB on July 6, 1994 and proceeded immediately to an introductory meeting with the point of contact Gene Svensen, Chief of the Cultural/Natural Resource Element of Civil Engineering. Mr. Svensen scheduled an in-brief with Colonel Paulson (55 SUG/CC). In addition to the Mariah team, Mr. Svensen, and Colonel Paulson, those attending included: Joni Gilkerson, Robert Hurst, and Greg Miller, representing the Nebraska State
Historical Society; Joseph Murphey of the United States Army Corps of Engineers; Dave Homan and Gordon Dix of the Civil Engineering Squadron (CES); and Mike Sibley, Wing Historian. The meeting focused on the team's strategy and the project goals as compared with other on-going base cultural resource investigations.
The field team spent the afternoon of July 6 on a base tour with Mr. Svensen and Mr. Murphey. As a result, initial properties to be evaluated were identified and, on July 7, property card data for these buildings were gathered from the Real Property office with the assistance of Vicki Padilla, Mike Rix, and Gordon Dix. Mr. Svensen and the Real Property office assisted the team in arranging a tour of Silver Creek installation. Joseph Murphey toured specific areas of the base
36
with Nebraska State Historical Society representatives, after which he met with the field team to share his findings regarding important resources and plans for future historic districts. On July 8, the team, accompanied by Mr. Murphey, met with Dr. Parks, the STRATCOM Historian, to discuss the study and general Cold War issues. Dr. Parks then escorted the group on a tour of the STRATCOM (formerly SAC) Headquarters and Command Post (Real Property Nos. 500 and 501). The afternoon was spent inventorying architectural files in the 55th CES drawing room, with special attention paid to documentation for the properties to be evaluated.
On July 12, work resumed at the Real Property Office and the drawing room, each of which were visited occasionally during the remainder of the fieldwork. An inventory of Mr. Svensen's photo archives was completed on July 12, and work in the 55th Wing Historian's Office was begun. On July 13, Mr. Svensen obtained a letter authorizing the team to take photographs on base, and a second tour of the interiors of Real Property Nos. 500 and 501 was accomplished. Certain elements of the interior that had been identified by Mr. Murphey during the initial visit were photographed. General exterior photographs of base buildings were taken between July 13-15, with the NEACP area photographed on July 13 and interior photographs of the SAC Memorial Chapel taken on July 15. Inventory of the Wing Historian's Office was completed on July 15. On July 16, the team visited the Silver Creek installation. The SAC Museum was inventoried on July 17.
The last two days of the visit, July 18 and 19, were spent consolidating final details, including attempting to locate additional information pertinent to the Silver Creek installation. Mr. Svensen scheduled an out-brief for the afternoon of July 19. In addition to Mr. Svensen and the team, Colonel McPherson and Colonel Cook were present, as were many of the attendees from the inbrief, including Mr. Hurst, Mr. Sibley, Mr. Wright, and Mr. Dix. The team presented the results of their study, discussed the evaluated properties, and answered questions regarding the study and their preliminary recommendations.
37
During the reconnaissance inventory of Offutt AFB, 119 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.
38
Twenty resources were evaluated at Offutt AFB, 14 of them falling under the DoD category of real property (13 buildings and one group of objects) and six under records/documents. 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.
This Major Command Headquarters, currently a wing headquarters/law center, is located within a complex of support and administration buildings near the Martin Bomber Building. It is also known as SAC building "A," the first SAC headquarters at Offutt AFB. This permanent building is four stories high, brick, and has a rounded window on the western side of the ground floor near the building entrance. Constructed in 1941, the building has square footage of 20,763. It is a distinguished example of the work of architect Albert Kahn.
This building originally functioned as the personnel building for the Aircraft Manufacturing and Assembly Plant, later renamed the Martin Bomber Plant, which was commissioned to develop aircraft specifically designed to transport the atomic bomb during the transition from
42
This building, currently STRATCOM Headquarters, served as the SAC Headquarters from 1957 until the creation of STRATCOM in 1992. This permanent building is four stories high,
constructed of reinforced concrete and masonry, and has a current square footage of 627,231. The SAC Theater (Real Property No. 502) was added in 1992 as part of this building. The capacity of the headquarters as originally designed was 360,003 ft (109,729 m ) and was considered the largest Midwest office building of its time. In 1960, construction of a basement resulted in an increase in square footage to 417,023. More recently, this square footage was again increased with the addition of office space from the old underground SAC Command Post (Real Property No. 501).
2 2
Although the building has experienced several adjustments in square footage, the current above ground portion retains much of its exterior and interior integrity. Character-defining features such as two static missile displays in the front grounds, along with various interior objects and decor such as the SAC seal in the floor of the entrance hallway, remain intact. Some exterior alterations, including the replacement of the original 1950s metal window frames, have only slightly compromised the building's historic fabric.
Referred to by some as the "Pentagon of the West," the headquarters building played a vital role in command and control during the majority of the Cold War period. In this building, global information was assembled that enabled the CINCSAC to maintain control of most of the nation's nuclear arsenal. The headquarters building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts. It was used in this significant role during Phases II through IV, and meets NRHP criterion (a).
43
6.1.1.3 Major Command Post (Resource No. 7012, Real Property No. 501)
This building served as the underground SAC Command Post from 1957 until the creation of STRATCOM in 1992. This permanent building is three stories deep and constructed of reinforced, water-proof hardened concrete that is shielded against electromagnetic pulse. Its exact square footage is confusing, since portions of the building have been transferred for use as office space to the above-ground headquarters (Real Property No. 500). A new addition was constructed in 1992 that functions as the current STRATCOM underground command post. The real property printout lists the current square footage at 160,303. The capacity of Real Property No. 501 as originally designed was 116,814 ft (10,852 m ).
2 2
It was originally used as Headquarters Command
Operational, later as Command Headquarters, and finally as Headquarters Major Command. Several additions have been made to the building; however direct correlation between these additions and changes in building use are not evident.
Interior characteristics defining the building's Cold War use include four sets of blast doors, a decontamination room/wing, and a poppet valve system to control outside airflow. However, the old "big board" screen has been dismantled and, along with the rest of the old command post, entirely converted to office space. Thus, although some Cold War features remain, the building's integrity is definitely questionable.
The underground command post served as the nerve center for SAC during the majority of the Cold War period. The command post essentially remained on alert for 31 years, and during periods of defensive posture when tensions were particularly high, functioned as the center for all SAC command and control through dissemination of strategy. The former SAC underground post is considered an exceptionally important property within the base and national Cold War contexts. It served this during Phases II through IV, and meets NRHP criterion (a).
44
6.1.2.1 Low Frequency Transmitter Complex (Resource No. 7066)
Silver Creek, the Low Frequency Transmitter Complex, consists of a low frequency transmitting tower and an associated semi-subterranean building, both built in 1968. Built in 1988, an aboveground dormitory located some distance from the tower completes the installation. The complex became operational as a survivable low frequency communication system, operating with 110,000 watts, in 1969, and continued in operation until June 1, 1994. The tower itself, constructed of steel frame and reinforced concrete, is 1,240 ft (378 m) high. It is surrounded by ground radials, each 1,800 ft (548.6 m) long with a 10 ft (3 m) grounding rod at each end. Inside the semisubterranean building is a 25 x 25 x 30 ft (7.6 x 7.6 x 9 m) copper room containing the 17 ft (5 m) diameter helix, a copper loading coil for the antenna. The antenna produces a very strong electro-magnetic field. The transmitter appears to be intact, although no longer in use. Some dismantling of interior components has occurred, and the operation staff has been significantly reduced. However, the tower is still standing.
This complex embodies the basic Cold War theme of survivability, acting as a vital communication link between the National Command Authority and the United States Strategic forces by providing a totally interactive communication system including the airborne control, SAC underground command post, and other critical commands such as the Navy and Pentagon. Although SAC maintained several high frequency backup systems, this was the final backup. In operation during Phases III and IV of the Cold War period, the complex is hardened against electromagnetic pulse, thus ensuring survivability and enabling the National Emergency War Order to be relayed before, during, and after an attack. Only one other transmitter site of its kind was functional during the Cold War period, and that site, in California, has been dismantled. Silver Creek is thus considered an exceptionally important property within the base and national Cold War contexts, and meets NRHP criterion (a).
45
6.1.3 Documentation
The architectural drawing files are located in the Martin Bomber Building in the 55th CES drawing vault adjacent to the drafting area. The drawing files include 10 full banks and two partial banks of flat files for a total of 275 drawers. The flat files contain Record Drawings (as-builts) and project files for all real property on base. Drawings consist of a variety of types, including original ink on linen, vellum, mylar, and sepia. Banks 1-9 are ordered by real property number (1 through 9947), banks 10 and 12 are project specific, and bank 11 includes drawings of ancillary communication facilities such as Scribner, Elkhorn, Silver Creek, and Hastings. The drawing files span the decades from the 1930s to the 1990s, including all the Cold War periods, and provide information on several topics including original building construction and base development through project implementation. They contain information regarding base properties recommended by this report as eligible or potentially eligible to the NRHP. Currently the files are kept in a secure room, and are well organized and complete.
A collection of historical documents is located in the Martin Bomber Building in the 55th CES drafting area. The collection is stored in a flat file, bank 14 drawer 10, marked "Historical and Base Photos." The flat file contains numerous historical maps, photos, and architectural project drawings. Maps include historical base layouts and master plans. Photos include aerials of base and transmitter locations and large format negatives of Fort Crook. Drawings include old utility plans for the base. Also included is a 1958 expansion study for SAC at Offutt AFB. The collection spans the decades from the 1940s to the 1990s, including all the Cold War periods, and provides information on several topics related to base history, including information on resources recommended by this report as eligible or potentially eligible to the NRHP. The
46
collection is kept in a secured area and efforts have been made to isolate the historic items from those accessed on a daily basis.
A collection of historical documents is located in the Martin Bomber Building in the Real Property office. The collection includes one bank of 10 flat files that contain numerous historic maps and architectural drawings. Documents pertinent to this study include those that show jurisdiction/ownership; utility plans for Hastings, Scribner, and other annex master plans; real estate base layouts from 1960-1986; 1966 and 1986 SAC comprehensive plans; a 1957 topographic map of Offutt Military Reservation; floor plans for building 301; base plan maps for 1966 and 1986; future land use maps showing constraints/opportunities; and a 1986 Disaster Preparedness Map. The collection spans the decades from the 1940s to the 1990s, including all the Cold War periods, and provides information on several topics related to base history, including information on resources recommended by this report as eligible or potentially eligible to the NRHP. The resources are currently kept in a secured area along with the working real property files.
A collection of photographs documenting the base and the Martin Bomber Building is located in the Martin Bomber Building in the 55th CES Environmental Office. The collection includes one flat file marked "Photos" which contains approximately 30 photographs of the construction of the Martin Bomber Building and approximately 150 aerial photographs and negatives of various sizes of the base. The photo collection spans the decades from the 1940s to the 1990s, including all the Cold War periods, and provides information on several topics related to base development and to construction of a building significant within the Cold War and other contexts. The aerial
photographs represent a relatively complete collection that is extremely valuable and irreplaceable. The collection is currently kept in a private office and is well organized and maintained.
47
The historical files in the 55th Wing Historian's office include unclassified documents that are pertinent to several of the resources identified by this report as important within the base and national Cold War contexts. The files include two drawers of hanging folders, each folder specific to a facility and organized by real property number. These folders contain historical details available from newspapers, pamphlets, and events that elaborate on each building's history. Of particular note is documentation on the Martin Bomber Plant, SAC Headquarters building, SAC Museum, NEACP facilities, and the Scribner Communication site. Based on the Files Maintenance and Disposition Plan, it appears that the Classified Historical Archives also include information related to the Cold War, yet which may not be as readily tied to real property as are the unclassified files. The files span the decades from the 1940s to the 1990s, including all the Cold War periods, and provide information on several topics including original building construction and base history. The files are currently kept in the secured Wing Historian's Office and are well organized and maintained.
A collection of black and white 3 x 5 inch photographs and negatives documenting the Silver Creek installation is maintained in the 55th CES/Environmental Office. The photographs were taken in 1994, prior to dismantling of certain installation components. Specifically depicted resources include the following: transmitting tower; copper room-saturable reactor (10 photographs);
miscellaneous facilities including the barracks room, kitchen, day room, maintenance area, dormitory, and transmitter in operations room; power production area with sign "ACC Power" (5 photographs); sign of "Detachment 1 55th GCSS (ACC) Silver Creek, NE;" plaque of "Detachment 1 Silver Creek, NE;" and sign "power AMPS of 100 total kw." The significance of this collection lies in the information it provides regarding the exceptionally important Silver Creek installation. It provides a photographic record of the installation prior to its partial dismantling.
48
6.1.4 Housing
6.1.4.1 Unaccompanied Housing (Resource No. 7006, Real Property Nos. 416 and 417)
Two adjacent metal dormitories, originally known as "Ellsworth Hall" (Real Property No. 416) and "Loring Hall" (Real Property No. 417), were dedicated by CINCSAC General Curtis LeMay in 1951 as the "SAC Airman's Dormitories." The new dormitory design stressed comfort,
convenience, and practicality. Real Property No. 416, which was converted to Wing Headquarters in 1992, currently has no function. Real Property No. 417 was converted to a Base Covered Storage Facility in 1991 and continues in that function.
Constructed in 1953-1954, each dormitory is three stories high plus a basement, with a square footage of 22,870. The capacity of Real Property No. 416 was 122 people and of No. 417 was 132. Both dormitories are constructed in classic 1950s style with steel panel modules, reinforced concrete, and exposed exterior stairwells. Until the past year, these dormitories had experienced few interior or exterior renovations despite changes in use. Since then, some dismantling prior to demolition on Real Property No. 416 has resulted in compromises to this building's exterior integrity. Real Property No. 417 maintains its integrity. Design plans for the demolition of both buildings have been completed and this action is proposed for the near future.
Although not exceptional, these dormitories are directly associated with General Curtis E. LeMay, a major figure in SAC's and Offutt AFB's roles during the first two phases of the Cold War period. Commissioned and dedicated in a formal ceremony by LeMay, the dorms embodied concepts such as increased privacy that he felt were important to the success of the "new" Air Force. The dormitories are important to the base's Cold War context due to their association with LeMay. These buildings served as dormitories during Phases II through III, and meet NRHP criterion (a).
49
6.1.4.2 Commander Housing (Resource No. 7015, Real Property No. 16)
Commonly known as "Quarters 16," this permanent building is located at the northern end of General's Row, adjacent to the parade ground. It has always functioned as living quarters for resident commanders: first, following its original construction in 1896, for the commanding officer of Fort Crook, then, after 1948, for the CINCSAC. General George C. Kenney, who served in the CINCSAC position during the transitional years from 1946-1948, is the only CINCSAC not to reside in Quarters 16. Since 1948, when Curtis LeMay began his tenure as CINCSAC, all SAC commanding officers have resided in this building, which today is occupied by the STRATCOM commander.
Quarters 16 is one of 20 residences built between 1881-1886, on then Officer's Row for Fort Crook. Other facilities, including the Officer's Mess and Club, main barracks, and guard house, were also built during this period of initial construction. This Victorian style officer's quarters was
constructed with pressed brick walls set on a limestone block foundation. Walls range in thickness from approximately 20 inches (50.8 cm) at the base to 16-18 inches (40.6-45.7 cm) at the top of the house. With two floors, an attic, and 7,600 ft (706 m ), Quarters 16 is the only single residence house on General's Row. An early newspaper description characterizes the residence as a simple set with three rooms, a ballroom, and a kitchen on the first floor, and two bedrooms and a bathroom in the attic.
2 2
Cold War character defining elements of Quarters 16 that are significant include a fallout shelter, which was installed in the basement in 1962 during the tenure of General Thomas S. Power. According to the record drawings of the basement floor plan for Quarters 16, a rectangular storage closet, centrally located in the basement and sharing a central interior 9 inches (22 cm) thick brick insection support wall and the exterior east building wall, was modified to accommodate the fallout shelter. Essentially, the closet space was extended across the full length of the basement floor by the installation of an 8 inches (20 cm)) thick brick insection wall. The space created was 19 ft 10 inches (6 m) by 3 ft 8 inches (1 m). Quarters 16 physically reflects the
50
Cold War mentality with the presence of the fallout shelter, as well as with the installation of special telephone lines for communication between the CINCSAC and other command centers.
The building retains exterior integrity based on observations and comparisons with early photographs. However, some photographs in base collections appear to indicate substantial
remodeling to the interior, thus the integrity may have been effected.
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important for its association with the commanders of SAC. It served this function for all four phases of the Cold War, and meets NRHP criterion (b).
6.1.5 Memorial
6.1.5.1 Memorial Chapel (Resource No. 7008, Real Property No. 463)
Nowhere on Offutt AFB is the portrayal of the Cold War summarized more succinctly than in the SAC Memorial Chapel, built in 1956. The SAC Memorial Chapel is located along the
southwestern edge of the parade ground. Originally designated the Base Chapel, this permanent building's function was changed to Center Chapel at an unknown date. Its original square footage was 7,684, the addition of an educational wing in 1960 made its total 11,560 ft ; however, it is unclear if this upgrade coincided with the change in utilization. The chapel is constructed of concrete block, brick, and reinforced concrete, and is described in a 1960 magazine article as an attractive brick building with a stylized metal spire, whose sanctuary seats approximately 300 people.
2
The building retains a high degree of both interior and exterior integrity. Current characteristics of the SAC Memorial Chapel significant to the Cold War period include the unique assemblage of stained glass windows adorning the sanctuary, a Klaxon alarm system for the NEACP squadron at the front, and two pews in the back labeled "Alert Crews Only."
51
In 1958, at the suggestion of CINCSAC General Thomas S. Power, a program was initiated to memorialize in stained glass windows SAC combat crew personnel who were killed in the performance of their flying mission for the cause of world peace (Skinner 1960). The project of choosing the window design and funding construction was begun in 1958. Personnel within the command itself donated generously for the windows and their installation.
In 1959, a design was selected and contributions for the main window were additionally utilized to fund the installation of stained glass in the remaining windows of the chapel, identifying the four Air Forces and the 72 Divisions and Wings in SAC. The windows were dedicated in May 1960, with CINCSAC General Power announcing that the chapel had been renamed the "Strategic Air Command Memorial Chapel."
The main stained glass window, known as the SAC Memorial Window, is located on the west side of sanctuary, adjacent to the altar. Measuring 12 x 15 ft (3.6 x 4.6 m), it symbolizes the dedication of the SAC combat crewman to his job of keeping the peace through deterrence. Design elements represent his family, aircraft, a world map, and the upward curve of a jet or rocket trail to the sky, surrounded by a golden light.
Also dedicated in the 1960 ceremony were the 2nd, 8th, 15th, and 16th Air Force Windows as well as the North Window. The 2nd Air Force Window includes a range of mountains
representing the Northwest Air District it defends, an outline of Korea symbolizing its achievements in the Korean War, a B-47 signifying assignment of these planes to the 2nd Air Force, and a representation of Operation "Fox Peter One"-an accomplishment of the 2nd which was the first mass jet fighter flight over the Pacific using inflight refueling. The 8th Air Force, also called the "Atomic Air Force," was the first unit capable of delivering an atomic bomb. Its window includes an outline of Korea to illustrate mobility during the Korean conflict; an outline of France to commemorate the 8th's first mission; representation of a mushroom cloud to illustrate the 8th Air Force participation in the 1948 atomic test on Eniwetok ("Operation Sandstone"); and an image of the B-50 "Lucky Lady II" to commemorate the first non-stop
52
around-the-world flight in 1949. The 15th Air Force window elements include the outlines of Kansas and Germany with planes overhead to depict rapid deployment; the destruction of the German Air Force in 1943; outlines of North and South Korea to symbolize the three units' participation in the "Korean Police Action;" and an illustration of a B-47 to commemorate the non-stop record to the United Kingdom set by the 15th. The 16th Air Force window illustrates the famous "Red Telephone" at SAC headquarters, a symbol of the primary mission of the 16th to maintain instant global alert-readiness. Other elements include outlines of Iceland and French Morocco to illustrate the 16th as the first overseas air force; an outline of Spain overlain with a depiction of the 480 mi (772 km) pipeline that was built especially to fuel SAC aircraft; and depictions of the radar screen and radarscope with the B-47 to illustrate monitoring of reflex operations of SAC units in North Africa.
The North Window features the words of the Air Force Hymn along with other stylistic elements. Six additional windows, installed in 1973, include two large windows on the west side of the sanctuary with SAC insignias and other commemorative windows in the vestibule and adjacent educational facility.
The SAC Memorial Chapel is an exceptionally important property as it relates to social aspects within the base and national Cold War contexts. The customized stained glass windows embody SAC ideals and missions, such as national defense and deterrence, and commemorates strategic, technological, and command achievements. Other significant features include the NEACP alert klaxon and two pews reserved for alert crews. This building has served in this function during Phases II through IV of the Cold War, and meets NRHP criterion (a).
The Heritage Room is a memorial exhibit located in the 55th Wing Headquarters. It is adjacent to and maintained by the 55th Wing Historian's office. The display includes numerous memorial items related to SAC and the 55th Wing, the most relevant to the Cold War study being a K-18A
53
reconnaissance camera; SAC insignia and plaques; plane hardware such as bomb sights, altimeters, radarscope and gun cameras; B-47E sextant, headsets, and gauges; E-4 scrapbooks; and a retrofit pictorial history of E-4A to E-4B 1981-1985. Other items are in the Wing Historian's possession but are not currently displayed.
Like other museum collections, the Heritage Room collection is important in an educational and memorial sense. This particular collection focuses on important events related to SAC. The objects appear well maintained and are in a secured room.
6.2.1.1 Command and Control Alert Facility (Resource No. 7002, Real Property No. 40)
This building was constructed in 1894, during the same building phase at Fort Crook as Quarters 16. Located across the parade ground from General's Row, it was originally part of one large barracks, divided into sections A through H, although now Real Property Nos. 40 (A, B, C, and D) and 49 (E, F, G, and H) have been separated. Real Property No. 40 is brick, Victorian in style, and has four stories including a basement for a total of 57,156 ft (5,309 m ). The building's relationship to the Cold War is its 1977 designation as a crew readiness facility, which entailed some remodeling to accommodate the squadron operations and alert crew. redesignated by a SAC directive as Headquarters Major Command. In 1979, it was
2 2
The interior of the building may physically reflect the alert function; however, some remodeling did occur in conjunction with the functional redesignation in 1979, thus interior integrity is questionable. The building's exterior, however, does appear to retain its integrity based on
observations and comparisons with early photographs of the building.
54
This building's exceptional importance within the Cold War base context lies in its function as a crew readiness facility during Phase III of the Cold War. These crews included NEACP, Looking Glass, or both, and the building apparently functioned for crew readiness for three years. It exemplifies the concept of survivability and the need to respond immediately to any Soviet attack threat. This building served this function during Phase III of the Cold War and meets NRHP criterion (a).
This building is the operations building for Looking Glass crew readiness, training activities, planning, mission assessment debriefings, and administration. Looking Glass is the airborne auxiliary command post that currently mirrors the capabilities of the STRATCOM ground command post. During the Cold War, Looking Glass was a primary component in support of SAC's strategy of survivability. This building supported Looking Glass operations during
Phases III and IV of the Cold War era. This alert facility is evaluated as exceptionally important to the base and national Cold War contexts. This building meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
2
This permanent building, constructed in 1974 of concrete masonry units, is 23,248 ft square. In 1977, an E-4 project alarms system was installed and, in 1992, a low frequency radio transmitter was added. The building retains its exterior integrity with ancillary defining characteristics,
including adjacent parking areas and tennis courts reserved for alert crews only, still intact. Since no major renovations or changes in use are indicated on the real property card for this building, the building's interior integrity is also determined to be intact.
This permanent building, constructed in 1979 of concrete masonry units, is 45,732 ft

2
(13,939 m ), and is used as an operational building for the NEACP mission undertaken by the 1st ACCS. This building supported NEACP operations during the later phases of the Cold War
55
period (III and IV), and continues to support them under the command of STRATCOM. A brief assessment of the building's exterior indicated no obvious compromises to its integrity. Real property documentation indicates that the building has undergone no notable renovations or changes in use since its construction. Thus it is determined that the interior possesses intact integrity.
The building functioned for crew readiness, training activities, planning, mission assessment debriefings, and administration. NEACP is the airborne operation serving the National Command Authority. Enabling the President, Joint Chiefs, and other lines of authority to implement the National Emergency War Order, NEACP was a primary component in the broad Cold War strategy of survivability. This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
None were evaluated at Offutt AFB.
6.4.1 Flight Training
6.4.1.1 Flight Simulator (Resource No. 7007, Real Property No. 453)
This flight simulator building is located near the NEACP operations area and provides a specified training function for Looking Glass and NEACP operations. Constructed in 1978 of concrete, this permanent building is two stories high, has no windows, and is 3,025 ft (281 m ). This flight simulator served as a training facility for the ALCS, which permitted Looking Glass aircraft to control the entire Minuteman fleet if any or all of the ground launch control centers were put out of action during Phases III and IV of the Cold War period. Thus, this simulator
2 2
56
contributed to the survivability of the SAC command and control system. The flight simulator building is evaluated as important to the base and national Cold War contexts, and meets NRHP criterion (a).
No major renovations or changes in use of this building are evident on the real property card, thus it is determined that interior integrity is intact. The exterior also retains its integrity, with no compromises to its historic fabric evident.
6.5.1.1 Satellite Communications Complex (Resource No. 7014, Real Property Nos. 542, 566, and 598)
The satellite communications complex at Offutt AFB consists of a main building (Real Property No. 598) built in 1985, a second building (Real Property No. 542) built in 1977, and a large satellite dish (Real Property No. 566) built in 1978. The main building is constructed of concrete masonry and has 10,311 ft (957 m ).
2 2
The individual buildings in the complex retain their integrity, with no major alterations apparent. The real property cards do not indicate major renovations or changes in use to any buildings in the complex, thus interior integrity is determined to be intact.
At the same time it served a reconnaissance function for strategic missions of the 55th Wing, this facility also undoubtedly served a significant function in global data gathering related to intelligence and weather conditions. Its important Cold War association is as a vital component in strategy decisions made by SAC Headquarters and DoD during Phases III and IV of the Cold War period. It meets NRHP criterion (a).
57
6.5.2 Weather Reconnaissance
6.5.2.1 Global Weather Service (Resource No. 7003, Real Property No. 301)
Built in 1941, the Martin Bomber Building houses the 55th CES, Real Property Office, and GWC, in addition to numerous other offices such as the Education Services, Wood Craft Shop, Bowling Alley, and several industrial services. The building's original function was as an assembly plant for bombers used in World War II including the Enola Gay and Bock's Car. In 1960, it was dedicated to Glen L. Martin, and was officially named the Martin Bomber Building in 1992. The building is constructed of concrete and steel with a reinforced concrete floor. Architectural, character-defining features of note include wooden bricks which currently comprise much of the ground floor's surface. The GWC is located on the bottom floor of the Martin Bomber Building.
The building's exterior retains its integrity. Real Property documentation indicates that it has undergone major renovations associated with the transition from a bomber assembly plant to a multi-use office complex; these may have resulted in adverse effects to integrity. The integrity of the GWC portion of the building was not assessed as access was not secured. However, as the GWC continues its original function, interior integrity is determined to be intact.
Although Real Property No. 301 operated as a bomber aircraft manufacturing plant during World War II, the addition of weather reconnaissance capability through the Air Force GWC links the building to the Cold War. GWC provided weather data at a global scale directly to SAC Command for use in strategic decision-making. Thus, the GWC played a direct role in establishing military strategy to be used during the Cold War. The building is evaluated as important within the base and national Cold War contexts. It fulfilled its role during Phases III through IV, and meets NRHP criterion (a).
58
The purpose of the reconnaissance inventory was to provide initial information on the types of Cold War resources extant on Offutt 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 Offutt AFB. These resources should be investigated further for a more comprehensive analyses.
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 Offutt AFB revealed approximately 150 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 Offutt AFB should allot time to researching these documents.
59
There are known threats to evaluated resources at this time. The FY96-01 Military Construction Program Priority List contains only one evaluated resource, Real Property Nos. 416 and 417, the prefabricated steel "LeMay dormitories." These buildings have been scheduled for demolition. The 55th CES is awaiting the release of funds for this project to proceed as all necessary plans have been filed (55th Civil Engineering Squadron 1994).
One other evaluated resource which is presently being impacted by deactivation and dismantling is the Silver Creek Site, or Offutt Communication Annex No. 4. Although this communications facility is presently being dismantled, it has been documented as a resource having exceptional significance and therefore eligibility for the NRHP. The mission and some of its components remain classified and therefore must be dealt with in other studies.
60
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 Offutt 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.
61
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 Offutt 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 Offutt AFB have not been evaluated, and thus must be considered and treated as eligible until an evaluation and determination of eligibility are made.
62
These
63
Recommendations for the evaluated resources at Offutt AFB are presented below. Table 9.1 summarizes these recommendations. More than one recommendation may apply to a given
66
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. Consideration should be made to establishing a National Historic District to include the main base at Offutt AFB. This installation has a continuous history of military use from its establishment as Fort Crook through to the present day. During the Cold War era, it expanded and developed along with SAC. The buildings currently on the base illustrate this historical development. There are buildings that were initially constructed for use by Fort Crook that are still in use today, and there are buildings from every phase of the Cold War. A National Historic District would recognize the importance of these buildings, and would aid in preservation through stewardship, while still allowing viable on-going use.
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases I and II. It meets NRHP criterion (a) based on its roles as a support
67
building for the Martin Bomber Plant and as the first SAC headquarters. The integrity of the building is determined to be intact based upon partial observation, comparison with early photographs, and the lack of documented major renovations. Therefore, this building is
recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Further documentation is recommended to nominate the resource to the NRHP, and stewardship is also recommended to retain the building's current level of integrity.
The building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II through IV. It meets NRHP criterion (a) based on its role as the SAC headquarters during most of the Cold War. The integrity of the building is intact as only minor renovations have occurred. Therefore, this building is recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Further documentation is recommended to nominate this resource to the NRHP, and stewardship is recommended to maintain the current level of integrity.
9.2.3 Major Command Post (Resource No. 7012, Real Property No. 501)
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phase II through IV. It meets NRHP criterion (a) based on its role as the SAC Command Post during most of the Cold War. The integrity of the building has been compromised, with only a few features remaining that exemplify the building's role during the Cold War. Therefore, this building is recommended as potentially eligible to the NRHP. Further
documentation to determine the level of integrity and to explore NRHP eligibility is recommended. Stewardship is also recommended in the interim during this evaluation to retain the current level of integrity.
68
9.2.4 Low Frequency Transmitter Complex (Resource No. 7066)
This facility is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases III and IV. It meets NRHP criterion (a) based on its role as a survivable means of communication. The integrity of the facility is intact, but is threatened by plans for dismantling. Therefore, this facility is recommended for nomination of the resource to the NRHP. Stewardship of the facility is recommended until this nomination can be completed.
This collection of drawing files is kept in a secure area and is well organized. It is recommended that the collection be copied, with the copies staying at the base and the originals sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
This collection of historical maps, photos, and architectural drawings has been stored in a secure area in a drawer separate from items that are accessed on a daily basis. It is recommended that this collection be inventoried and copied. It is further recommended that the base retain the copies for its use, and the originals be sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
This collection of architectural drawings and maps has been stored in a secure area and is kept with the other Real Property Office working files. It is recommended that the collection be inventoried and copied. It is further recommended that the base retain the copies for its use, and that the originals be sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
69
This collection of photographs is stored in a private office and is well organized and maintained. It is recommended that copies of these photographs be retained by the base. It is further
recommended that the originals be sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
This collection of files is currently maintained and organized by the Wing Historian. recommended that this degree of stewardship continue.
It is
The collection of photographs is currently kept in the CES Environmental Office.
It is
recommended that copies of these photographs be retained by the base for its use. It is further recommended that the originals be sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
9.2.11 Unaccompanied Housing (Resource No. 7006, Real Property Nos. 416 and 417)
These dormitories are evaluated as important within the base Cold War context during Phases II through III. They meet NRHP criterion (a) due to their association with LeMay and his concept of a new Air Force. Real Property No. 416 has already been subject to adverse effects to integrity, thus it is recommended as ineligible to the NRHP. No further work is recommended for No. 416. No. 417, although it retains its integrity, does not meet the 50 year criterion for eligibility to the NRHP, nor is it considered exceptionally significant. Therefore, No. 417 is also recommended as ineligible to the NRHP. Further recommendations for No. 417 include
70
stewardship to retain its current level of integrity, and when it meets the 50 year criterion, further documentation to re-evaluate this property for eligibility.
9.2.12 Commander Housing (Resource No. 7015, Real Property No. 16)
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during all four phases of the Cold War. It meets NRHP criterion (b) due to its association with the commanders of SAC. This building is currently included within an existing National Register District, therefore, continued stewardship is recommended.
9.2.13 Memorial Chapel (Resource No. 7008, Real Property No. 463)
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II through IV. It meets NRHP criterion (b) based on its association with SAC and its history. The building retains a high degree of integrity. Therefore, the building is recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Further recommendation include stewardship to maintain the integrity of the building and its features, and further documentation to nominate this resource to the NRHP.
This collection of objects relating to SAC and the 55th Wing is currently well maintained and is located in a secure area. Continued stewardship of the collection is recommended.
9.2.15 Command and Control Alert Facility (Resource No. 7002, Real Property No. 40)
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phase III. It meets NRHP criterion (a) based on its role in deterrence through rapid
71
deployment. This building is currently included within an existing National Register District, therefore, continued stewardship is recommended.
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases III and IV. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) based on its role in sustaining survivable command, control, and communications links 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 observations and the lack of documented major renovations. 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.
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases III and IV. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) based on its role in sustaining survivable command, control, and communications links 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 observations and the lack of documented major renovations. 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.
9.2.18 Flight Simulator (Resource No. 7007, Real Property No. 453)
This building is evaluated as important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases III and IV. It meets NRHP criterion (a) based on its role in maintaining the survivability of
72
command, control, and communications.
The integrity of the building is intact based on
observation and the lack of documented renovations. However, the building neither meets the 50 year criterion, nor is considered to be exceptional in importance. Therefore, the building is recommended as ineligible to the NRHP. Recommendations include stewardship to maintain the building's current level of integrity, and further documentation when the building meets the 50 year criterion to re-evaluate it for eligibility.
9.2.19 Satellite Communications Complex (Resource No. 7014, Real Property No. 542, 566, and 598)
This complex is evaluated as important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases III and IV. It meets NRHP criterion (a) based on its role in reconnaissance and the development of strategic decisions. The integrity of the complex is intact based on observation and the lack of documented renovations. However, the complex neither meets the 50 year criterion, nor is considered to be exceptional in importance. Therefore, the complex is recommended as
ineligible to the NRHP. Recommendations include stewardship to maintain the complex's current level of integrity, and further documentation when the building meets the 50 year criterion to reevaluate it for eligibility.
9.2.20 Global Weather Service (Resource No. 7003, Real Property No. 301)
The Global Weather Service is evaluated as important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases III and IV. It meets NRHP criterion (a) based on its role in providing information integral to strategic decision making. Its integrity is determined to be intact based upon observation and the continuance of its original functions. However, the GWC neither meets the 50 year criterion, nor is considered to be exceptional in importance. Therefore, this resource is recommended as ineligible to the NRHP. Recommendations include stewardship to maintain the GWC's current level of integrity, and further documentation when the resource meets the 50 year criterion to re-evaluate it for eligibility. Of course, the Martin Bomber
73
Building may be eligible under the context of World War II, however, that evaluation is beyond the scope of this study.
74
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. Canan, J. W. 1994 The New Order in Omaha. Air Force and Space Digest. Air Force Association. March Issue, pp:26-29. Department of Defense 1972 Executive Order 11508 Installation Survey Report, Offutt Air Force Base, Omaha, Nebraska. Office, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Installations and Logistics. 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. 55th Civil Engineering Squadron 1994 MCP Priority List, FY96-01 (Excluding Environmental). Planning Office, 55th Civil Engineering Squadron, Martin Bomber Building, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. 55th Wing Headquarters 1994 Wing History Files. Wing Historian's Office, 55th Headquarters, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. Gowans, A. 1992 Styles and Types of North American Architecture: Social Function and Cultural Expression. Harper Collins Publishers, New York. 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.
75
Muir Planning Corporation 1986 Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, Base Comprehensive Plan. Prepared for Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. MCP, Colorado Springs. 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. Ryon, TSgt T. n.d. History of Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. Manuscript on file in 55th Wing History Office, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. Skinner, R. M. 1960 SAC's Combat Crewmen Memorialized in Stained Glass. Air Force and Space Digest. Air Force Association. Strategic Air Command 1977 Strategic Air Command Background. Directorate of Information, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. United States Air Force 1972a Executive Order 11508 Installation Survey Report, Offutt Communications Annex No. 3., Scribner Communications Site. Office, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Installations). 1972b Executive Order 11508 Installation Survey Report, Offutt Communications Annex No. 4., Silver Creek Communications Site. Office, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Installations). 1986 Fact Sheet: SAC Underground Command Center, 86-9. Office of Public Affairs, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. 1988 Installation Survey Report, Offutt Air Force Base, Bellevue, NE. Office, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Readiness Support). 1991 Installation Survey Report, Offutt Air Force Base, NE. Executive Order 12512. Office, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Installations).
76
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. United States Army Corps of Engineers 1960 History of Atlas Missile Base Construction, Offutt AFB. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Nebraska. United States Strategic Command 1994 Fact Sheet: United States Strategic Command. Strategic Command, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. Yenne, B. 1985 SAC, A Primer of Modern Strategic Airpower. Presidio Press, Novato, CA.
EVALUATED RESOURCES AT OFFUTT AFB

Property Description: Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: Base Map Building Number: Squadron Operations (Old Crew Readiness Facility) 7094-Bank 1 Drawers 17-20
101 Washington Square 12/1/90 40
Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Alert Facilities Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence : Property Type: Command and Control Alert Facility Statement of Significance: Located in an exisitng NRHP district, this building's significance within the Cold War base context lies in its' formal designation as a crew readiness facility during Phase III of the Cold War. It was remodeleled to accomodate alert crews, perhaps of NEACP, Looking Glass, or both, and apparently remained active as such until the end of the phase. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 3 4 2 3 3 1 16
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: No Further Documentation: No Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: The Crew Readiness facility is evaluated as significant within the base Cold War context as described in the significance statement above. Built in 1894, the building is in an existing National Register District. Continued stewardship is recommended. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility: Listed
30 57156 Permanent Squadron Operations 1894 original construction as dormitory (barracks), with Section B continuing in this function. 1977-designated Crew Readiness facility and was remodeled to accommodate Squadron Operations and Alert Crew. 1979-redesignated to HQ MAJ COMM per SAC letter. 1992-redesignated WG COMM. Comments on Use: Building has 4 floors including the basement. The entire complex originally was divided into 8 sections. Today, four sections (A, B, C, D) comprise Building 40 while sections E, F, G, and H have since become Building 49. Real Property folder contains 1 b/w 8 x 10 (date unknown); 6 b/w 5 x 6 photos (date unknown); 1 1951 photo side view; and 2 color polaroids from 1990. Primary Building Materials: Brick

Property Description: Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: Base Map Building Number: Martin Bomber Building 7094-Drawings from 1942 through future projects in 28
106 Peacekeeper Dr. 12/1/90 301
Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Weather Reconnaissance Property Type: Global Weather Service Statement of Significance: Although it operated as a bomber aircraft manufacturing plant during WWII, this building also became a factor in policy and technology during the transition between the traditional war and the Cold War. Specifically, the War Department commissioned engineers at the plant to design a plane for the distinct purpose of atomic weapons delivery. During later Cold War period phases, the addition of weather reconnaissance capability linked the building directly to the SAC command as it provided weather data at a global scale for use in strategic decision-making. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 3 3 2 3 2 1 14
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: No Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: The Martin Bomber Building is evaluated as significant within the base Cold War context, as described in the significance statement above. The building meets the 50 year criterion, and thus appears to be potentially eligible for immediate National Register listing. Further documentation to assess integrity is recommended to confirm this assessment. Stewardship is recommended in the interim. The Martin Bomber Building would qualify as a contributing element in a historic district nomination that is being considered under the theme
of Cold War/SAC. Importance: Important Eligibility: Future Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use: 50 1488710 Permanent Multiple-building houses the 55th Civil Engineering Squadron,Real Property office, and Global Weather Service as well as numerous other offices such as the Education Services, Wood Craft Shop, Bowling Alley, and several industrial services. Original function was as an assembly plant for bombers used in World War II, including the Enola Gay and Bock's Car. Around 1960 it was dedicated to Glen L. Martin, and was officially named the Martin Bomber Building in 1992. Also called SAC Building "D" or "Assembly Plant". Original designed capacity was 936320 sq ft. In 1956, improvements increased building capacity to 1,523,270. Current capacity is 1,488,710 with 2 floors. Real Property folder contains 12 b/w 8 x 10 photos of east, west, and south sides of exterior; photos and negatives of the First Floor and Basement interiors, "Areas of Responsibility". Concrete & steel, reinforced concrete floor. Although not directly Cold War related, architectural features of note include reinforced concrete floor with wooden bricks over much of floor surface, even today. "Butterfly" roof monitors.
Other Use/Dates:
Comments on Use:

Property Description: Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: Base Map Building Number: Law Center 7094-Drawings with final revisions as constructed Jun
711 Nelson Dr. 12/1/90 302
Operational Support & Installations: Base and Command Centers Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Major Command Headquarters Statement of Significance: The first significant association (1941-1945) of this resource is its' operation as the personnel building for the Martin Bomber Plant, the primary Cold War role of which was the development of aircraft specifically designed to transport the atomic bomb. The building maintains an additional and more direct Cold War association as it served as SAC Headquarters between 1948-1957, housing Curtis LeMay's office during this early phase of the Cold War. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 4 4 4 3 4 1 20
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: The Wing Headquarters/Law Center (former SAC Headquarters) is evaluated as significant within the base Cold War context, as described in the significance statement above. The building meets the 50 year criterion, and thus appears to be potentially eligible for immediate National Register listing. Further documentation to assess integrity is recommended. Stewardship is recommended in the interim. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility: Eligible
40 20763 Permanent Wing Headquarters "Law Center" 1941-originally served as the personnel building for the Aircraft Manufacturing and Assembly Plant when the base was Fort Crook. 1946-Fort Crook turned over to Air Force. 1951-building was the SAC Command Headquarters until 1957 when SAC moved to its new facility. Comments on Use: Also called SAC building "A" or old Strategic Air Command Headquarters. Real Property folder includes 1 b/w 4 x 5 photo dated 1951 with exterior sign "Command Building"; 1 b/w 8 x 10 of the entrance of building 302. Primary Building Materials: Brick Character Defining Features: Rounded window on west side near building entrance is allegedly where LeMay's office was during period of building's use as SAC Command Building.

Property Description: Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: Base Map Building Number: Metal Dorms 7094-Bank 5 Drawer 4
106/101 Lincoln Hway 12/1/90 416/417
Operational Support & Installations: Housing Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Unaccompanied Housing Statement of Significance: These dorms are directly associated with Curtis LeMay, a major figure in the role of SAC and Offutt AFB during the first two phases of the Cold War period. Commissioned and dedicated in a formal ceremony by LeMay, the dorms embodied concepts, such as increased privacy, comfort, and convenience, that he felt were important in the success of personnel morale and thus the mission of SAC. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 2 1 3 2 2 4 14
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: No Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: These dormitories commissioned by LeMay do not meet the 50 year criterion for National Register listing, nor are they considered exceptionally significant within the Cold War context. Still, they are apparently significant to the base due to their association with LeMay and perhaps due to their architectural attributes. If these dorms were 50 years of age, it is likely that they would be considered eligible for the National Register based on these associations. Design plans for their demolition have been completed, and this action is proposed for the near future. It is recommended that further documentation of building 417 be undertaken when it meets the 50 year criterion to re-evaluate it for
NRHP eligibility. Stewardship is also recommended to retain its current level of integrity. Importance: Important Eligibility: Future Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use: Other Use/Dates: 30 22870 Permanent 416 is Wing Headquarters/417 is Base Covered Storage Facility 416-original use as WAF Dormitory. 1972-utilization change to AMN Dormitory (capacity 122), then to current use in 1992. 417-original use as WAF dormitory. 1972-utilization change to AMN dormitory (capacity 132), then change to current use in 1991. Also known as "Ellsworth Hall" (416) and "Loring Hall" (417). Photos in Real Property folders for each building include 1 large b/w close up with no date, 1 b/w 1963, and 1 color polaroid 1991. Steel panel & reinforced concrete Classic 50s style of modular construction/metal panels, exposed exterior stairwells.
Comments on Use:

Property Description: Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: Base Map Building Number: Flight Simulator Training 7094-Bank 5 Drawer 9
207 Looking Glass Ave. 12/1/90 453
Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Flight Training Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Flight Simulator Statement of Significance: The significance of this building lies in its' specified training function for Looking Glass, and perhaps NEACP operations, during Phases III and IV of the Cold War period. It served as a training facility for the Airborne Lauch Control System (ALCS), which would permit Looking Glass to control the entire Minuteman fleet if any or all of the ground launch control centers were put out of action. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 3 3 2 3 4 1 16
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: No Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: This Flight Simulator Training building is not yet 50 years of age and does not appear to be exceptionally significant within the Cold War context. However, it is significant as a training facility for the Airborne Launch Control System (ALCS). Stewardship is recommended for the building until it reaches the 50 year threshold, at which time further documentation for formal National Register evaluation is recommended. Importance: Important Eligibility: Future
20 3025 Permanent Flight Simulator Training None Real Property folder contains 1 b/w close-up photo with no date. Also in file (1988) is a note "Through HQ SAC/DOMM-6091, Boeing Aircraft has 270 sq ft in facility 453". Primary Building Materials: Concrete Character Defining Features: No windows.
Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use: Other Use/Dates: Comments on Use:

Property Description: Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: Base Map Building Number: SAC Chapel 7094-Bank 5 Drawer 18
301 Lincoln Hway 12/1/90 463
Operational Support & Installations: Memorial Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Memorial Chapel Statement of Significance: The SAC chapel is significant in the social aspects of the Cold War context primarily in that its' custom designed stained glass windows specifically embody SAC ideals and mission, such as national defense, deterence, and commemoration of other strategic, technological, and command aspects. Other significant features include an E-4 alert klaxon in the front and two reserved "Alert Crew" pews in the back of the sanctuary. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 4 1 3 3 4 1 16
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: The SAC Chapel is considered an exceptionally significant property within the base and national Cold War context, as described in the significance statement above. Further documentation, to include complete recording and archival research, is recommended to nominate this resource to the NRHP. Stewardship is also recommended. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility: Eligible
25 11560 Permanent SAC Chapel 1956-original use is Base Chapel, then function changed to Center Chapel at unknown date. Comments on Use: Original square footage was 7684, with an addition in 1960 of an educational wing, making total 11560. It is unclear if this coincides with the change in use to a Center Chapel. Primary Building Materials: Concrete block & brick, reinforced concrete Character Defining Features: Stained glass windows epitomizing Cold War themes including the red phone, nuclear mushroom cloud, bomber pilot, and SAC insignia. Windows were installed in 1960 and in 1973. Interior Klaxon alarm system support for E-4 (NEACP) at side front of sanctuary. Installed 1977. Two pews in back labelled "Alert Crews Only."

Property Description: Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: Base Map Building Number: Looking Glass Operations 7094
Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Alert Facilities Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Command and Control Alert Facility Statement of Significance: This building served as the primary control center for Looking Glass, a military, airborne operation to mirror the capabilities of the SAC Ground Command Post, thus ensuring survivability. Looking Glass was a primary component in support of SAC's broad Cold War mission under PACCS (Post Attach Command Control System). Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 4 4 2 4 4 1 19
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: The Looking Glass operations facility is considered an exceptionally significant property within the base and national Cold War context, as described in the significance statement above. Further documentation to assess integrity is recommended. Immediate National Register listing is recommended even though the property is not yet 50 years of age. Stewardship is recommended in the interim. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility: Eligible
10 23248 Permanent Squadron Operations and Crew Readiness for "Looking Glass" operations. None E4 project alarms system installed in 1977. 1992-low frequency radio transmitter installed. Concrete Masonry Unit Alert Crew parking areas and tennis courts for alert crews only located across the street.

Property Description: Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: Base Map Building Number: STRATCOM Headquarters 7094-Bank 6 Drawers 6-20, Bank 7 Drawers 1-15
901 SAC Blvd. 12/1/90 500
Operational Support & Installations: Base and Command Centers Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Major Command Headquarters Statement of Significance: Referred to by some as "the Pentagon of the West," this headquarters building played a vital role in command and control during the majority of the Cold War (Phases II through IV). In this headquarters, global information was assembled that enabled the CINCSAC to maintain control of the entire SAC nuclear arsenal. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 4 4 3 4 3 1 19
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: The STRATCOM Headquarters (former SAC headquarters) is considered an exceptionally significant property within the base and national Cold War context, as described in the significance statement above. Further documentation, to include complete recording and archival research, is recommended to nominate it to the NRHP. Immediate National Register listing is recommended even though the property is not yet 50 years of age. Stewardship is recommended in the interim. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility: Eligible
Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use: (Building
40 627231 Permanent STRATCOM Headquarters. The SAC Theatre
502) became part of this building in 1992. Other Use/Dates: 1957-original use as SAC Headquarters until STRATCOM was formed in 1992. Comments on Use: Original design capacity of 360003 sq ft. 1960-basement constructed and resulting square footage was 417023. Today, new STRATCOM Command Post and office space from old Underground Command Post (building 501) makes current square footage 627231. At time of construction the building was considered the Midwest's largest office building. Primary Building Materials: Reinforced Concrete & Masonry Character Defining Features: Static missile display in front. Interior includes various objects/decor such as SAC seal color tesselated in floor of entrance hallway.

Property Description: Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: Base Map Building Number: SAC Underground Command Post 7094-Bank 6 Drawers 6-20, Bank 7 Drawers 1-15
Under 901 SAC Blvd. 12/1/90 501
Operational Support & Installations: Base and Command Centers Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Major Command Post Statement of Significance: The underground command post served as the nerve center for SAC during the majority of the Cold War period (Phases II through IV). The command post essentially remained on alert for 31 years, functioning as the center for all command and control through dissemination of strategy during periods of defensive posture when tensions were particularly high. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 4 4 3 4 1 4 20
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: The former SAC underground post is considered an exceptionally significant property within the base and national Cold War context, as described in the significance statement above. However, the integrity of the property has been severely compromised. Further documentation to assess integrity is recommended in order to explore National Register potential, even though the property is not yet 50 years of age. Stewardship of any remaining significant features, such as the blast doors, poppet valves, and decontamination chambers is recommended until further work can be accomplished. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility: Potential
Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use:
Other Use/Dates:
Comments on Use:
30 160303 Permanent Overall function currently is a Unified Headquarters. The portion of the building that was the Old Underground Command Post has been combined with aboveground Headquarters (500) and is used for office space. Newly added portion functions as the current Underground Command Post. The old portion also includes Global Weather. 1957-original use as Headquarters Command Operational, later Command Headquarters, then Headquarters Major Command, and today Headquarters Unified. Several additions have been made to building although direct correspondence with utilization changes is not evident. Original square footage was 116814, with an inventory adjustment in 1962 making total 131427. 1962-internal improvements in Control Room including clocks and large screen installation. 1963-more interior remodeling, emergency lights, etc. 1964-temporary square footage addition of 134,078, which was then subtracted and added to building 500; permanent addition of 6750 make total 138177. 1966-sound proof A room. 1967-install red blinking light in Room 116. 1968-underground addition makes total 139075. 1981-administrative adjustment to 140325. 1992-pick up tunnel as civilian walkway & traffic check house (now 141949), then pick up USAF Command Post (total 160303). Reinforced concrete (water-proofed) Four sets of blast doors, decontamination room/wing, poppet valves. Although reminiscent of the "big board" the large screen in the New Underground Command Post has only been in use since 1992. The old feature has been dismantled and, along with the rest of the old command post, has been entirely converted to office space and is no longer a character defining feature of this building within the context of the Cold War study.

Property Description: Satellite Communications Complex which includes the main building (598) built in 1985, a second building behind it (542) built in 1977, and a large dish (566) built in 1978. The building/structure data presented in the database refers to 598 since it is the main operational facility and bears the sign "Satellite Communications". Facilities 542 and 566 are further discussed in the Offutt base report. Associated Property: 7094-Bank 8 Drawers 3 (542), 9 (566), & 10 (598) Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: 311 Gemini Blvd. Base Map Date: 12/1/90 Base Map Building Number: 598, 566, 542 Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Communications Property Type: Satellite Communications Complex Statement of Significance: This facility undoubtedly served a significant function in global data gathering related to intelligence, weather conditions, etc. while also serving a reconnaissance function for strategic missions of the 55th Wing. Its' Cold War association is as a vital component supporting SAC and DOD during Phases III and IV or the Cod War period. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 3 3 2 3 4 1 16
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: No Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: This satellite communication complex is not yet 50 years of age and does not appear to be exceptionally significant within the Cold War context. However, it is significant as a support facility related to Looking Glass and NEACP operations and thus to the base Cold War context. Stewardship is recommended for the building until it reaches the 50 year threshold, at which time further documentation for formal National Register evaluation is recommended.
Importance: Important Eligibility: Future 15 10311 Permanent Satellite Communication Ground Terminal (Main Satellite Building in Complex) Other Use/Dates: None Comments on Use: Facility addition in 1987 added to original square footage (10231) to get current total (10311). Real Property folder contains a color polaroid from 1991. Primary Building Materials: Concrete Masonry Unit Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use:

Property Description: Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: Base Map Building Number: Quarters 16 7094-Bank 1 Drawer 3
Custer Drive 12/1/90 16
Operational Support & Installations: Housing Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Commander Housing Statement of Significance: Located in an existing NRHP district, this building was originally constructed as the residence of the commander for Ft. Crook, and serves the same function today. During the Cold War period, only General Kenney (CINCSAC from 1946-48) did not reside here. The building physically reflects the Cold War mentality in the presence of a bomb shelter built by CINCSAC Powers, and the installation of special telephone lines for communication of the CINCSAC with other important command centers. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 3 4 4 3 3 1 18
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: No Further Documentation: No Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: Quarters 16 is evaluated as significant within the base Cold War context as described in the significance statement above. Built in 1896, the building is in an existing National Register District. Continued stewardship is recommended. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility: Listed
30 7600 Permanent STRATCOM Commander Quarters 1896-original use apparently as living quarters for Ft. Crook, turned over to Air Force in 1946. It became used as Quarters for Commander (CINC) of SAC in 1948. 1948-1957-General Curtis E. LeMay, as CINC, lived in these quarters. Comments on Use: 1962-during tenure of General Power as CINC, a fallout shelter was installed in the basement. Primary Building Materials: Brick & Stone Character Defining Features: Fallout shelter in basement constructed in 1962 by removing a closet wall and installing a cinder block wall the length of the other, older brick wall. Doorways were at either end of the 3'8" wide space.

Property Description: Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: Base Map Building Number: NEACP Operations 7094-Bank 8 Drawers 5-8 (filed with 565 & 531)
Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Alert Facilities Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Command and Control Alert Facility Statement of Significance: center for NEACP, an airborne operation for the National Command Authority. NEACP was a primary component in support of the nation's broad Cold War mission of PACCS (Post Attack Command Control System), enabling the President, Joint Chiefs, and other lines of authority to implement the Emergency War Order (EWO), thus ensuring survivability. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 4 4 2 4 4 1 19 This building served as the primary control
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: The NEACP alert facility is considered an exceptionally significant property within the base and national Cold War context, as described in the significance statement above. Further documentation to assess integrity is recommended. Immediate National Register listing is recommended even though the property is not yet 50 years of age. Stewardship is recommended in the interim. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility: Eligible
20 45732 Permanent Crew Readiness for 1st ACCS (1st Airborne Command Control Squadron) to support NEACP (E4) operations. Other Use/Dates: None Comments on Use: Primary Building Materials: Concrete Masonry Unit
Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use:

Property Description: Silver Creek Transmitting Tower & Installation, which includes a semi-subterranean facility below and adjacent to the tower (both built in 1968) and an above ground dormitory away from it (built 1988). The building/structure data contained in the database are specific to the tower and transmitter complex. The entire installation, including the dormitory, is further discussed in the Offutt base report. Associated Property: 7094-Bank 11 Drawers 3, 5, and 8-9 Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Silver Creek, NE Address: Base Map Date: 12/1/90 Base Map Building Number: None Operational Support & Installations: Communications Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Low Frequency Transmitter Complex Statement of Significance: This installation embodies the basic Cold War theme of survivability, acting as a totally interactive communication system between commands (airborne control, the SCA underground command post, etc.). In operation during Phases III and IV of the Cold War period, the facility performed functions for the Navy, Pentagon, and other commands in addition to SAC. It was EMP hardened, thus ensuring survivability to enable the EWO to be relayed before, during, and after an attack. It was a vital communication link between the National Command Authority (NCA) and the US Strategic Forces. Only one other transmitter site of its' kind was functional during the Cold War period, and that site has been dismantled. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: No Further Work: Stewardship: National Register Listing: Further Documentation: Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Yes Yes Yes No 4 4 2 4 4 4 22
Comments on Resource Management: Silver Creek is considered an exceptionally significant property within the Cold War context, as described in the significance statement above. However, the facility is slated for immediate dismantling, thus its integrity is severely threatened. Further documentation, to include complete and formal recording of remaining elements and archival reasearch, is recommended in order to explore National Register potential, even through the property is not yet 50 years of age. Stewardship on any remaining significant features, such as the tower itself and the copper room, is recommended until this further work can be accomplished. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility: Eligible Height: Square Footage: Original Planned Duration: Existing Use: Other Use/Dates: 1240 7735
Being dismantled Facility became operational as a survivable low frequency communication system (110000 watt) (SLFCS) in 1969 and operated as such until June 1 1994. Comments on Use: At the time of our visit the transmitter was still basically intact but no longer in use. Some dismantling of interior components had occurred and the operation staff was significantly reduced, but the tower was still standing. Primary Building Materials: Steel Frame & Reinforced Concrete Character Defining Features: Tower itself at 1240 ft high and ground radials every degree (each is 1800 ft long with a 10 foot grounding rod at the end). Inside the semi-subterranean building is a 25 ft x 25 ft x 30 ft copper room containing the 17 ft helix, a copper loading coil for the antenna. The antenna produces a very strong electro-magnetic field.

Property Description: Architectural Drawing Files in 55th CES Drawing Room consist of 10 full banks and 2 partial banks of flat files (total of 275 drawers). Banks 1-9 are ordered by real property facility number (1 through 9947), with bank 9 being a partial bank. Banks 10 & 12 are Project Specific including Utility (5 drawers), Golf (2), Capehart (18) in Bank 10 and Utility (5), Fences-Landscaping-Grounds (5), Airfields (7), Signs-Parking lots-Sidewalks (2), and Roads (6) in Bank 12. Bank 11 is also a partial bank and includes the ancillary communication facilities as follows: Scribner (Drawers 1-2), Scribner, Elkhorn, Silver Creek, Hastings (Drawer 3), Elkhorn (Drawers 4-5), Hastings (Drawers 6-7), Silver Creek (Drawers 8-9), and Communications (Drawer 10). In general, the flat files contain Record Drawings (as-builts) and Project Files for all real property on base. Drawings consist of a variety of types, including original ink on linen, vellum, mylar, and sepia. Associated Property: Various; Inside 301 Non-Inventoried Association: Various Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: 12/1/90 Base Map Building Number: inside 301 Operational Support & Installations: Documentation Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Architectural Drawing Files Statement of Significance: The significance of these drawing files lies in the information they contain regarding important properties on Offutt AFB. Of particular note are files with architectural details of exceptionally significant properties such as the STRATCOM (formerly SAC) headquarters, the SAC Chapel, Quarters 16, and the NEACP and Looking Glass facilities. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: 2 Theme Relationship: 2 Temporal Phase Relationship: 4 Level of Importance: 3 Percent Historic Fabric: 4 Severity of Threats: 1 Total Score for Priority Matrix: 16 Comments on Threats: Architectural drawing files are in a protected room adjacent to the drafting area. The collections are well organized and quite complete, with entire Record Drawing sets extant. Threats are viewed as low as long as this degree of attention to the resource continues.
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: No Further Documentation: No Preservation/Conservation/Repair: Yes Comments on Resource Management: It is recommended that copies be kept on base, and originals be sent to a curatorial facility. Object Condition: Record/Document Category: Year of Document: Period of Association: Being Preserved Architectural Drawing Various 1930s-1990s, spanning Cold War Phases I-IV

Property Description: Historical Documentation in Flat File (Bank 14 Drawer 10) in 55th CES Drafting area. File is marked "Historical and Base Photos" and includes numerous historic maps, photos, and architectural project drawings. Maps include: SAC Base Regional Maps (1962); Preliminary Master Plan for Offutt Field, Ft. Crook, 1947; 1952 Offutt AFB General Maaster Plan with hard cover (16 x 22); 1958 & 1966 Master Plans; and a 1976 Community Center Complex Master Plan. Photos include the following: cardboard folder with black tape on sides hand-labeled "PHOTOS" containing 25-30 large format b/w aerials of base and transmitter locations; cardboard folder with blue tape on sides hand-labeled "PHOTOS" containing 20 large format b/w aerials of base; 3 large format negatives of Ft. Crook 1894 (2) and Ft. Crook ca. 1900; 150-200 b/w photos of the aftermath of a fire on base at an unidentified building; 3 packages of b/w photos and negatives (4 x 6); package of negatives of base (9 x 12). Drawings include: Domestic and Sprinkler Line 1946; Plan for Weapons carrier truck with sprinkler system; Mead-Elkhorn drawings for plumbing; and drawings for a Community Center in 1982. Also included is a 1958 Offutt AFB "Expansion Study for SAC by Bartholomew-Durham-Michael A/E of Omaha-St. Louis. Associated Property: Various; Inside 301-in same office with MAI 7094 Non-Inventoried Association: Various Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: 12/1/90 Base Map Building Number: inside 301 Operational Support & Installations: Documentation Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Documentary Collection Statement of Significance: The significance of these files lies in the historical information they contain regarding the history of the base during all phases of the Cold War period. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: 2 2 4 3 4 1 16
Comments on Threats: Efforts have been made to isolate these historic items, and if this situation continues, the level of threats is viewed as low. No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: No Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: Yes Comments on Resource Management: It is recommended that copies be kept on base, and the originals be sent to a curatorial facility. Object Condition: Record/Document Category: Year of Document: Period of Association: Being Preserved Maps, photos, architectural drawings Various Phases I-IV of Cold War

Property Description: Historical Documentation in Flat Files in Real Property Office, including 1 bank with 10 drawers. Those pertinent to this study include: Drawer 5, marked "Legal", which contains maps geared toward showing jurisdiction/ownership. Specific contents include blue line utility plans, blue line surveys 1959-1979 by Sarpy County surveyors, blue line copies of off-Base facility master plans (most from 1969) including Hastings and Scribner, boundary and perimeter strip blue lines, real estate base layouts from 1960-1986, 1966 and 1986 SAC comprehensive plans, and a 1957 topographic type map of "Offutt Military Reservation" . Drawers 6-7 contain floor plans by facility number and Drawer 8 contains floor plans of 301. Drawer 10 contains miscellaneous maps including: Base Plans for 1966 and 1986 with colored areas designating flight related properties (runways, alert trailers, etc.); existing & future land use maps showing contraints/opportunities--Long Range Plans--from 1986; Capehart "playground" probably from 1960s; land utilization & development plans from 1966; an old map (1960s?) with Gate & Locks data showing "radar hill" near 301 (facility numbers 250 etc.); and a 1986 Disaster Preparedness Map. Associated Property: Various; Inside 301 Non-Inventoried Association: Various Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: 12/1/90 Base Map Building Number: inside 301 Operational Support & Installations: Documentation Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Map Files Statement of Significance: The significance of these maps lies in the historical information they contain regarding base development during all phases of the Cold War period. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: 2 Theme Relationship: 2 Temporal Phase Relationship: 3 Level of Importance: 3 Percent Historic Fabric: 4 Severity of Threats: 1 Total Score for Priority Matrix: 15 Comments on Threats: The flat files are maintained in the working real property files (i.e., other drawers in this bank include personal and active flat files) thus it appears that threats are low.
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: No Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: Yes Comments on Resource Management: It is recommended that copies be kept on base, and that the originals be sent to a permanent curatorial facility. Record/Document Category: Maps, photos Year of Document: Various Period of Association: Phases I-IV of Cold War

Property Description: Photo archives in 55th CES/Environmental office. Drawer 8, a flat file marked "Photos", includes the following: 33 b/w 8 x 10 photos of Martin Bomber Building construction; about 150 aerial photos and negatives of varied sizes (large format), ages (1950s-1980s), and altitudes; various blue lines of projects--dates unknown. Associated Property: 301; Inside 301-in same office as MAI 7100 Non-Inventoried Association: Base Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: 12/1/90 Base Map Building Number: inside 301 Operational Support & Installations: Documentation Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Photograph Collection Statement of Significance: The significance of this collection lies in the information it contains regarding base development in general during all phases of the Cold War period and in particular, as doumentation of the construction of a building significant within Cold War and other contexts. Ther aerial photographs represent a relatively complete collection of an extremely valuable and irreplaceable resource. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: 2 Theme Relationship: 2 Temporal Phase Relationship: 4 Level of Importance: 3 Percent Historic Fabric: 4 Severity of Threats: 1 Total Score for Priority Matrix: 16 Comments on Threats: The photos are well organized and maintained in a personal office, therefore threats are ranked as low. No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: No Further Documentation: No Preservation/Conservation/Repair: Yes Comments on Resource Management: It is recommended that copies be kept on base, and that the originals be sent to a curatorial facility. Object Condition: Record/Document Category: Year of Document: Period of Association: Being Preserved Photograph Various Phases I-IV of Cold War

Property Description: Historical Archives in 55th Wing Historian's Office. Unclassified Archives (Item Number 15 on the Files Maintenance and Disposition Plan) include the following files that may be pertinent to the Cold War study: Letters of historic value (15-1); Ft. Crook/Offutt History (15-2-15-7); Martin Bomber Plant (15-8); Offutt AFB and HQ SAC background (15-10); Offutt AFB history (15-11); transfer of Ft. Crook to Offutt AFB (15-14); transfer of Offutt AFB ADC to SAC (15-15); Facilities, documents, and blue prints (15-16) including SAC HQ Building 500, SAC Museum, National Emergency Airborne Support Facilities (NEACP), Chapels, Dedications of B-52 and B-17, and Scribner Communication Site; Offutt AFB Aircraft (15-17); Units/Organizations Assigned (15-19); SAC Info Kit (15-20). Based on the Files Maintenance and Disposition Plan list, it appears that the Classified Historical Archives (Item Number 17) might also include information related to the Cold War, yet not as pertinent to the current real property focused study as the unclassified files. The Classified Archives were not inventoried, but are mentioned as additional resources in the Offutt base report. Associated Property: Various; Inside 458-affiliated with same office as MA Non-Inventoried Association: Various Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: 12/1/90 Base Map Building Number: inside 450 Operational Support & Installations: Documentation Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Office Files Statement of Significance: The significance of this historical documentation lies in the information it contains regarding the base history in general as well as specific important base properties. Of particular note are files with historical details of exceptionally significant properties such as the STRATCOM (formerly SAC) headquarters - above and underground, the SAC Chapel, Quarters 16, etc. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: 3 2 4 3 4 1 17
Comments on Threats: Files are well organized and maintained in the Wing Historian's secured office, therefore threats are ranked as low. No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: No Further Documentation: No Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: Maintain level of stewardship Object Condition: Record/Document Category: Year of Document: Period of Association: Being Preserved Photos, literature Various Phases I-IV of Cold War

Property Description: Heritage Room adjacent to and maintained by 55th Wing Historian's office. The Heritage Room displays numerous memorial items related to SAC and the 55th Wing, although other items are in the Wing Historian's possession but not currently on display. The displayed collection includes the following general and SAC related items: mannequins with flight suit and Army Air Corps uniform; K-18A Reconaissance Camera; Ensignia and plaques of SAC; aircraft photos; plane hardware such as bomb sights, altimeters, Radarscope and gun cameras, B-47E Sextant, headsets, and gauges; propellars from planes; a German Luftwaffe hat; E-4 scrapbooks; retrofit pictorial history of E-4A to E-4B 1981-1985; scrapbooks of the 343rd Fighter Squadron WWII, 343rd Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron; and the 38th SRS Hellcats Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron. Items specifically related to the 55th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing include: plane models of B-17, photos and plaques, scrapbooks, patches and uniforms, a picture of the 55th Wing people with General Norman Schwarkopf, and the 55th FG - "Pursuit to Defend" Associated Property: Inside 458-affiliated with same office as MAI 7098 Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: 12/1/90 Base Map Building Number: inside 458 Operational Support & Installations: Memorial Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Museum Collection Statement of Significance: The significance of this historical assemblage lies in its' association with important events related to SAC. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 3 3 2 3 4 2 17
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: No Further Documentation: No Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: Memorial objects are maintained in a secured room adjacent to the Wing Historian's office, therefore threats are ranked as low. Continued care of the collection is recommended. Construction Materials of Object: Various Year of Manufacture: Various Object Condition: Being Preserved

Property Description: Silver Creek photos maintained in 55th CES/Environmental office (Gene Svenson's office) . Photos were taken prior to dismantling of installation and tower and include about 32 b/w 3 x 5 photos and negatives. Depicted are the following: a plaque of Detachment 1 Silver Ck, NE; a sign of Detachment 1 55th GCSS (ACC) Silver CK NE; the transmitter tower; the copper room saturable reactor (about 10 photos); miscellaneous facilities including the barracks room, kitchen, day room, dorm, maintenance area, power AMPS of 100 total kw, transmitter in operations room, and the power production area (5 photos), one of "ACC Power". Associated Property: MAI 7066; Inside 301-in same office as MAI 7097 Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: 12/1/90 Base Map Building Number: inside 301 Operational Support & Installations: Documentation Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Photograph Collection Statement of Significance: The significance of this photo collection lies in the information it provides regarding the exceptionally significant Silver Creek installation. The collection is extremely valuable in providing a photographic record of the installation prior to any dismantling, some of which has already occurred. Unless more in-depth study is performed, this could be the most complete collection of such documentation in existance. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: 4 Theme Relationship: 4 Temporal Phase Relationship: 2 Level of Importance: 3 Percent Historic Fabric: 4 Severity of Threats: 1 Total Score for Priority Matrix: 18 Comments on Threats: Photos are well maintained by Mr. Svenson and the threat ranking is therefore low. No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: No Further Documentation: No Preservation/Conservation/Repair: Yes Comments on Resource Management: It is recommended that copies be kept by the base,
and the originals be sent to a curatorial facility. Object Condition: Being Preserved Record/Document Category: Photograph Year of Document: 1990s
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 Offutt AFB, and to provide research materials for this study:
Gene Svenson Chief of the Cultural/Natural Resources Element 55 CES/CEVN 19 MBB 106 Peacekeeper Drive, Suite 2N3 Offutt AFB, NE 68113-4019 Mike Rix Chief of Drafting 55 CES/CEEED 19 MBB 106 Peacekeeper Drive, Suite 2N3 Offutt AFB, NE 68113-4019 Jim Kaiser Chief of Engineers 55 CES/CEEP MBB19 106 Peacekeeper Drive, Suite 2N3 Offutt AFB, NE 68113-4019 SrA Clifford Sibley Wing Historian 55 WG/HO 205 Looking Glass Offutt AFB, NE 68113-3130 Gordon Dix Real Estate Officer 55 CES/CERR 106 Peacekeeper Drive, Suite 2N3 Offutt AFB, NE 68113-4019
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 Offutt AFB history and Cold War context.
Dr. Parks, STRATCOM Historian, July 8, 1994 Dr. Todd White, STRATCOM Historian, July 18, 1994 SrA Clifford Sibley, Wing Historian, July 5-20, 1994 Gordon Dix, Real Estate Officer, July 5-20, 1994 MSgt Terry K. Harland, Detachment 1 Chief, Silver Creek, July 16, 1994
VOLUME II-24: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE AT POPE AIR FORCE BASE
July 1997
Volume II-24: Pope Air Force Base
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Mariah Associates, Inc. conducted a cultural resource inventory at Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina, between September 19 and 23, 1994, to ascertain extant Cold War resources important to the base, its history, and Cold War context as part of the Air Combat Command Cold War Study under the ongoing Department of Defense Legacy Program. As part of the inventory, environmental scientists James Lowe and John Evaskovich surveyed a variety of base repositories for research materials pertaining to the base's Cold War history. Repositories
included the Wing History Office, Public Affairs Office, Civil Engineering Office and Drafting Department, Real Estate Office, and Environmental Office. Also, interviews were conducted with personnel long affiliated with the base to better understand the relationship of specific base properties to the Cold War era. Finally, a photographic reconnaissance of the base was
conducted to document Cold War properties as well as representative architecture on the base.
Based on the information gathered, the field team chose three resources for further documentation and evaluation based on their Cold War importance. These resources include the former United States Air Force Tactical Airlift Center, a Documentary Collection in the Civil Engineering Office, and a Photograph Collection in the Environmental Office. Further
documentation, stewardship, and conservation are recommended for the latter two resources. As the first resource is already listed on the National Register of Historic Places, continued stewardship is recommended.
ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACC ACHP AFB AGE AWADS CRS DoD EMS FTD HABS LAPES LOX MAC Mariah NCO NHPA NPS NRHP OCONUS POL SAC SALT SDI SHPO START TAC TACAN TALC TAW TCW USAF WRSK
Air Combat Command Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Air Force Base Air Ground Equipment Adverse Weather Aerial Delivery System Component Repair Squadron Department of Defense Equipment Maintenance Squadron Field Training Detachment Historic American Buildings Survey Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System Liquid Oxygen Military Airlift Command Mariah Associates, Inc. Noncommissioned Officer National Historic Preservation Act National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Off the Continental United States Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Strategic Air Command Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty Strategic Defense Initiative State Historic Preservation Officer Strategic Arms Reduction Talks Tactical Air Command Tactical Air Navigation Station Tactical Airlift Center Tactical Airlift Wing Troop Carrier Wing United States Air Force War Readiness Spares Kit
iii
GLOSSARY
iv
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 9
5.0 RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY RESULTS ................................................................ 30 6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS ................................................................................................... 6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS .................................................... 6.1.1 Documentation ....................................................................................................... 6.1.1.1 Documentary Collection................................................................................ 6.1.1.2 Photograph Collection ................................................................................... 6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS .................................................... 31 31 31 31 33 33
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES ................................................................ 6.3.1 Research Labs......................................................................................................... 6.3.1.1 USAF TALC ................................................................................................. 6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES ................................................................................................ 6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES....................................................................................... 33 33 33 34 34
7.0 UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 35 8.0 FUTURE THREATS TO RESOURCES .............................................................................. 36 9.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 9.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY ...................................................................................................... 9.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility............................................... 9.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility ........................................................................... 9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 9.2.1 Documentary Collection......................................................................................... 9.2.2 Photograph Collection ............................................................................................ 9.2.3 USAF TALC .......................................................................................................... 37 37 37 39 41 41 43 43
vii
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Bases Selected for the Air Combat Command Cold War Study .......................... 2 Location of Pope Air Force Base ......................................................................... 5 Pope Air Force Base Layout................................................................................. 7 Standard Tactical Air Command Base Layout ..................................................... 8 Pope Air Force Base Land Use Diagram.............................................................. 10 Standard Tactical Air Command Base Land Use Diagram .................................. 11 Pope Air Force Base, 1950-1960 ......................................................................... 20 Pope Air Force Base, 1960-1980 ......................................................................... 21 Pope Air Force Base, 1980-1990 ......................................................................... 22
LIST OF TABLES
Table 6.1
Table 6.2 Table 9.1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is a reconnaissance inventory of Cold War related resources on Pope Air Force Base (AFB). Pope AFB, a former Military Airlift Command (MAC) 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.
The 23rd Wing at Pope AFB is a composite wing responsible for "deploying a self-sustaining war fighting package anywhere in the world at a moments notice . . ." (Public Affairs Office 1994:11). The composite wing consists of the 2nd and 41st Airlift Squadrons utilizing the C-130 Hercules transport, the 74th Fighter Squadron with the F-16 Falcon fighter aircraft, and the 75th Fighter Squadron with the A/OA-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft. With these four squadrons, the 23rd Wing provides the United States Army with the airlift capabilities and air support that allow Fort Bragg's XVIII Airborne Corps and 82nd Airborne Division to "organize, equip, and train for global airlift and air power operations" (Pope AFB 1993:1-10).
Pope AFB consists of approximately 1,869 acres (756 ha) of land located southwest of the Little River and 10 mi (16 km) northwest of Fayetteville, North Carolina in Cumberland County (Figure 2.1). It is bordered on the south, west, and north by the Army's Fort Bragg Military Reservation. The base is situated in the Sandhills Subprovince of the Coastal Plain
Physiographic Province and is characterized by rounded hills that consist of loose to fairly well consolidated sand. Elevations on base range from 280 ft (85 m) above mean sea level near the southern boundary to 170 ft (52 m) at the northern boundary. Vegetation on the base consists primarily of loblolly and longleaf pine, scrub oak, and wiregrass (Civil Engineering Office 1993:2-2, 2-4; United States Air Force [USAF] 1994:1,8,10; United States Army Corps of Engineers 1993:3).
Although Tactical Air Command (TAC) was the major command at Pope AFB from 1950 until 1974, the layout of Pope AFB (Figure 2.2) bears little resemblance to the standard TAC base Layout (Figure 2.3). It is hypothesized that the base did not develop along the lines of the standard TAC base due to two reasons: that portions of the base were built before and during World War II, and that the primary mission at Pope AFB throughout its history was the airlifting of troops and materiel, rather than the usual TAC mission of providing combat fighter forces.
The most pronounced difference between the Pope AFB and standard TAC layouts is the relationship of the base to the runway and parking aprons. The TAC layout has almost the entire base situated along one side of the runway. The main instrument runway at Pope AFB is oriented northeast-southeast and bisects the base into two distinct development sections. These sections are on both sides of the runway, and development does not extend along the length of the runway on either side. The southeastern development section follows only the northeastern third of the runway, with most of the development extending southeast away from the runway. The northwestern section of development is completely set back from the runway by a large parking apron used for parking, loading, and deploying of cargo and airlift aircraft. Buildings are positioned along this parking apron and at both ends. Headquarters for airlift operations is located at the southwestern end of this parking apron and is the focal point for airlift operations. The mission facilities related to the maintenance of airlift and fighter aircraft and base operations are located at the northeastern end of this parking apron.
2.4 BASE LAND USE
The following is a list of standard TAC land use categories: Base Support Facilities - house base support functions and supplies. 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. 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.
Because of the major differences in basic layout between Pope AFB and a standard TAC base, the land use patterns at Pope AFB (Figure 2.4) at first appear not to conform to standard TAC patterns (Figure 2.5). However, although there are differences between the two, there are also similarities.
The differences between the two land use diagrams include the placement of most of the mission areas around a large parking apron in the northwestern section of the base rather than in the southeastern section along with the other land use areas as in the standard diagram. Also, the
12
mission areas are positioned to surround the parking apron instead of laid out along the length of the flight line as shown in the standard diagram. Finally, the location of an industrial area and a recreation area on the northwestern side of the runway differs from the standard.
Although the various land use areas at Pope AFB are not spread out along the flight line as in the standard diagram, the spatial relationships between the areas in the southeastern section are very similar to the standard diagram. The industrial area is located along the flight line and family housing is found farthest from the flight line. In between these two areas is a conglomeration of base support, community, unaccompanied housing, and recreation facilities. This is the same land use pattern found in the standard TAC diagram.
13
Pope AFB is one of the oldest installations in the Air Force. Throughout most of the Cold War, it was affiliated with Fort Bragg, providing airlift and air support to the United States Army. Because of its unique relationship with Fort Bragg it has been said that, "there is no other base like Pope AFB . . . it is the airlift center of the world" (personal communication, David Davenport, September 22, 1994).
The origins of Pope AFB coincide with the creation of Camp Bragg (now Fort Bragg), North Carolina during World War I. This Army military reservation was created by an executive order in September 1918, pursuant to an act of Congress dated July 2, 1917. The site of Pope AFB was initially purchased by the federal government for use as an accompanying air field for the camp. The Army Air Service commanded the Camp Bragg Flying Field. It was renamed Pope Field on April 1, 1919 in honor of Lt Harley H. Pope, who was killed in an airplane crash while searching for potential landing sites for an airmail route in the region. Lt Pope was commander of the 276th Aero Squadron stationed at Pope Field when he was killed January 7, 1919 (Civil Engineering Office 1946:1, Section II; Drucker and Jackson 1987; Mueller 1989:482; Public Affairs Office 1969:1).
During the late 1920s, Pope Field participated in experimental aerial bombardment exercises that proved beneficial to the United States military during World War II. In December 1927, Major Carl Spaatz and his bomber squadron successfully destroyed a bridge on the Pee Dee River 70 mi (112 km) west of Fayetteville, North Carolina. This demonstrated the feasibility of destroying permanent structures with aerial bombardment to achieve a wartime objective (Civil Engineering Office 1971:2; Drucker and Jackson 1987; Public Affairs Office 1969:1; 1994:6).
14
Army Air Force took command of Pope Field on June 21, 1941 and renamed it Pope Army Air Field. The base's primary mission, troop carrier and cargo airlift, began with the arrival of the new command, and endured and expanded throughout Pope AFB's Cold War history. Throughout World War II, Pope Army Air Field functioned primarily as a troop carrier training installation. Air maneuvers, mock aircraft engagements, and simulated bombing practice
prepared the squadrons for live action, and air and ground crews trained with Army airborne units from Fort Bragg for airborne and aerial resupply missions. These activities culminated in the first paratroop drop in the Western Hemisphere. Army Air Force units trained at Pope Army Air Field were then transferred to the diverse theaters of the war (Civil Engineering Office 1971:2-3; Mueller 1989:482-483; Public Affairs Office 1969:2; 1993:1).
The command at Pope Army Air Field changed several times during and following World War II. First Air Force took control of the field in July 1942, followed shortly thereafter by First Troop Carrier Command in October 1942. Continental Air Forces took control of the field in April 1945. This command was redesignated Strategic Air Command (SAC) in March 1946. SAC assumed control of the newly renamed Pope AFB in December 1948 and remained until December 1, 1950, when TAC began its long tenure at Pope AFB (Civil Engineering Office 1971:3; Lewis et al. 1995; Mueller 1989:482-483; Public Affairs Office 1969:2).
Pope AFB acquired the headquarters of the Ninth Air Force in August 1950 as the fighterbomber and photo reconnaissance element of TAC. The Ninth Air Force remained at Pope AFB until October 1954 when it moved to Shaw AFB, South Carolina. In September 1954, the 464th Troop Carrier Wing (TCW) became the host unit at Pope AFB with the mission to transport "troops, equipment, and supplies into combat by parachute and airlanding, and resupply such forces until they are withdrawn or supplied by other means" (Public Affairs Office 1969:5) The arrival of the 464th TCW precipitated a period of major expansion of base facilities to accommodate the unit's C-119 Flying Boxcar aircraft and TAC fighter squadrons (Mueller 1989:482,484,485; Public Affairs Office 1969:2; 1993:1).
15
Aircraft upgrade was the primary focus at Pope AFB during the late 1950s and 1960s. C-119s were replaced in 1958 with the C-123 Provider, which in turn was replaced by the C-130 Hercules in 1963. The arrival of the C-130 expanded the 464th TCW's tactical airlift capability by offering increased payload capacity and the unique ability to operate from short, unimproved airstrips. The C-130 also gave the wing global accessibility, enabling it to transport United States Strike Command paratroopers and equipment to any location around the world (Public Affairs Office 1969:2-3; 1993:1). During the early 1960s, units from the 464th TCW perfected a dramatic aerial delivery system for use in situations where precise delivery was imperative and no runway was available. The low altitude parachute extraction system (LAPES) was
battle-tested in countless missions in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam conflict (Louis 1989:4). With the increased involvement of the United States in the Vietnam conflict came the need for larger numbers of aircrews. Thus, the 464th TCW took on an additional mission of aircrew replacement training.
The 464th TCW was involved in many conflicts around the world during the 1960s. The 464th TCW airlifted men and materiel deployed to Florida during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. In 1964, the wing airlifted Belgian paratroopers into rebel-held territory in the Republic of the Congo to evacuate hostages and refugees. Pope AFB and the 464th TCW participated in one of the largest airlift operations in history during the 1965 hostilities in the Dominican Republic (Lewis et al. 1995). In 1968, the wing participated in the attempt to resupply marines at Khe Sahn in Vietnam.
To keep pace with the rapid technological developments in aircraft, the USAF Tactical Airlift Center (TALC) was established at Pope AFB in 1966 "to develop and test new innovations in tactical airlift concepts" (Civil Engineering Office 1971:4). The wing was redesignated the 464th Tactical Airlift Wing (TAW) on May 1, 1967. In 1967 and 1968, the 464th TAW airlifted troops from Fort Bragg to the midwest to quell domestic rioting in Detroit and Chicago. In 1969, the largest military aircraft ever built, the C-5 Galaxy, was incorporated into the Pope AFB and Fort Bragg inventory and greatly expanded the amount of troops, equipment, and supplies that could be
16
airlifted during strategic airlift operations. In June 1971, when the Air Force consolidated its specialized centers at Eglin AFB, Florida, TALC activities ceased at Pope AFB (Civil
Engineering Office 1971:4-5; Mueller 1989:482; Public Affairs Office 1969:2-4,42; 1993:1).
The 464th TAW was deactivated in August 1971, and the 317th TAW, a senior airlift unit with a prestigious background dating from World War II, was reactivated in its place. During the next year, the mission of the 317th TAW involved the "command and staff supervision of tactical airlift squadrons and assigned support units engaged in providing tactical airlift support for airborne forces and other personnel [,] equipment, supplies, and aero-medical evacuation of patients within the theater of operations" (Hildebrandt 1972:1). In addition to a mission that was similar to other TAWs, the 317th was also "involved more frequently in the development, refinement, and application of joint airborne procedures because of its proximity to U.S. Army airborne elements at adjacent Fort Bragg. The wing also . . . [was] involved in the planning phase of operations which primarily involve participants from other airlift organizations" (Hildebrandt 1972:2).
The Adverse Weather Aerial Delivery System (AWADS), an important addition to the operational capability of the C-130, had been initiated by the 464th TAW and was completed in 1972. By May 1972, the 317th TAW had proven the practicality of the system for use in a combat environment. AWADS provided aircrews with a sophisticated radar that allowed
airdrops without visual ground reference points. This technology facilitated accurate airdrops during adverse weather conditions and at night and this greatly expanded the operational capabilities for airlift operations. The 317th TAW was the only operational airlift unit equipped with AWADS (Louis 1989:4; Public Affairs Office 1993:2; Rogers 1975:6-7).
The command at Pope AFB was changed from TAC to MAC in 1974. However, both the designation and the mission of the 317th TAW remained much the same. The Air Force established the USAF Airlift Center at Pope AFB on December 1, 1975. The center's primary objective was to provide "centralized expertise on all aspects of airlift operations and [serve] as
17
the focal point for the development, testing, and evaluation of new equipment, tactics, and doctrine for the airlift forces" (Pope AFB 1993:1-12; Public Affairs Office 1993:2; 1994:10). It developed and evaluated new equipment and operations for both strategic and tactical airlift.
The 317th TAW used troops and equipment for both military and civilian missions. In late 1979, the 317th TAW airlifted personnel and hostages to safety from Iran. In 1983, the wing used 18 C-130 aircraft to airdrop and land elite Army Rangers onto a runway at Point Salinas, Grenada for the invasion there. The 317th TAW airlifted troops and supplies to Honduras in 1987 and Panama in 1989 (Civil Engineering Office 1971:4-5; Public Affairs Office 1969:3-4; 1993:2). Also, in 1989, the wing provided relief to U. S. citizens stricken by Hurricane Hugo (Civil Engineering Office 1971:3-4; Public Affairs Office 1969:3-4; 1993:1-2).
At the end of the Cold War, the mission of the 317th TAW remained essentially unchanged, though in 1988 it was redesignated the 317th Airlift Wing. It "provided airlift of troops, cargo, military equipment, passengers, mail, along with aeromedical airlift to and from areas requiring such airlift" (Louis 1989:1). To maintain a constant state of readiness, "MAC maintained a worldwide airlift system of aircraft, maintenance units, air terminals, and supplies essential for movement of troops and their equipment across oceans and within combat theaters." (Louis 1989:1). The 317th Airlift Wing, like its predecessors, maintained a significant portion of its operational airlift support capabilities for use by the Army's 18th Airborne Corps and the 82nd Airborne Division. In addition, the 317th airlifted Special Forces units at Fort Bragg when necessary (Louis 1989:2). During Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, the 317th Airlift Wing transported more than 40,000 combat troops and 65 million pounds of cargo to the Arabian Peninsula.
Pope AFB underwent many changes during the first few years of the 1990s. In June 1992, the base was transferred from MAC to ACC, the 317th Airlift Wing was deactivated, and the 23rd Wing was activated in its place. The 23rd Wing assumed the 317th wing's mission of organizing, equipping, and training for global airlift and air power operations. In support of the USAF Airlift
18
Center, which was renamed the USAF Mobility Center in June 1992, the wing was also involved in the development, testing, and assessment of new airlift and air power techniques and equipment to achieve global reach and global power as defined by ACC (Pope AFB 1993:1-10, 1-12; Public Affairs Office 1993:3; 1994:10-11). The 23rd Wing brought with it the 75th Fighter Squadron.
In 1993, the 23rd Wing was designated a composite combat wing. As a result of the Base Realignment and Closure Act, Pope AFB received a squadron of A/OA-10 aircraft. That same year, the 74th Fighter Squadron was activated under the 23rd Wing, bringing with it the F-16 aircraft. Together with the C-130s already at the base, these aircraft fulfill the requirements of the composite wing. In the fall of 1993, the USAF Mobility Center relocated to Charleston AFB, South Carolina.
Buildings and structures extant on Pope AFB represent three periods of major expansion: the first occurred during the Great Depression in the early 1930s, the second during World War II, and the third between 1954 and the 1960s. The first permanent buildings at Pope Field were six barracks built of brick and constructed between 1927 and 1931. In 1933 and 1934, under the Emergency Relief and Construction Act of 1932, other permanent buildings were built on base, including one balloon hangar, a double aircraft hangar, a headquarters building, a fire station, nine single officer's quarters, and 12 non-commissioned officer's quarters. With the exception of the six barracks and the balloon hangar, all of these buildings are extant and listed on the NRHP. Other permanent buildings constructed between 1932 and 1940 included a base chapel, theater, hospital, ordnance shops, commissary, and additional officer's housing (Civil Engineering Office 1946:2, Section I; 5, Section II; Drucker and Jackson 1987; Public Affairs Office 1993:1; 1994:6). The completion of paved runways in 1940 facilitated the troop carrier airlift training conducted on base during World War II. Temporary billeting facilities were constructed during
19
the early years of the war for air crews in training (Civil Engineering Office 1946:5-6, Section II; 1971:2; Mueller 1989:482).
Between 1954 and 1956, the arrival of TAC and the increased size of airlift aircraft necessitated renewed construction activities at Pope AFB (Figure 3.1). The runways, taxiways, and parking aprons were redesigned and strengthened according to operational necessity and the 1956 directive from the USAF that all runways be constructed of reinforced concrete. Several small aircraft hangars, one large aircraft hangar, and airman's dormitories were constructed between 1956 and 1958.
Many World War II era temporary buildings were replaced with permanent buildings in 1963 (Figure 3.2). There were 280 family housing units constructed in the southeastern corner of the base in 1964 to alleviate the shortage of family housing. A new USAF Headquarters building was completed in 1967 for airlift operations, most likely in connection with the USAF TALC. The airlift center had occupied the top floor of the old wing headquarters prior to the construction of this new building. A new wing headquarters building was constructed in 1967 southeast of and near the older facility. Facilities and a taxiway extension were completed late in 1969 and early 1970 to accommodate the arrival of the C-5 Galaxy at Pope AFB. A base golf course was constructed sometime in the early to mid-1970s and the main clubhouse facility dates to 1972. A new control tower and an addition to the 1964 housing area were completed in 1975 (Mueller 1989:482).
The USAF Headquarters building underwent a large expansion in 1983, and, between 1987 and 1990, a large warehouse and supply complex was constructed north of base operations and southwest of the munitions storage area (Figure 3.3).
23
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the reconnaissance inventory of Pope 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
24
As part of the reconnaissance inventory of Pope 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 Pope 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.
25
26
27
28
Upon arrival at Pope AFB, the Mariah field team met the point of contact who arranged for an orientation tour of the base. This allowed the field team to become familiar with the base layout and the various extant Cold War resources. A photographic reconnaissance of the base was conducted to inventory Cold War properties and representative architecture on base.
Various departments on Pope AFB provided information useful to the study. The Wing History Office supplied wing histories to augment base historical information provided by the Public Affairs Office. This information was examined to determine the mission at Pope AFB and to link the base to significant events that occurred during the Cold War era. The Drafting
Department of the Civil Engineering Office provided base layout maps on computer discs, current hard copies of base layout maps, and decade maps useful for depicting base development over the years. Property Cards from the Real Estate Office contained information pertinent to the resources chosen to be documented and evaluated for their Cold War significance. According to the Real Property Officer, the installation property reports that would normally be found in a base's Real Estate Office are kept at the Army installation as Fort Bragg owns the property
29
utilized by Pope AFB.
These reports usually provide additional information useful for
augmenting historical information found at other offices on base. The Environmental Office provided Installation Restoration Plans and cultural resource reports that discuss the base mission, history, geography, geology, flora, and fauna. Several informal interviews were
conducted with personnel long affiliated with the base to better understand the relationship of specific base resources to the Cold War era.
Based on the information gathered and the photographic inventory of properties, resources determined to be important to the base's Cold War history were selected for documentation and evaluation.
30
During the reconnaissance inventory of Pope AFB, 107 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.
31
Three resources were evaluated at Pope AFB, one of them falling under the DoD category of real property and two under records/documents. 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 the evaluated building could not be secured. In this instance, documentation describing any changes to the building was consulted to provide insight into the integrity of the building's interior.
6.1.1 Documentation
This collection of drawings and photographs is located in a vault area inside the Civil Engineering Office. The drawings represent most buildings extant on base as well as those that have been removed. Other subjects include utilities, housing, runways and repairs, topography, and landscape. The drawings are extant from 1931 to the present, and thus span all four temporal phases of the Cold War era. Some of the drawings are of buildings already on the NRHP. There are also several aerial photographs of the base located in this storage area. This collection is important in that it illustrates the development of the base throughout the Cold War, and provides detailed drawings of buildings that are listed on the NRHP and ones that have been demolished.
33
This collection is stored in a secure area and Civil Engineering personnel are currently in the process of creating an index of the collection. The drawings are often handled by base engineers, and many of the earlier drawings are damaged by age and use.
Located in the Environmental Office, this collection of photographs documents facilities and personnel at Pope AFB. There are approximately 185 8 x 10" black and white photographs in a bound notebook. There are also five 2.5 x 3 aerial photographs: three from 1977, one from 1971, and one from 1964. This collection is significant in that it records the development of the base and important base facilities and personnel during the Cold War era.
None were evaluated at Pope AFB.
6.3.1 Research Labs
6.3.1.1 USAF TALC (Resource No. 20021, Real Property No. 306)
2
Real Property No. 306 was originally built in 1933 and is a permanent, 39,500 ft building constructed primarily of steel with a stone facade. The Real Estate Office Property card and the NRHP nomination forms list the interior walls as being constructed of stucco and hollow tile masonry. Centrally located east of the runway and immediately west of the historic housing area, the building is four stories in height, roughly H-shaped in its perimeter boundary, and characterized most by its Georgian revival style of architecture and near-white stone/tile facade. Originally constructed as a barracks, the building became, in succession, the Wing Headquarters,
34
Combat Group Headquarters, and Command Post during World War II. During the Cold War, the building was Air Base Group Headquarters until 1967, when the new Wing Headquarters was built. It then housed planning and intelligence-gathering for implementing the primary airlift mission at Pope AFB. This resource also served as the USAF TALC, a facility that consistently revised and improved air lift potential in terms of troop and materiel delivery systems. This building is currently utilized for base administration and houses a variety of base support offices.
The exceptional importance of this facility to the base's Cold War context lies in its function as the USAF TALC. This headquarters/research facility served to consistently revise and improve USAF airlift potential in terms of troop and materiel delivery systems. These innovations were not limited to aircraft stationed at Pope AFB, but were applied nationwide to improve the functions of both TAC and MAC.
35
The purpose of the reconnaissance inventory was to provide initial information on the kinds of Cold War resources extant on Pope 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 Pope AFB. These resources should be investigated further for a more comprehensive analyses.
The Wing History Office at Pope AFB has a collection of wing histories. These histories discuss the operations of the 317th TAW and may provide further insight into Cold War activities at Pope AFB. This office also has an incomplete collection of base newspapers (Hercules Herald) dating to 1969. These newspapers may provide further information concerning Cold War
activities at Pope AFB. The newspaper collection is yellowing with age and is in need of proper curation and preservation.
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 Pope AFB revealed approximately 175 citations. Most of these are unit histories and special collections. More specific topics include the histories of various military and civilian airlift missions. The vast majority of these documents are available on microfilm. Future studies of Cold War history at Pope AFB should allot time to researching these documents.
36
A cultural resource inventory was completed at Pope AFB by Carolina Archaeological Services in the late 1980s. This study resulted in the January 25, 1991 creation of a historic district at Pope AFB consisting of 29 family houses, the original Wing Headquarters (Real Property No. 306), the old Fire Station (Real Property No. 300), and a former Medical Dispensary (Real Property No. 302). One original hangar (Real Property No. 708), also included in the listing, is found outside the district boundaries. The buildings that comprise the district were determined to have a high degree of architectural integrity meeting the National Register requirements for Depression-era buildings (Drucker and Jackson 1987).
An archaeological investigation, completed on Pope AFB in 1984, identified minimal traces of Native American culture. The limited findings were probably due to the long period of
disturbance associated with the many decades of construction activities at Pope AFB. It was determined that there were no significant Native American resources in the project area, and the State of North Carolina cleared the base for the planned construction activities (personal communication, Omega Weeks, September 19 and December 1, 1994).
Currently, development of a historic preservation plan for the base is planned.
37
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 Pope 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.
38
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 Pope 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
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 Pope AFB have not been evaluated, and thus must be considered and treated as eligible until an evaluation and determination of eligibility are made.
39
40
41
Recommendations for the evaluated resources at Pope 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:
This collection of drawings and photographs has already undergone some damage due to age and regular use by base engineers. It is recommended that the collection be inventoried and copied, with the copies retained by the base for its use and the originals stored at a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
43
This collection of photographs is currently bound in a notebook and kept in the Environmental Office. It is recommended that the collection be inventoried and copied, with the copies retained by the base for its use and the originals stored in a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
9.2.3 USAF TALC (Resource No. 20021, Real Property No. 306)
This building is currently listed on the NRHP as part of the Pope AFB historic district, which is significant for its depression-era architecture. The building is also exceptionally important to the Cold War context of the base for its role in the research and development of airlift and airdrop technologies not only for the USAF but also for the U.S. Army. Continued stewardship of the resource is recommended.
44
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 1946 Master Plan, Pope Field, Fort Bragg, N.C.: Analysis of Existing Facilities. On file, Real Estate Office, Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina. 1971 DOD/GSA Land Survey Brochure, Pope AFB, North Carolina. On file, Real Estate Office, Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina. 1993 Pope Air Force Base Installation Restoration Program: Phase II Remedial Investigation Report, Vol. I, Report Text. On file, Civil Engineering Office, Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina. Department of Defense 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. Drucker, L. M., and S. H. Jackson 1987 Pope AFB Historic District Nomination, Carolina Archaeological Services. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. On file, Environmental Office, Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina. Hildebrandt, F. B. 1972 History of the 317th Tactical Airlift Wing, Pope AFB, North Carolina, 1 October-31 December 1972. On file, Wing History Office, Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina. 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.
45
Louis, T.J. SSgt 1989 History of the 317th Tactical Airlift Wing, 1 July-31 December 1989, Vol. 1. On file, Wing History Office, Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina. Mueller, R. 1989 Air Force Bases: Active Air Force Bases Within the United States of America on 17 September 1982. Vol. 1. Office of Air Force History, United States Air Force, Washington, D.C. 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. Pope Air Force Base 1993 Management Action Plan, Pope Air Force Base, Fayetteville, North Carolina. On file, Environmental Office, Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina. Public Affairs Office 1969 Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina: Fiftieth Anniversary, 1919-1969. On file, Public Affairs Office, Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina. 1993 Pope Air Force Base. Fact Sheet on file, Public Affairs Office, Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina. 1994 Pope Air Force Base: Base Guide and Telephone Directory. Blake Publishing Company, Inc., San Diego, California. On file, Public Affairs Office, Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina.
Rogers, K. C. 1975 History of the 317th Tactical Airlift Wing, Pope AFB, North Carolina, 1 October-31 December 1975. On file, Wing History Office, Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina. United States Air Force 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. 1994 Wetland Delineation for the Munitions Storage Complex Bridge, Road and Utilities Access Site, Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina. On file, Civil Engineering Office, Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina.
46
United States Army Corps of Engineers 1993 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Bridge, Road, and Utilities Site for a Munitions Storage Area, Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina. On file, Civil Engineering Office, Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina.
E-1
BASE CONTACTS
The following people were contacted during the base visit by the field team to help identify Cold War material culture and to provide research materials:
Lt Lance Avery Community Planning/Drawing Room 23 CES 560 Interceptor Street Pope AFB, North Carolina 28308 (910) 394-4194 Robert Byrd Installation Restoration Manager 23 CES/CEV 560 Interceptor Street Pope AFB, North Carolina 28308-2314 (910) 394-4397 Michael Carson Base Visual Information Manager 3527 Surveyor Street Pope AFB, North Carolina 28308-2092 (910) 394-2140 Major Russell Collins Chief, Environmental Flight 23 CES/CEV 560 Interceptor Street Pope AFB, North Carolina 28308 (910) 394-4397 David Davenport Base Contract Photographer Route 1, Box 136 Bunnlevel, North Carolina 28323 (910) 893-2604
E-2
MSgt Drohan Public Affairs Officer 23 WG/PA 259 Maynard Street Pope AFB, North Carolina 28308-2391 (910) 394-4183 Judith Greene Real Property Officer 23 CES/CER 553 Thunderbolt Road, Suite C Pope AFB, North Carolina 28308-2890 (910) 394-4098 MSgt Reuban Hall 23 WG/HO 259 Maynard Street, Suite G Pope AFB, North Carolina 28308-2386 (910) 394-4647 Lt Neil Hauschild Environmental/Cultural Resource Officer 23 CES/CEV 560 Interceptor Street Pope AFB, North Carolina 28308-2314 (910) 394-4397 SrA Luwaune Netter Community Planning/Drawing Room 23 CES 560 Interceptor Street Pope AFB, North Carolina 28308 (910) 394-4194 Glen Prillman Chief of Facilities, Planning, and Mobilization Division XVIII Airborne Corps/Fort Bragg Directorate of Public Works and Environment Fort Bragg, North Carolina 28307-5000 (910) 396-5564
E-3
Bruce O. Somers Deputy Base Civil Engineer 23 CES 560 Interceptor Street Pope AFB, North Carolina 28308 (910) 394-2562 Omega P. Weeks Compliance Chief 23 CES/CEV 560 Interceptor Street Pope AFB, North Carolina 28308-2314 (910) 394-4397
E-4
INFORMAL INTERVIEWS
The following people were informally interviewed by the Mariah field team while at the base. They were identified as people possessing extensive knowledge of Pope AFB history and Cold War context.
Lt Neil Hauschild, Environmental/Cultural Resource Officer, September 19, 1994 Judith Greene, Real Estate Officer, September 20, 1994 David Davenport, Base Contract Photographer, September 22, 1994 Bruce O. Somers, Deputy Base Civil Engineer, September 22, 1994 Omega P. Weeks, Compliance Chief, September 19 and December 1, 1994
VOLUME II-26: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE AT SEYMOUR JOHNSON AIR FORCE BASE
July 1997
Volume II-26: Seymour Johnson Air Force Base
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Mariah Associates, Inc. conducted a cultural resource inventory at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina, between September 27 and October 5, 1994, to ascertain extant Cold War resources important to the base, its history, and Cold War mission as part of the Air Combat Command Cold War Study for the ongoing Department of Defense Legacy Program.
As part of the inventory, environmental scientists James A. Lowe and John A. Evaskovich surveyed a variety of repositories for research materials pertaining to the base's Cold War history. Repositories included the Wing History Office, Public Affairs Office, Civil Engineering Office and Drafting Department, Real Estate Office, and Environmental Office. Several interviews were conducted with personnel long affiliated with the base to better understand the relationship of specific base properties to the Cold War era. A photographic reconnaissance of the base was conducted to inventory Cold War properties as well as representative architecture on the base. The Mariah field team also visited the Dare County Bombing Range to document the relationship of the range to the mission at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. While at the range, photographs were taken and interviews were conducted with range personnel.
Four resources were chosen for further documentation and evaluation: the Bomber/Tanker Alert Facility, the Fighter Alert Facility, and two Documentary Collections. The facilities represent the United States Air Force alert posture and deterrence capabilities indicative of the Cold War era at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. Both facilities are recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Stewardship and further documentation are also recommended. The Documentary Collections illustrate and record the effect of the Cold War on the base mission and development. It is recommended that these collections be inventoried and copied, with the originals curated in a permanent curatorial facility.
ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACC ACHP ADC AFB AGE AMC ANG AREFG AREFS AREFW BMW CCTW CONUS CRS DoD EMS FDW FIG FIS FTD HABS LOX MAC Mariah NAOC NCO NEACP NHPA NPS NRHP OCONUS SAC SALT SDI SHPO SRAM START SW TAC TACAN TFS
Air Combat Command Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Air Defense Command Air Force Base Air Ground Equipment Air Materiel Command Air National Guard Air Refueling Group Air Refueling Squadron Air Refueling Wing Bombardment Wing Combat Crew Training Wing Continental United States Component Repair Squadron Department of Defense Equipment Maintenance Squadron Fighter Day Wing Fighter Interceptor Group Fighter Interceptor Squadron Field Training Detachment Historic American Buildings Survey Liquid Oxygen Military Airlift Command Mariah Associates, Inc. National Airborne Operations Command Noncommissioned Officer National Emergency Airborne Command Post National Historic Preservation Act National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Off the Continental United States Strategic Air Command Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty Strategic Defense Initiative State Historic Preservation Officer Short Range Attack Missile Strategic Arms Reduction Talks Strategic Wing Tactical Air Command Tactical Air Navigation Station Tactical Fighter Squadron
iii
LIST OF ACRONYMS (Continued
TFW USAF WAA WPA WRSK
Tactical Fighter Wing United States Air Force War Assets Administration Works Progress Administration War Readiness Spares Kit
iv
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 longrange 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. 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.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page MANAGEMENT SUMMARY .................................................................................................. LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................... GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................... 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 2.0 BASE DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................... 2.1 CURRENT BASE MISSION ......................................................................................... 2.2 GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 2.3 CURRENT BASE LAYOUT......................................................................................... 2.4 BASE LAND USE ......................................................................................................... i ii iv 1 4 4 4 6 9
5.0 RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY RESULTS ................................................................ 34 6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS ................................................................................................... 6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS .................................................... 6.1.1 Documentation ....................................................................................................... 6.1.1.1 Documentary Collection................................................................................ 6.1.1.2 Documentary Collection................................................................................ 6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS .................................................... 6.2.1 Alert Facilities ........................................................................................................ 35 35 35 35 37 37 37
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.2.1.1 Fighter Alert Facility ..................................................................................... 6.2.1.2 Bomber/Tanker Alert Facility ....................................................................... 6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES ................................................................ 6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES ................................................................................................ 6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES....................................................................................... 37 38 39 39 40
7.0 UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 41 8.0 FUTURE THREATS TO RESOURCES .............................................................................. 42 9.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 9.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY ...................................................................................................... 9.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility............................................... 9.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility ........................................................................... 9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 9.2.1 Documentary Collection......................................................................................... 9.2.2 Documentary Collection......................................................................................... 9.2.3 Fighter Alert Facility .............................................................................................. 9.2.4 Bomber/Tanker Alert Facility ................................................................................ 43 43 43 45 47 47 49 49 49
viii
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Bases Selected for the Air Combat Command Cold War Study .......................... 2 Location of Seymour Johnson Air Force Base ..................................................... 5 Seymour Johnson Air Force Base Layout ............................................................ 7 Standard Tactical Air Command Base Layout ..................................................... 8 Seymour Johnson Air Force Base Land Use Diagram ......................................... 11 Standard Tactical Air Command Base Land Use Diagram .................................. 12 Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, 1950 to 1960 ................................................. 22 Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, 1960 to 1970 ................................................. 24 Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, 1970 to 1980 ................................................. 25 Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, 1980 to 1990 ................................................. 26
LIST OF TABLES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is a reconnaissance inventory of Cold War related resources on Seymour Johnson Air Force Base (AFB). Seymour Johnson AFB, a former Tactical Air Command (TAC) 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.
At the end of the Cold War in 1989, the mission of the 4th Wing at Seymour Johnson AFB was to execute directed tactical fighter missions designed to destroy enemy forces, supplies, equipment, communications systems and installations with nuclear (when equipped) or conventional weapons. . . [and]. . . Provide for training of combat aircrews and maintenance personnel. . . for support of tactical organizations worldwide (United States Air Force [USAF] 1989:9). The 4th Wing became the first composite wing in the Air Force in April 1991, incorporating assets from Strategic Air Command (SAC) and TAC. The merging of two types of aircraft, each with a dual role, expanded the mission capability for the base commander. The F-15E Strike Eagle can penetrate deep into enemy territory and destroy ground targets, then fight its way back out. The KC-10 Extender tanker provides air refueling of military aircraft, and can also airlift supplies and personnel. These capabilities allow the 4th Wing to support air or ground warfare and "to accomplish the overall mission: Fly, Fight and Win!" (Public Affairs Office 1993a:4,21; Wing History Office 1992:1; 1993:1).
Seymour Johnson AFB contains approximately 3,233 acres (1,308 ha) of fee-owned land with approximately 800 acres (323 ha) of easements within the city of Goldsboro in Wayne County, North Carolina (Figure 2.1) (USAF 1989:2). Located approximately 100 mi (161 km) east of the Atlantic Ocean, the base is situated within the Inner Coastal Plain section of the Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The region is characterized by a wide belt (70-100 mi [112-161 km]) of flat to gently rolling lowlands and mature streams extending from the tidewater boundary in the east, westward to the Fall Line. The base is bounded on the north by Stoney
Creek and on the west by the Neuse River. Elevations on base average between 50 and 110 ft (15 and 33 m) above mean sea level (Public Affairs Office 1993b:1; USAF 1972:1,5; 1975:3).
Seymour Johnson AFB also controls and maintains the Dare County Bombing Range. Located approximately 120 mi (193 km) northeast of the base in eastern North Carolina, the range contains approximately 46,600 acres (18,859 ha). The land is extremely marshy, with elevations ranging from 0 to 10 ft (0 to 3 m) above mean sea level. The region is intertwined with creek beds and contains large areas of peat bogs up to 20 ft (6 m) deep in places. Approximately 6,400 acres (2,590 ha) of this land has been cleared for actual use by the Air Force and the Navy (USAF 1972:1,26; USAF 1973:3-4).
Seymour Johnson AFB (Figure 2.2) resembles the standard TAC base layout (Figure 2.3), but with exceptions. The 11,758 ft main instrument runway and associated taxiways are oriented east-west and form the southern boundary of the base. Virtually all buildings and facilities are located north of the runway. There are two main parking aprons other than the "christmas tree" alert apron. Neither is oriented to extend along the length of the runway, as in the standard layout, rather each is blocky in shape and extends away from the runway.
The mission oriented buildings and facilities are located north of the runway adjacent to the taxiways and parking aprons for the full length of the flight line, except where the golf course separates the eastern mission area of the flight line from the western mission area. Base
operations and the control tower are centrally located along the flight line, and Wing Headquarters is situated east of the hospital area. All of these correspond to the TAC plan.
The main gate and visitor center are located in the extreme northeastern corner of the base. All family housing units, the base hospital, chapel, officer's club, and base billeting are located in the northeastern quadrant of the base. Airman's dormitories are centrally located north of the
runway. This is in line with the standard TAC layout, except for the location of family housing, which in the standard layout is on the other side of the base.
The weapons storage area is located west of the alert facility on a peninsula formed by the confluence of Stoney Creek and the Neuse River and constitutes the northwestern corner of the base. The fire fighting training facility and the security police K-9 dog training kennel are centrally located along the northern perimeter, and the engine test stands are found on the western side of the base, northwest of the runway and east of the alert apron. All of these locations are deviations from the TAC standard layout. The presence of a "christmas tree" apron at the western end of the runway is also a deviation from the standard.
The entire southwestern section of the base, south of the western end of the runway, consists of a grenade range, a demolition range, and an explosive residue burial area. The placement of these areas away from the main base corresponds with the standard TAC layout. A federal prison complex was constructed on base in the late 1980s and is located northeast of the alert apron and south of the fire fighting training area. Although this facility is physically on base, it is a federal facility distinctly separate from Seymour Johnson AFB.
2.4 BASE LAND USE
The following is a list of standard TAC land use categories: Base Support Facilities - house base support functions and supplies. 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.
10
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. Weapon and Warhead Storage - for nuclear and conventional weapons.
Because of the existence of the two non-standard parking aprons, the Seymour Johnson AFB land use diagram (Figure 2.4) at first glance appears not to resemble the standard TAC land use diagram (Figure 2.5). diagrams. However, similarities as well as differences exist between the two
In the Seymour Johnson AFB diagram, the mission areas are along the flight line and around the parking aprons. The industrial area is next to the mission area. The central part of the main base is a conglomeration of community, recreation, base support, and unaccompanied housing facilities. The part of the base farthest from the flight line is used for family housing. All of this is similar to the standard land use diagram.
Differences between the two diagrams are few.
In the Seymour Johnson AFB diagram,
headquarters facilities are in the mission areas along the flight line; in the standard, the headquarters are located in the central part of the main base. Mission areas located on the southern side of the flight line, opposite of the main base also differ from the standard, which has all development located on one side of the runway. Finally, because of Seymour Johnson AFB's history as a SAC bomber base, it has a bomber alert facility, "christmas tree" alert apron,
13
and a weapon and warhead storage area, none of which are included in the standard TAC diagram.
14
Seymour Johnson AFB originated as a municipal airport to serve the city of Goldsboro prior to the entry of the United States into World War II. The city acquired the original tract of land to construct an airport under the auspices of the Civil Aeronautics Administration Program. However, the City of Goldsboro was notified in August 1940 by the Secretary of War that the airport project was considered important for military purposes. The municipal airport was
completed under the Works Progress Administration (WPA) by December 1941 and designated Seymour Johnson Field one week before the December 7th attack on Pearl Harbor (Civil Engineering Office 1972; Wing History Office n.d.) The field was named after Navy Lt.
Seymour Johnson of Goldsboro, North Carolina. He was a test pilot killed in a plane crash near Nordeck, Maryland, on March 5, 1941 (Mueller 1989:521; Public Affairs Office 1993a:2; USAF 1972:12).
Goldsboro leased the property to the federal government in April 1942, and federal authorities acquired an additional 2,226 acres as the nucleus for Seymour Johnson Field. Three intersecting runways were completed by late April, and construction of facilities was underway in May by Goldsboro contractor W. P. Lourimore. The field came under its first major command on June 12, 1942, when it was activated as Headquarters, Technical School under the Army Air Force Technical Training Command (Mueller 1989:521; Wing History Office 1957:4; n.d.)
The original mission of the Technical School at Seymour Johnson Field was the training of Army Air Force enlisted personnel in the inspection, maintenance, and repair of light and dive bombers. A second mission was added the following June 1943: the processing and preparing of officers and enlisted personnel for overseas duty. Training cadets to be technical officers in the Air Corp became the third mission of the field a few months later in September 1943, when the Aviation Cadet Pre-Technical School Program was activated. The October 1943 arrival of the 326th
15
Fighter Group added pilot training to the activities at Seymour Johnson Field. Following the April 1944 transfer to First Air Force, the primary mission at the field centered around training replacement pilots in P-47 aircraft (Wing History Office 1957:4; 1993:47).
Seymour Johnson Field became an Army Air Force separation center in September 1945, following the end of World War II. The field was deactivated in May 1946, and the Army Air Force turned it over to the War Assets Administration (WAA). The WAA deeded the property to the City of Goldsboro in 1949, and it functioned as a municipal airport with the various facilities leased to private interests. Between 1950 and 1953, Piedmont Airlines conducted regular flights into Seymour Johnson Field (Civil Engineering Office 1972; USAF 1989:6).
The expansion of the defense program during the early years of the Cold War led to the reactivation of the field. The federal government notified the City of Goldsboro that all private leases were to be cancelled and the U.S. government would take control of the field on January 1, 1953. Goldsboro deeded the property to the U.S. government on December 30, 1952 (Wing History Office n.d.; 1957:4). On January 1, 1953 the field was renamed Seymour Johnson AFB and assigned to TAC on inactive status (Mueller 1989:521; Wing History Office n.d.) The Army Corps of Engineers then began construction activities for reopening the base (Wing History Office 1993:47).
The Department of the Air Force transferred the base to Air Materiel Command (AMC) on November 24, 1953. However, because the base had a tactical requirement, AMC could not store vehicles and equipment, so it was reassigned to TAC on inactive status on January 6, 1954. President Eisenhower signed the bill that reactivated the base on July 31, 1954. A groundbreaking ceremony was conducted in March 1955 to rebuild the base for TAC use, and T.A. Loving and Company of Goldsboro began construction of dining halls and barracks (Mueller 1989:522; Wing History Office n.d.) Most of the major facilities at Seymour Johnson AFB were constructed between 1956 and 1959 and replaced all but 15 World War II buildings (USAF 1975:6; 1977:5).
16
Seymour Johnson AFB was finally reactivated on a permanent basis as a TAC base on April 1, 1956. The 83rd Fighter Day Wing (FDW) was assigned as the host unit in June 1956. Its immediate mission was to reach operational capacity while increasing its flying level and operational experience with the F-86 aircraft. Upon arrival of the 4th FDW in December 1957, the 83rd FDW was deactivated. The 4th FDW was renamed the 4th Tactical Fighter Wing (TFW) on July 8, 1958, and at that time consisted of the 333rd, 334th, 335th, and 336th Tactical Fighter Squadrons (TFS) (Holland 1957:ii,1; Public Affairs Office 1993a:2-3; USAF 1977:22; Wing History Office 1993:47).
Following the reactivation of the base as a TAC installation, three units became key tenants representing different commands within the Air Force. Air Defense Command (ADC) was assigned to the base in October 1956 along with the 482nd Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS) to protect the sovereignty of U.S. airspace. The 482nd FIS maintained alert duty between
April 1956 and October 1965, utilizing the hangar at the eastern end of the runway as an alert facility following the hangar's construction in 1957 (personal communication, Gordon Harrall, October 3, 1994; Mueller 1989:524; USAF 1975:5-6; 1977:23).
Headquarters, 19th Air Force, although it was part of TAC, functioned separately from activities at Seymour Johnson AFB. Its primary purpose was to plan for contingencies and exercises worldwide as directed by the Commander of TAC as Air Component Commander under Atlantic Command/U.S. Readiness Command (USAF 1972:13-14; 1975:6; 1977:5,23).
On October 1, 1958 the 4241st Strategic Wing (SW), with its 911th Air Refueling Squadron (AREFS), was activated at Seymour Johnson AFB utilizing the B-52 Stratofortress bomber and KC-135 Stratotanker. The wing received the first tanker and B-52 in March and July of 1959 respectively, and the same year began using a new alert facility and alert apron. Shortly
thereafter, this Wing became the first operational unit to receive the Hound Dog missile aboard the B-52. The 4241st SW was redesignated the 68th Bombardment Wing (BMW) in April 1963. Its mission was "to organize and train a force capable of immediate and sustained offensive
17
bombardment and air refueling operations in any part of the world" (USAF 1975:6-7; 1977:23,25; Wing History Office 1992:45; 1991:9). The 68th BMW received the Short Range Attack Missile (SRAM) during 1973-1974 to update and increase the striking power of the B-52s (personal communication, James Cunningham, October 10, 1994).
Seymour Johnson AFB fulfilled its Cold War role in the eastern United States as a multifaceted base capable of air interdiction, tactical air deployment, planning TAC strategy, and long-range bombardment and refueling. Seymour Johnson AFB was one of only a few bases to have representatives of all three combat commands stationed on base at one time, a distinction it retained until the deactivation of ADC in 1980 (USAF 1977:23).
During the 1962 Cuban Crisis, the 4th TFW was ordered to deploy all of its combat ready crews and aircraft to McCoy AFB, Florida, to participate in potential air operations in the event of hostilities between the United States and Soviet Union. The 4th TFW was in the middle of an aircraft modification program, and, at the same time, many of its personnel were deployed around the country on various exercises, resulting in both a deficiency of aircraft and pilots at the base. During the Cuban Crisis, Nellis AFB deployed their combat crew training wing (CCTW) to augment the shortage. Between October 21 and December 17, 1962, the 4520th CCTW provided TAC with 22 F-105s and approximately 100,000 pounds of equipment (Hinds 1976:90-91; Penney 1962a:vi,29-30; Wing History Office 1993:4,8). The 4th TFW, although caught in the middle of a changeover, still maintained the capability to carry out its stated mission: Attack and destroy enemy forces, supplies, equipment and communication systems and installations with nuclear and conventional weapons. Attack and destroy targets peculiar to joint operations with surface forces. Provide active air defense by engaging and destroying enemy air forces in either offensive or defensive roles by visual interception or under direction of air control and warning systems (Penney 1962b:1-2). Important to the mission of the 4th TFW were the bombing exercises conducted at the Dare County Bombing Range, located approximately 120 mi (193 km) northeast of Seymour Johnson AFB in Dare County, North Carolina. Before the construction of this bombing range, the Air
18
Force had no place on the east coast to practice weapons delivery. Pilots and their aircraft had to go to the ranges near Nellis AFB, Nevada, which was not only expensive, but cut down on the amount of time pilots could actually practice bombing missions. Mounting world tension and increased United States involvement in the Vietnam conflict precipitated the construction of a range on the east coast for use by Air Force bases in the area (USAF 1973:1; USAF 1972:1). Construction of this range and associated facilities was completed in 1965 in the coastal area of northeast North Carolina.
Seymour Johnson AFB deployed units overseas during the late 1960s and early 1970s to quell crisis situations and participate in the Vietnam conflict. In January 1968, the 4th TFW began deploying personnel and materiel to Korea in response to the capture of the United States intelligence ship Pueblo. All wing resources were returned to Seymour Johnson AFB by July 1968. Individual squadrons from the 4th TFW rotated duty assignments in Vietnam beginning in April 1972; these single squadron rotations continued until September 1973 (Wing History Office 1992:9). The primary mission of the 4th TFW remained much the same as a decade earlier, to maintain a state of readiness for war situations: the destruction of enemy military supplies, equipment, communication systems, and installations. This mission required the capability to deliver a variety of tactical weapons, nuclear and conventional, in either an offensive or defensive role, in support of air and ground forces (Claypool 1971:2). The 68th BMW was deployed to Southeast Asia as well. This wing maintained its operational and alert commitments in the United States throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, despite the escalation of hostilities in Vietnam. However, in May 1972, the wing received orders to deploy all of its B-52 aircraft and most of its personnel to support the bombing mission in Vietnam. The 68th BMW was the first to redeploy as a complete unit back to the United States and Seymour Johnson AFB in July 1973 (Wing History Office 1992:3).
The area surrounding Seymour Johnson AFB continued to expand in population and development until the base was annexed by the City of Goldsboro in February 1977 (Public
19
Affairs Office 1993a:3; Wing History Office 1993:9). The base further expanded its role in 1979 when it began to accommodate the National Emergency Airborne Command Post (NEACP) when the weather at Andrews AFB prohibited flight operations. When these weather conditions prevailed, the EB-4 aircraft diverted to Seymour Johnson AFB.
In July 1979, the 191st Fighter Interceptor Group (FIG) was assigned to Seymour Johnson AFB. This Air National Guard (ANG) unit from Selfridge Field, Michigan, assumed an Air Defense alert commitment at the base during the last decade of the Cold War. Its mission was "to intercept, identify, and, if necessary, destroy the air-breathing threat penetrating the Atlantic Coastal Air Defense Identification Zone" (USAF 1989:16; Wing History Office 1991:10).
In September 1982, the 68th BMW was deactivated, and the B-52s were transferred and reassigned. The 911th AREFS and its KC-135 tankers remained, however; and the 68th Air Refueling Group (AREFG) was retained. Although composed of only 15 aircraft, the group continued to maintain its operational capability and its alert commitment. The KC-135s were replaced in October 1985 with the larger KC-10 tanker, which could transport cargo and personnel as well as its load of fuel, thus expanding the mission of the group (Wing History Office 1991:3; USAF 1989:7). The 344th AREFS was assigned to the 68th AREFG in 1986. The mission of the 68th AREFG during the last decade of the Cold War was to develop and maintain the operational capability to project power through. . . global mobility . . . to mobilize and deploy assigned aircraft, equipment, and personnel. . . [and]. . . provide strategic airlift and enroute aerial refueling in support of general purpose force deployments. Additionally, the unit is capable of providing air refueling in support of the strategic bomber force from CONUS and deployed locations (USAF 1989:16). Of the four original squadrons, in 1965 only the 333rd TFS had been reassigned, away from the 4th TFW. In 1982, the 337th TFS was assigned to the 4th TFW; it was deactivated in 1985. In 1988, the 4th TFW consisted of the 334th, 335th, and 336th TFS and was the first unit in the Air Force to receive the F-15E aircraft.
20
At the end of the Cold War in 1989, the mission of the 4th TFW at Seymour Johnson AFB was to execute directed tactical fighter missions designed to destroy enemy forces, supplies, equipment, communications systems and installations with nuclear (when equipped) or conventional weapons...[and]...Provide for training of combat aircrews and maintenance personnel...for support of tactical organizations worldwide (USAF 1989:9). NEACP was redesignated the National Airborne Operations Command (NAOC) and, in the spring of 1990, NAOC began to utilize the alert facility for exercises approximately once a month (personal communication, Fred Claypool, September 30, 1994).
In 1991, during a major Air Force reorganization that merged TAC and SAC resources at Seymour Johnson AFB, the 68th Air Refueling Wing (AREFW) was deactivated, its resources were taken up by the 4th TFW, and the 4th TFW was renamed the 4th Wing. The 4th Wing, the first composite wing in the Air Force, now consisted of the 334th, 335th, and 336th Fighter Squadrons and the 344th and 911th AREFS. Its assets included 72 F-15E fighter-bombers and 20 KC-10 tanker/cargo aircraft. The wing was now capable of tactical bombing, air-to-air combat, air refueling, and cargo airlift.
In 1992, the 4th Wing and Seymour Johnson AFB were reassigned from TAC to ACC. In 1994, the 344th and the 911th AREFS and their KC-10s were reassigned to Air Mobility Command. The F-15 formal training unit is currently being moved from Luke AFB, Arizona to Seymour Johnson AFB. The 333rd Fighter Squadron has already been reactivated under the 4th Wing to accommodate this new training mission.
The Dare County Bombing Range is still in use today. The range is utilized jointly by the Air Force and Navy, although each has a separate area within the range. Aircraft from Seymour Johnson AFB, Pope AFB, and itinerant aircraft from other bases use the range for conventional and nuclear bombing practice. There are targets for dive bombing, rocketry, skip bombing, and aerial gunnery, and, in the center of the complex, there is a large target area for nuclear weapons
21
delivery tactics. Accuracy is scored by three triangulation towers. Types of aircraft to use the range since its inception include but are not limited to the B-52, B-IB, F-4, F-15, F-16, and the A-10 (personal communication, Larry Pickett, October 3, 1994; USAF 1973:4).
The original buildings, facilities, and runways were completed in 1942-1943 to facilitate the World War II mission of Seymour Johnson Field as Headquarters, Technical School under the Army Air Force Technical Training Command and as a pilot training base. On January 1, 1953, when the base was assigned to TAC on inactive status, the Army Corps of Engineers began construction activities for reopening the base. Some of the old buildings were demolished or moved, while construction of new ones began (Wing History Office 1993:47). T. A. Loving and Company of Goldsboro began construction of dining halls and barracks (Mueller 1989:522; Wing History Office n.d.).
Most of the major facilities at Seymour Johnson AFB were constructed between 1956 and 1959, replacing all but 15 World War II buildings (Figure 3.1). The renovation, extension, and
realignment of the runway was completed in 1956, as were several dormitories constructed in the center of the base. A large storage warehouse located west of the dorms was also completed in 1956. To accommodate the assignment of ADC and the 482nd FIS, two hangars, base operations buildings, a flight simulator, and security police operations were constructed in 1957 on the eastern end of and adjacent to the new runway. Headquarters and operations facilities for TAC and the 19th Air Force were also completed in 1957 in the north-central area of the base. In 1958, 1,500 Capehart family housing units were built in the northeastern quadrant of the base, and a jet fuel tank farm was completed north of the runway. The 1958 arrival of SAC at Seymour Johnson AFB precipitated the construction, in 1959, of the alert facility, alert apron, and the first weapons storage facilities at the western end of the runway. In 1960, a jet engine maintenance shop was completed along the taxiway just east of the alert facility, as was a base hospital in the northeastern quadrant of the base.
23
During the 1960s, major additions to the base property list included the completion of the base golf course located southwest of the family housing area, an addition to the weapons storage facilities in the northwestern corner of the base, and the construction of maintenance docks and storage facilities along the flight line east of Base Operations (Figure 3.2). An additional 200 family housing units were completed in 1971 north of the Capehart development (Figure 3.3). The grenade range, demolition range, and explosive residue area were also constructed in the southwestern portion of the base in the 1970s.
Construction of new facilities in the 1980s included small aircraft maintenance docks, corrosion control facilities, munitions maintenance, and several storage facilities on the flight line east of the alert apron and west of Base Operations (Figure 3.4). Two engine test cells were completed in 1989, immediately east of the northern end of the alert apron. A federal prison complex was also completed in 1989, northeast of the alert apron and the new test cells and west of the fuel tank farm.
27
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the reconnaissance inventory of Seymour Johnson 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
28
As part of the reconnaissance inventory of Seymour Johnson 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 The
4.2.1 Documentation
The evaluated resources at Seymour Johnson 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.
29
30
31
32
Upon arrival at Seymour Johnson AFB, the Mariah field team met the point of contact who arranged for an orientation tour of the base to familiarize the field team with the base layout and the various extant Cold War resources. A photographic reconnaissance of the base was
conducted to inventory Cold War properties and representative architecture.
Various departments on Seymour Johnson AFB provided information useful to this study. The Wing History Office supplied wing histories to augment base historical information provided by the Public Affairs Office. This information was examined to determine the mission at Seymour Johnson AFB and to link the base to significant events that occurred during the Cold War era. Drawing files were inventoried in the Drafting Department of the Civil Engineering Office. The Drafting Department also provided base layout maps on computer discs, current hard copies of base layout maps, and decade maps useful for depicting base development over the years. Property Cards from the Real Estate Office contained information pertinent to the resources chosen to be documented and evaluated for their Cold War significance. Installation reports from the Real Estate Office provided additional information valuable from a historical
33
perspective. The Environmental Office provided an Installation Restoration Plan that discussed the base geography, geology, flora, and fauna. The base library was also explored as a possible source of additional research information; however, there was no extant information concerning the base. Several informal interviews were conducted with personnel long affiliated with the base to better understand the relationship of specific base resources to the Cold War era. The Mariah field team also visited the Dare County Bombing Range to document the relationship of the range to the mission at Seymour Johnson AFB. Photographs were taken of properties, and informal interviews were conducted with range personnel.
Based on the information gathered and the photographic inventory of properties, resources determined to be important to the base's Cold War history were selected for further documentation and evaluation.
34
During the reconnaissance inventory of Seymour Johnson AFB, 124 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.
35
Four resources were evaluated at Seymour Johnson AFB, two of them falling under the DoD category of real property and two under records/documents. 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.
6.1.1 Documentation
This collection, located in a vault area inside the Civil Engineering Office, consists of architectural drawings, base maps, and aerial photographs. The drawings represent most
buildings extant on base as well as utilities, landscapes, runways, topography, and master plans. The drawings consist of ink on mylar, linen, sepia, and vellum, and blue prints. Historic maps are extant dating back to 1943 and span all four phases of the Cold War era. Approximately six aerial photographs also exist in this collection.
This collection is stored in a secure area but is utilized on a continuous basis by base engineers. This use is evidenced by wear on the drawings, especially the older ones.
37
This collection is located in the Wing Historian's Office at Wing Headquarters, and consists of wing histories, photographs, and a base newspaper collection. Hard copies of 4th Wing histories date from 1958 to 1993. Since these histories deal with the 4th Wing at Seymour Johnson AFB, these volumes could provide valuable insight into the activities conducted at the base in general and at specific facilities in particular during the Cold War era. Copies of these histories are also on file at the Air Force Historical Research Center at Maxwell AFB, Alabama. In addition to the wing histories, there is a bound volume of approximately 150 photographs depicting base construction and personnel, with several aerial photographs. This photo album was compiled by members of the Wing Historian's Office and illustrates the effect of the Cold War on base development throughout the past four and a half decades. The base newspaper collection is complete from 1968 to the present and may provide additional insight into the activities at Seymour Johnson AFB. It is stored in a secure place in the Wing Historian's office and is bound into individual volumes.
2
Building 5015 is a permanent, 22,753 ft building constructed primarily of steel in 1957. Located at the eastern end of the taxiway, the alert facility is approximately three stories in height, with two main hangar sections connected in the middle by a two-story, concrete block section that has windows on the second floor. This center section connecting the two main hangars consists of two floors designed to sustain on-duty alert crews for sleeping, eating, and minimum recreation. This building was utilized by ADC from 1958 to 1973 as an alert hangar for the 482nd FIS. The
38
facility is currently used as an extension of the base fire department and for backup inflight emergencies.
Access to the interior of the center section of the building was not secured. However, based on observations of the rest of the building and the Real Property records, interior integrity is intact. The exterior integrity of the building also remains intact.
The exceptional importance of this facility lies in its mission to thwart any surprise attack by the Soviet Union on the United States. ADC protected the sovereignty of United States air space on the east coast during the Cold War by interdicting Soviet aircraft when they proceeded too close. The building conveys the United States fear of a Soviet bomber attack and the measures taken to ensure that any such attack would be successfully intercepted. It is a direct result of
Congressional approval in the 1950s for the construction of interceptor bases and the NSC-68 recommendations for a massive military build-up to counteract the increasing threat posed by the Soviet Union (Lewis et al. 1995). It was used for this purpose during Phases II and III of the Cold War and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
6.2.1.2 Bomber/Tanker Alert Facility (Resource No. 21035, Real Property No. 2130)
2
Building 2130, built in 1959, is a permanent, 17,933 ft facility constructed primarily of reinforced concrete. Located at the northwestern end of the taxiway and at the southern end of the alert apron, the two-story building is characterized by the six ramped entrances found on all four sides of its exterior and a sloped earthen berm extending up the four sides of the building and covering the first story. This facility was constructed for SAC alert crews stationed at Seymour Johnson AFB. It was designed to house crews standing alert duty and to facilitate rapid egress from the building to aircraft parked on the adjacent alert apron during a national emergency situation or Operational Readiness Inspection. Following the deactivation of the 68th BMW at Seymour Johnson AFB in 1982, the alert facility was utilized by the 68th AREFW until 1991, thus this facility has been used by B-52, KC-135, and KC-10 air crews. This facility
39
is no longer in continuous use. However, NAOC, formerly NEACP, has utilized the facility approximately once a month since the spring of 1990 for exercises.
This facility maintains its exterior integrity. Minimal interior modifications have been made to increase aircrew sleeping capacity; however, these modifications have not altered the interior structure or integrity of the building. Thus, interior integrity of the facility is also intact.
The Bomber/Tanker Alert Facility is extremely important to Seymour Johnson AFB's Cold War context and to Cold War history at the national level. It 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 the Killian Report, meeting the needs of deterrence through a survivable force and the dispersal of bombers and tankers across the country (Lewis et al. 1995). The B-52 force, along with the supporting tanker force, was an integral part of the defense triad and was relied upon as the United States' primary nuclear bomber for over 30 years. Subsequently, when the facility was used for tanker alert, it was meeting these same deterrence needs as the dispersal of bombers required the dispersal of tankers to support them. Thus the facility continued to illustrate the concept of deterrence through a survivable force. This building was used for this purpose during Phases II through IV of the Cold War and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
None were evaluated at Seymour Johnson AFB.
40
41
The purpose of the reconnaissance inventory was to provide initial information on the kinds of Cold War resources extant on Seymour Johnson 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 Seymour Johnson AFB. These resources should be investigated further for a more comprehensive analyses.
There is a large, framed collection of photographs on the wall in the stairwell of Wing Headquarters titled Seymour Johnson AFB, Reconstruction Era. This photo pictorial contains approximately 25 photographs and two newspaper articles detailing construction activities prior to reactivation of the base. There are two aerial photos as well, one dated 1955, the other, 1965.
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 Seymour Johnson AFB revealed approximately 260 citations. Most of these are unit histories and special
collections. More specific topics include the histories of base realignment due to acquisition of the B-52, KC-10, and F-15E. The vast majority of these documents are available on microfilm. Future studies of Cold War history at Seymour Johnson AFB should allot time to researching these documents.
42
There is an ongoing cultural resource survey being conducted for Seymour Johnson AFB, mostly concerned with World War II era property types. This work is being conducted by Panamerican Consultants, Inc. of Tuscaloosa, Alabama. It is known that the base theater, built in 1942, is scheduled for destruction in the immediate future. It is recommended that this property be evaluated for eligibility immediately, rather than waiting for this entire survey to be completed. Another study is planned for the future concerning integrated environmental aspects of Seymour Johnson AFB.
43
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 Seymour Johnson 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.
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
44
evaluated achieved importance during the Cold War era, thus are currently less than 50 years old. Finally, resources must possess integrity of at least two of the following: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, as appropriate.
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 Seymour Johnson 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
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 Seymour Johnson AFB have not been evaluated, and thus must be considered and treated as eligible until an evaluation and determination of eligibility are made.
45
46
47
Recommendations for the evaluated resources at Seymour Johnson 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:
This collection of drawings, maps, and photographs is stored in a secure location, but is accessed continually, resulting in wear on the various documents. It is recommended that the collection be inventoried and copied. It is further recommended that the base retain the copies for its use, and the originals be sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
49
This collection consists of wing histories, photographs, and a base newspaper collection. Copies of the histories of the 4th Wing are also stored at the Air Force Historical Research Center, thus inventory of the base's collection is all that is recommended. The photographs and base
newspaper collection are valuable chroniclers of the effect of the Cold War on Seymour Johnson AFB. It is recommended that these be inventoried and copied, with the copies remaining at the base for its use and the originals sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II and III. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) based on its role to intercept any incursion into United States air space by the enemy 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 determined to be intact based upon partial observation and the lack of documented major renovations. 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 Bomber/Tanker Alert Facility (Resource No. 21035, Real Property No. 2130)
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II through 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 as only minimal modifications have been
50
made to the interior.
Therefore, this building is recommended as eligible to the NRHP.
51
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, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base 1972 Written Report, Seymour Johnson AFB, Goldsboro, N.C. Tab-A, sheet 1 of 5, December 1972. On file, Civil Engineering Office, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina. Claypool, F. D. 1971 History of the 4th Tactical Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB, N.C. On file, Wing History Office, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina. Department of Defense 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. Hinds, J. R. 1976 Epitome of the History of Nellis Air Force Base, 1940-1966. On file, History Office, Tactical Fighter Weapons Center, Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. Holland, G. M. Capt. 1957 History of the 83d Fighter Day Wing, Ninth Air Force, Tactical Air Command, 1 January 1957-30 June 1957. On file, Wing History Office, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina. 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. Mueller, R. 1989 Active Air Force Bases Within the United States of America on 17 September 1982. Office of Air Force History, United States Air Force, Washington D.C.
52
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. Penney, P. L. 1962a History of the 4th Tactical Fighter Wing, Tactical Air Command-9th Air Force, 1 July31 December 1962. On file, Wing History Office, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina. 1962b History of the 4th Tactical Fighter Wing (TAC), 1 January-30 June 1962. On file, Wing History Office, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina. Public Affairs Office 1993a Seymour Johnson AFB, N.C.: Base Guide and Telephone Directory. Blake Publishing Company, Inc., San Diego, California. On file, Public Affairs Office, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina. 1993b Statistical Data and Economic Impact: Seymour Johnson AFB, N.C. Fact Sheet on file, Public Affairs Office, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina. United States Air Force 1972 Executive Order Installation Survey Report: Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, Goldsboro, North Carolina. On file, Real Estate Office, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina. 1973 History of Dare County Weapons Complex. On file, Headquarters, 4th Operations Group, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina. 1975 4th Tactical Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB, N.C.: Executive Order 11724 Installation Survey Report. On file, Real Estate Office, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina. 1977 4th Tactical Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB, N.C.: Executive Order 11724 Installation Survey Report. On file, Real Estate Office, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina.
1989 Survey Report: Executive Order 12512 Property Survey of Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina. On file, Real Estate Office, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina.
53
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. Wing History Office 1957 83d Fighter Day Wing. Army & Navy Publishing Company, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. On file, Wing History Office, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina. 1991 68th Air Refueling Wing History: 68th Facts from Observation to Air Refueling. On file, Wing History Office, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina. 1992 4th Wing History, Fourth Facts: 50th Anniversary, 1942-1992. On file, Wing History Office, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina. 1993 History of the 4th Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB, N.C. On file, Wing History Office, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina. n.d. Chronology in bound photo collection. On file, Wing History Office, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina.
E-1
BASE CONTACTS
The following people were contacted during the base visit by the field team to help identify Cold War material culture and to provide research materials for the study.
Buck Abrams Chief, Environmental Flight 4 CES/CEVN 1095 Mitchell Avenue Seymour Johnson AFB, North Carolina 27531-2355 (919) 736-6699 Jay E. Barber Public Affairs Officer 4 WG/PA 1510 Wright Avenue, Suite 200 Seymour Johnson AFB, North Carolina 27531-2468 (919) 736-6352 or 6353 Betsy Bissell Real Property Officer 4 CES/CERR 1095 Mitchell Avenue Seymour Johnson AFB, North Carolina 27531-2355 (919) 736-5485 Frederick D. Claypool Chief, History Office 4 WG/HO 1510 Wright Avenue, Suite 130 Seymour Johnson AFB, North Carolina 27531-2468 (919) 736-5413 James Cunningham Deputy Base Civil Engineer 4 CES/CD 1095 Mitchell Avenue Seymour Johnson AFB, North Carolina 27531-2355 (919) 736-5512
E-2
Gordon Harrall Lead Architectural/Structural/Civil Designer 4 CES/CEEE 1095 Mitchell Avenue Seymour Johnson AFB, North Carolina 27531-2355 (919) 736-5515 or 5514 SSgt McKnight Facility Security Officer 4 SPS/SPAIP 1585 S. Andrews Street Seymour Johnson AFB, North Carolina 27531 (919) 736-5701 Larry S. Pickett Chief, Airspace and Range Management 4 OSS/OSTA 1055 Arnold Avenue Seymour Johnson AFB, North Carolina 27531 (919) 736-6351 SrA William G. Wood Auto CAD 4 CES/CEEE 1095 Mitchell Avenue Seymour Johnson AFB, North Carolina 27531-2355 (919) 736-5512
E-3
INFORMAL INTERVIEWS
While visiting the base, the Mariah field team informally interviewed the following people identified by contacts as possessing extensive knowledge of the base's history and Cold War context:
Frederick D. Claypool, Chief, History Office, September 29 and October 3, 1994 James Cunningham, Deputy Base Civil Engineer, October 3, 1994 Gordon Harrall, Lead Architectural/Structural/Civil Designer, October 3 and 4, 1994 Larry S. Pickett, Chief, Airspace and Range Management, October 3, 1994
VOLUME II-25: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE AT SHAW AIR FORCE BASE
July 1997
Volume II-25: Shaw Air Force Base
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Mariah Associates, Inc. conducted a cultural resource inventory at Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina, between December 8 and 13, 1994 to identify extant Cold War resources important to the base, its history, and its Cold War mission as part of the Air Combat Command Cold War Study for the ongoing Department of Defense Legacy Program. Environmental scientists R. Blake Roxlau and Karen Lewis comprised the field team.
Information was gathered at the base from the Wing Historian, the Drawing Room staff, and the Civil Engineering, Real Property, and Public Affairs Offices. On-site inspections were also
conducted. A photographic reconnaissance of the base was conducted to document Cold War properties as well as representative architecture on the base. During this research, 127 resources were inventoried.
During the course of the inventory, one resource, a Documentary Collection, was selected for documentation and evaluation due to its importance within the base Cold War context. This resource illustrates the development of the base throughout the Cold War era. Recommendations for the management of this resource include further documentation, stewardship, and conservation.
ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS AAFBU ACC ACHP AFB AGE CCTG ConAC CRS DoD EMS FS FTD FW HABS LOX MAC Mariah NCO NHPA NPS NRHP OCONUS POL POW SAC SALT SDI SHPO START TAC TACAN TARC TEWTS TFG TFS TFW TRG TRS TRTS TRW USAF WRSK Army Air Forces Base Unit Air Combat Command Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Air Force Base Air Ground Equipment Combat Crew Training Group Continental Air Command Component Repair Squadron Department of Defense Equipment Maintenance Squadron Fighter Squadron Field Training Detachment Fighter Wing Historic American Buildings Survey Liquid Oxygen Military Airlift Command Mariah Associates, Inc. Noncommissioned Officer National Historic Preservation Act National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Off the Continental United States Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Prisoner of War Strategic Air Command Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty Strategic Defense Initiative State Historic Preservation Officer Strategic Arms Reduction Talks Tactical Air Command Tactical Air Navigation Station Tactical Air Reconnaissance Center Tactical Electronic Warfare Training Squadron Tactical Fighter Group Tactical Fighter Squadron Tactical Fighter Wing Tactical Reconnaissance Group Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron Tactical Reconnaissance Training Squadron Tactical Reconnaissance Wing United States Air Force War Readiness Spares Kit
iii
GLOSSARY
iv
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 deterioration 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 ....................................................................................................... 12 3.1 BASE HISTORY AND COLD WAR CONTEXT.............................................................. 12 3.2 BASE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................... 17 4.0 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 19 4.1 INVENTORY ........................................................................................................................ 19 4.2 EVALUATION OF IMPORTANT RESOURCES ............................................................. 20 4.2.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 20 4.2.2 Evaluation of Importance ............................................................................................. 20 4.2.2.1 Cold War Context ............................................................................................... 20 4.2.2.2 NRHP Criteria..................................................................................................... 21 4.2.2.3 Exceptional Importance ...................................................................................... 22 4.2.3 Evaluation of Integrity.................................................................................................. 22 4.2.4 Priority Matrix .............................................................................................................. 23 4.2.5 Resource Organization ................................................................................................. 24 4.3 BASE SPECIFIC METHODS .............................................................................................. 24 5.0 RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY RESULTS ..................................................................... 25 6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS......................................................................................................... 26 6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS ........................................................ 26 6.1.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 26 6.1.1.1 Documentary Collection ..................................................................................... 26 6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS ......................................................... 26 6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES ..................................................................... 27 6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES...................................................................................................... 27
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES ............................................................................................ 27 7.0 UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 28 8.0 FUTURE THREATS TO RESOURCES ................................................................................... 29 9.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 30 9.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY ............................................................................................................ 30 9.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility.................................................... 30 9.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility ................................................................................ 32 9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 33 9.2.1 Documentary Collection .............................................................................................. 35 10.0 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................. 36 APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D: APPENDIX E: RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY BASE LAYOUT MAPS SHOWING INVENTORIED RESOURCES PHOTOGRAPHS OF INVENTORIED RESOURCES DATA BASE DOCUMENTATION FOR EVALUATED RESOURCES EXTANT SOURCES OF INFORMATION
vii
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Bases Selected for the Air Combat Command Cold War Study .............................. 2 Location of Shaw Air Force Base.............................................................................. 5 Shaw Air Force Base Layout ..................................................................................... 7 Standard Tactical Air Command Base Layout .......................................................... 8 Shaw Air Force Base Land Use Diagram ................................................................. 10 Standard Tactical Air Command Base Land Use Diagram ...................................... 11
LIST OF TABLES
Table 6.1 Table 9.1
Evaluated Resource Prioritization by Air Force Group and Subgroup .................... 27 Recommendations for Evaluated Resources ............................................................. 34
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is a reconnaissance inventory of Cold War related resources on Shaw Air Force Base (AFB). Shaw AFB, a former Tactical Air Command (TAC) 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.
Shaw AFB currently consists of the Ninth Air Force Headquarters and the 20th Fighter Wing (FW). The 20th FW is the base host and directs the 20th Operations Group, 20th Logistics Group, 20th Support Group, and the 20th Medical Group. The 55th, 77th, 78th, and 79th Fighter Squadrons (FS), the wing's flying squadrons, are directed by the 20th Operations Group. The 77th, 78th, and 79th FS employ the F-16 Falcon fighter to achieve the mission of providing rapid, decisive air power anytime, worldwide. The 55th FS flies the OA/A-10A Thunderbolt II for close air support and forward air control missions in support of friendly ground forces. The wing's mission
statement is "America's First Team setting the standard in air supremacy" (United States Air Force [USAF] 1994).
Shaw AFB is located approximately 10 mi (16 km) west of Sumter, South Carolina (Figure 2.1) in eastern central South Carolina. The base is located on relatively flat terrain in an area originally dominated by broadleaf and coniferous forest and low lying marshy areas. Although much of the surrounding area is urban, a large portion of forest and wetland environment remains around the base. The climate of the area is dominated by mild winters and warm, humid summers. The local economy is varied, with dependence on the production of heavy equipment, paints, chemicals, medical supplies, and electronics (USAF 1993a). Shaw AFB and its consumer population have a great impact on the Sumter service economy.
The layout of Shaw AFB (Figure 2.2) is defined by the external boundary of the base and by the flight line. The two instrument runways extend northeast to southwest completely across the base, effectively cutting the base into two sections.
The southeastern section consists of a weapons and magazine storage area, some maintenance buildings, warehouses, garages, and a shooting range. The rest of this portion of the base is open and undeveloped. The northwestern section of the base contains the aircraft parking apron next to the runways. The area from the apron to the boundary of the base is almost completely filled with main base development.
The layout of Shaw AFB is similar to that of a standard TAC base (Figure 2.3). In both, the majority of the base development is located on one side of the flight line, with weapons storage located away from the rest of the development, and some ancillary buildings located on the opposite side of the runways. One notable difference between the two layouts is the lack of open areas at the ends of the runways at Shaw AFB.
2.4 BASE LAND USE
The following is a list of standard TAC land use categories: Base Support Facilities - house base support functions and supplies. 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. Weapon and Warhead Storage - for nuclear and conventional weapons.
Land use at Shaw AFB is illustrated in Figure 2.4. The mission-related buildings are spread out along most of the flight line, with an industrial area extending along the remaining parking apron. West of these areas is the middle portion of the main base development, which consists of a mixture of recreation, base support, and community areas, including an area of unaccompanied housing and the various base headquarters buildings. Family housing and some community areas are found farthest from the flight line in the northwestern extension of the base. The weapons storage area, an area of base support facilities, and a recreation area are located in the southeastern section of the base.
There are similarities and differences between the land use pattern at Shaw AFB and that of a standard TAC base (Figure 2.5). Similarities include the location of the mission and industrial areas along the flight line; the mix of base support, community, and recreation areas located in the middle of the base; the presence of unaccompanied housing and headquarters buildings also in the middle; and the location of family housing farthest from the flight line. Differences consist of the location of developed areas on the side of the runway opposite main base development and the presence of a recreational area at the end of a runway at Shaw AFB. On the standard plan, there are no facilities on the other side of the runway, and the ends of the runways have open space for use as buffer zones.
12
Shaw Army Airfield was established in 1941 as a basic flying training school for pilots who would go on to fly in World War II. Although it is not stated in available sources, the
establishment of the airfield was related to the general buildup of equipment and personnel in the Army Air Force in expectation of joining forces in World War II.
The base was established at its present location due to the efforts of a Sumter committee who believed an Army installation would boost the local economy. Primary and alternate sites near Sumter were proposed as locations for the airfield, and after successful lobbying in Washington by the Sumter committee and local politicians, the Army inspected the areas. The alternate site, eight miles northwest of Sumter, was chosen by the Army representatives and a 99-year lease at one dollar per year was negotiated between the city of Sumter and the Army (Office of History, 363rd FW 1991).
The new airfield was named in honor of 1st Lieutenant Ervin David Shaw. Shaw, a native of Sumter, enlisted in the Army in 1917 but accepted a commission in the Royal Canadian Air Force soon after. Shaw became a pilot and was sent to Europe to fly observation missions. Shaw was credited with downing two German planes before he and his observer were shot down and killed in July 1918 (USAF 1993a; Office of History, 363rd FW 1991).
Construction began at Shaw Airfield in June 1941, and the headquarters was moved from a local residence to the airfield in September 1941. The first instructor units were assigned to the base in September of 1941 and began work in early December of the same year. The units assigned were the 454th, 455th, 456th, 457th, and 458th School Squadrons (Office of History, 363rd FW 1991).
13
With the U.S. entrance into World War II, Shaw Airfield's role as a training installation developed rapidly. The first class of 130 cadets was graduated in February 1942, and, by the end of the year, over 2,600 pilots had been instructed at Shaw Airfield. The instructors employed BT-13 trainer aircraft for pilot instruction (Office of History, 363rd FW 1991).
Pilot training continued throughout World War II under the command of the Eastern Flying Training Command. Basic training was halted near the end of the war, with basic flying squadrons disbanded and personnel reassigned to the 2142nd Army Air Forces Base Unit (AAFBU). The airfield was then reassigned to First Air Force which installed the 139th AAFBU in March 1945. Shaw's training role shifted to transition flying for fighter pilots changing from advanced trainers to P-47 fighters (Office of History, 363rd FW 1991).
A prisoner of war (POW) camp was operated in 1945 and early 1946 at Shaw Airfield near the main gate. One hundred seventy-five German POWs were housed in the camp, which consisted of a converted housing area surrounded by barbed wire, floodlights, and guard towers. The prisoners were used for labor on local farms and for cutting pulpwood (Office of History, 363rd FW 1991).
The airfield was also used as a separation and discharge center for troops returning from the war. The base continued on after the war with only a minimal maintenance crew. Just when it seemed that Shaw Airfield would close, the War Department announced a list of 85 installations, including Shaw, that were recommended for retention (Office of History, 363rd FW 1991).
TAC assumed control of the base in March 1946, and the 316th AAFBU took over operation of the base. The 414th and 415th Night Fighter Squadrons flying P-61 Black Widow aircraft were assigned to Shaw in 1946 (Mueller 1989) and were the first tactical units to serve at Shaw Airfield. They were reassigned in March 1947. The 20th Tactical Fighter Group (TFG)
equipped with piston engine P-51 Mustang aircraft was also assigned to Shaw Airfield in late 1946. The group was composed of the 55th, 77th, and 79th Tactical Fighter Squadrons (TFS)
14
(Office of History, 363rd FW 1991). On August 14, 1947, the airfield switched from the base unit system to the wing structure. In that reorganization, the 316th AAFBU was deactivated, and the 20th Tactical Fighter Wing (TFW) arrived and became the command unit at Shaw Airfield (Office of History, 363rd FW 1993:31).
In January of 1948, Shaw Airfield was redesignated Shaw AFB, and the first jet aircraft, the F-84 Thunderjet, was assigned to the 20th TFW. In December 1948, the base was reassigned to the Continental Air Command (ConAC). In December 1950, after one year under command of ConAC, Shaw AFB was again reassigned to TAC. In January 1951, the base was also assigned to the Ninth Air Force. In April 1951, the 363rd Tactical Reconnaissance Group (TRG)
transferred to Shaw AFB, and later that year the 20th TFW and its units were reassigned to Langley AFB (USAF 1993a). The 363rd TRG, with the 16th, 17th, and 18th Tactical The 363rd TRG operated two
Reconnaissance Squadrons (TRS), took over as base host.
squadrons of RF-80 jet aircraft and one squadron of RB-26 night reconnaissance aircraft. The wing trained pilots for assignment to the Korean conflict (Office of History, 363rd FW 1991). In 1953, the 9th TRS joined the wing, bringing with it a mission of electronic and weather reconnaissance. At the time, Shaw AFB was the only base completely devoted to tactical reconnaissance (Office of History, 363rd FW 1993).
Several significant events took place in 1954 at Shaw AFB. In March, the 363rd TRG began replacing their RB-26 aircraft with RB-57A jets that would provide improved night reconnaissance capability. That same month, the 432nd TRG and its five flying squadrons arrived at the base. The following September, the first RF-84F to see service in the Air Force was assigned to the 18th TRS at Shaw AFB. This reconnaissance aircraft was the first to be capable of supersonic speeds. Also in September, the Ninth Air Force transferred its headquarters to Shaw AFB.
RB-66 reconnaissance aircraft began replacing the RB-57s in 1956. The 16th TRS was the first Air Force unit to be equipped with the RB-66 (Office of History, 363rd FW 1993). The following year,
15
RF-101 supersonic jets were assigned to the 17th TRS.
RF-101s of the 363rd TRG set a
transcontinental speed record in 1957 by flying form California to New York in three hours seven minutes (Office of History, 363rd FW 1991).
The 363rd TRG began operating the USAF Advanced Flying School for tactical reconnaissance in 1956. It was the only such school operated in the USAF by a command other than Air Training Command. Later that same year, the 432nd TRG took over the school, and the 363rd TRG was once again a combat unit.
Shaw AFB was reorganized in February 1958. The 837th Air Division, the new base host, and 432nd Tactical Reconnaissance Wing (TRW) were activated; the 363rd TRG was deactivated; and the squadrons of the 363rd TRG went to the new 363rd TRW. In 1958, this wing consisted of the 9th, 16th, 41st, and 43rd TRS flying RF-84F, RB-66, and RF-101 aircraft. The 363rd was again reorganized in 1959 and assigned the 9th, 16th, 20th, and 29th TRS (Office of History, 363rd FW 1993).
During the 1960s, Shaw AFB played a significant role in peacetime, crisis, and war situations. Aircraft stationed at Shaw AFB took part in several deployments during 1961 and 1962 that demonstrated TAC's ability to deploy forces around the world. The operations included "Operation Quick Span," a visit to several west Asian nations, and "Banyan Tree," a deployment to the Panama Canal Zone. "Operation Swift Strike," a joint armed services operation which included paratroop and equipment drops, was staged from Shaw AFB in August of 1961 (Office of History, 363rd FW 1993).
During the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, RF-101 Voodoo aircraft based at Shaw AFB deployed to Homestead AFB, Florida and participated in intelligence gathering operations. RF-101 from Shaw's 363rd TRW obtained photos of missile sites and Cuban airfields which helped prove the intent of the Soviet and Cuban governments to station nuclear missiles on Cuban soil. President
16
Kennedy awarded the 363rd TRW with an Outstanding Unit Award for their actions during the missile crisis (Office of History, 363rd FW 1993).
Personnel from Shaw AFB were first deployed to Vietnam in 1961. Aircraft and crews from the 363rd TRW were sent to Southeast Asia in 1965 to participate in the escalating war. Newly
operational RF-4C, RF-101, and RB-66 aircraft of the 16th, 20th, and 41st TRS were assigned to Southeast Asia (Office of History, 363rd FW 1993). While many of the aircraft from Shaw AFB were stationed overseas, the base's role throughout the conflict was significant. Units at Shaw AFB trained all Air Force pilots that would eventually fly tactical reconnaissance missions over Vietnam.
In February 1963, the 837th Air Division was redesignated the USAF Tactical Air Reconnaissance Center (TARC). The 363rd TRW again became the base host. TARC, with its 4411th Combat Crew Training Group (CCTG) and the 4416th Test Squadron, became a tenant unit on the base.
In 1971, the 363d TRW consisted of the 16th, 18th, and 33rd TRS, and the 39th Tactical Reconnaissance Training Squadron (TRTS), which all served as training units for RF-4C aircraft. The wing also consisted of the 62nd TRS, which flew RF-4Cs in an operational role, and the 39th Tactical Electronic Warfare Training Squadron (TEWTS), which operated the E/RB-66 for training purposes (Office of History, 363rd FW 1993). Training of reconnaissance aircrews continued throughout the 1970s at Shaw AFB.
The 363rd TRW was redesignated the 363rd TFW in 1981 and began receiving F-16 Fighting Falcon fighters. The 16th TRS stayed on at Shaw AFB, and the other reconnaissance squadrons were reassigned. A combination of reconnaissance and tactical fighters was unique to Shaw AFB. In 1989, the last RF-4C was reassigned, and Shaw AFB became strictly a fighter base (Office of History, 363rd FW 1993).
17
In 1990 and 1991, the 363rd TFW took part in operation Desert Storm. The F-16s of the wing completed several successful missions against enemy forces with minimal losses. In 1991, the wing was redesignated the 363rd FW, and was placed under command of ACC in 1992. Recently, the 363rd FW was replaced by the 20th FW, bringing with it three F-16 squadrons and one A-10 squadron.
The original tract of land for Shaw Army Airfield was acquired by lease from the City of Sumter in May 1941. The land was donated to the U.S government in 1948 (USAF 1983).
Construction of Shaw AFB began in 1941. Three 4,500 ft runways were completed in 1941, and support buildings were finished soon after. New construction and replacement of older buildings resulted in the removal of all but a few of the original 1940s buildings. Development during the 1950s included a runway lengthening project and a large housing project which was completed in 1958 and included 905 units (Mueller 1989). Several munitions storage igloos were completed in 1953.
Poinsett Air Force Range was acquired in June 1952. The range is located approximately 7 mi south of Shaw AFB, which administers the facility. The range was activated for use as a training facility for aircrews in the employment of bombing and gunnery techniques (USAF 1983).
During the mid-1960s, major development projects resulted in the replacement of many World War II era warehouses, dormitories, and headquarters. A new medical center was completed in 1968 (Mueller 1989). A new runway was completed in 1974, and two large housing developments were completed in 1974 and 1975.
18
A new flight apron was constructed in 1980, and several buildings for F-16 support were completed between 1980 and 1982 (Mueller 1989). Several buildings in the ammunition storage area were completed in 1983.
19
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the reconnaissance inventory of Shaw 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
20
As part of the reconnaissance inventory of Shaw 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 The
4.2.1 Documentation
The evaluated resources at Shaw 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.
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
21
resources within the Cold War era is hindered by two issues: (1) a lack of historical perspective due 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).
22
23
24
Mr. Steve Pivnick of the Public Affairs Office met with the field team upon their arrival at Shaw AFB and provided a preliminary tour of the base. MSgt James Liby, the 20th FW Historian, met with the field team upon his return from leave and escorted the team during the photographic inventory of buildings along the flight line and in the ammunition area. All other areas were accessible for photography without escort. The team contacted individuals on the base who would be able to provide them with the mission, history, and property information required to complete their work. These people included Drawing Room staff, Real Property personnel, and personnel who could provide easy access to facilities. MSgt Liby also discussed histories with the team and provided available historical documentation relating to Shaw AFB. The team visited nearby Poinsett Air Force Range and inventoried the buildings on this installation also. Dr. Howard Higgins of Mariah made a one-day Quality Assurance inspection of the team's work during the base visit. Inventoried and evaluated resources were entered into the database after photographs were taken and facilities had been toured.
25
During the reconnaissance inventory of Shaw AFB, 127 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.
26
One resource was evaluated at Shaw AFB, falling under the DoD category of records/documents. This resource is discussed below in terms of its history, integrity, and importance. The narrative is listed by USAF property type group and subgroup. The prioritization of the evaluated resource is presented in Table 6.1. The detailed documentation for the evaluated resources is presented in Appendix D.
6.1.1 Documentation
This documentary collection, located in the Base Engineering Administration building, includes flat files of base maps and architectural drawings. The files contain numerous historical maps, original base master layouts, and construction and utility project drawings of Shaw AFB and related facilities. The maps, which are stored flat, include paper, linen, mylar, vellum, and blue line reproductions. The files contain important information about historic structures on base and illustrate the development of the installation throughout the Cold War era.
The majority of the files are in good condition, but the collection is threatened by continuous handling and removal from file drawers. Some of the older maps are torn.
None were evaluated at Shaw AFB.
28
The purpose of the reconnaissance inventory was to provide initial information on the kinds of Cold War resources extant on Shaw 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 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 Shaw AFB. These resources should be investigated further for more comprehensive analyses of the base's Cold War context.
A large maintenance hangar (building No. 1200) along the flight line was noted by the Mariah field team. Although its large size would fit on a SAC base, it is unusually large for a TAC base hangar. Unfortunately, neither the Wing Historian nor retired personnel could provide Future research and documentation of this hangar is
information about the building.
recommended to determine its history and function.
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 Shaw AFB revealed approximately 270 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 Shaw AFB should allot time to researching these documents.
29
During the base visit, no threats to the inventoried resources were identified. The Documentary Collection, the only evaluated resource, is threatened by continuous handling and removal from file drawers. Measures to mitigate this threat should be undertaken.
30
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 Shaw 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.
31
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 Shaw 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
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 Shaw AFB have not been evaluated, and thus must be considered and treated as eligible until an evaluation and determination of eligibility are made.
32
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. necessary to re-evaluate unlisted historic properties periodically. Therefore, it is
33
Recommendations for the evaluated resources at Shaw AFB are presented below. Table 9.1 summarizes these recommendations. More than one recommendation may apply to a given
35
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.
This collection of base layout maps and architectural drawings is in good condition, but is threatened by continuous handling and removal from the file drawers. It is recommended that this collection be inventoried and copied. It is further recommended that the base retain the copies for its use, and that the originals be sent to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
36
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. Department of Defense 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. 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 State 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. Mueller, R. 1989 Air Force Bases: Active Air Force Bases within the United States of America on 17 September 1982. Volume 1. Office of Air Force History, United States Air Force, Washington, D.C. 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. Office of History, 363rd Fighter Wing 1991 363d Fighter Wing: Celebrating 50 years of History. On file, Wing History Office, Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina. 1993 50th Anniversary Shaw Air Force Base 1941-1991. On file, Wing History Office, Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina.
37
United States Air Force 1983 Department of the Air Force Installations Survey Report: Shaw AFB, South Carolina. On file, Real Property Office, Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina. 1993a Shaw Air Force Base (base directory). Blake Publishing Company, San Diego, California. 1993b 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. 1994 Fact Sheet: 20th Fighter Wing. On file, Public Affairs Office, Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina.
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 Shaw AFB and to provide research materials for this study:
MSgt James Liby Wing Historian 20th FW/HO 517 Lance Avenue, Suite 205 Shaw AFB, South Carolina 29152-5041 (803) 668-4145 Steven Pivnick Public Affairs Officer 20th FW/PAO Shaw AFB, South Carolina 29152 (803) 668-3621 Barbara Smith Real Property Officer 20th CES/CERR 428 Chapin Street Shaw AFB, South Carolina 29152-5123 (803) 668-2551
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 Shaw AFB history and Cold War context.
Mr. Terrance Madewell, Cultural Resource Officer, December 11, 1994 Mr. Rosmer, Ninth Air Force Historian, December 11, 1994 MSgt James Liby, Wing Historian, December 9 through 12, 1994
VOLUME II-27: A BASELINE INVENTORY OF COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE AT WHITEMAN AIR FORCE BASE
August 1997
Volume II-27: Whiteman Air Force Base
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Whiteman Air Force Base was inventoried for Cold War resources by Patience E. Patterson and David P. Staley between August 22 and 26, 1994 as part of the Air Combat Command Cold War Study for the ongoing Department of Defense Legacy Program. Information was gathered at the base from the files of the Real Property Office, the Site Development Office, the Environmental Office, the Public Affairs Office, and the History Office.
An initial reconnaissance of the base was accomplished with Mr. Don Meuschke, the Cultural/Natural Resource Officer for Whiteman Air Force Base. This initial orientation enabled the team to become familiar with the base and determine what property types were extant on base. It also allowed for the determination of specific properties which would likely be relevant to the Cold War study. These resources were photographed, as were resources that were representative of the different types of facilities on the base.
From the on-site inspection and research, five resources were determined to be important to the base Cold War history. Temporal Phases I through IV, as described in the historic context and methodology document written for this project (Lewis et al. 1995), are represented. Two of the resources are buildings, one is a structure, and two are collections of records and documents. Stewardship, further documentation, and eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places is recommended for the Bomber Alert Facility, Missile Launch Control Facility, and Missile Launch Facility Trainer. Further documentation, stewardship, and conservation are recommended for the two Documentary Collections.
ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AAF AAFBU ABS ACC ACHP AFB AGE AMC AMMS AMS BMW BW CEBMCO CES CINCSAC DoD ERCS FMS FTD FW HABS HICS ICBM LCC LCF LF MAC MANG Mariah MMS MW NCO NHPA NPS NRHP NSC OCONUS OMS PACCS PME RAPCON
Army Air Field Army Air Force Base Unit Air Base Squadron Air Combat Command Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Air Force Base Air Ground Equipment Air Materiel Command Airborne Missile Maintenance Squadron Avionics Maintenance Squadron Bombardment Wing Bomb Wing Corps of Engineers, Ballistic Missile Construction Office Civil Engineering Squadron Commander in Chief of Strategic Air Command Department of Defense Emergency Rocket Communication System Field Maintenance Squadron Field Training Detachment Fighter Wing Historic American Buildings Survey Hardened Intersite Cable System Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Launch Control Center Launch Control Facility Launch Facility Military Airlift Command Missouri Air National Guard Mariah Associates, Inc. Munitions Maintenance Squadron Missile Wing Noncommissioned Officer National Historic Preservation Act National Park Service National Register of Historic Places National Security Council Off the Continental United States Organizational Maintenance Squadron Post-Attack Command and Control System Precision Measurement Equipment Radar Approach Control Center
iii
SAC SALT SATAF SDI SHPO SMS SMW START SUP TAC UHF USAF
Strategic Air Command Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty Site Activation Task Force Strategic Defense Initiative State Historic Preservation Office Strategic Missile Squadron Strategic Missile Wing Strategic Arms Reduction Talks Silo Upgrade Program Tactical Air Command Ultra High Frequency United States Air Force
iv
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. 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. Emergency Rocket Communication System - a specially equipped missile that transmits emergency messages from the National Command Authorities to sites where nuclear weapons are deployed. The missiles carry radio transmitters rather than nuclear payloads. This system was developed as a back-up means of sending messages to United States missile installations and bomber bases. 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.
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. 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.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page MANAGEMENT SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... i LIST OF ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................................... ii GLOSSARY ....................................................................................................................................... iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 BASE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................ 4 2.1 CURRENT BASE MISSION ............................................................................................... 4 2.2 GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................... 5 2.3 CURRENT BASE LAYOUT ............................................................................................... 7 2.4 BASE LAND USE ................................................................................................................ 10 3.0 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 14 3.1 BASE HISTORY AND COLD WAR CONTEXT.............................................................. 14 3.2 BASE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................... 21 4.0 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 27 4.1 INVENTORY ........................................................................................................................ 27 4.2 EVALUATION OF IMPORTANT RESOURCES ............................................................. 28 4.2.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 28 4.2.2 Evaluation of Importance ............................................................................................. 28 4.2.2.1 Cold War Context ............................................................................................... 28 4.2.2.2 NRHP Criteria..................................................................................................... 29 4.2.2.3 Exceptional Importance ...................................................................................... 30 4.2.3 Evaluation of Integrity.................................................................................................. 30 4.2.4 Priority Matrix .............................................................................................................. 31 4.2.5 Resource Organization ................................................................................................. 32 4.3 BASE SPECIFIC METHODS .............................................................................................. 32 5.0 RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY RESULTS ..................................................................... 35 6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS......................................................................................................... 36 6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS ........................................................ 36 6.1.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 36 6.1.1.1 Documentary Collection ..................................................................................... 36 6.1.1.2 Documentary Collection ..................................................................................... 38 6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS ......................................................... 38 6.2.1 Alert Facilities .............................................................................................................. 38
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.2.1.1 Bomber Alert Facility ......................................................................................... 38 6.2.2 Missiles......................................................................................................................... 40 6.2.2.1 Missile Launch Control Facility ......................................................................... 40 6.3 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES ..................................................................... 41 6.4 TRAINING FACILITIES...................................................................................................... 42 6.4.1 Missile Training ........................................................................................................... 42 6.4.1.1 Missile Launch Facility Trainer.......................................................................... 42 6.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES ............................................................................................ 43 7.0 UNDOCUMENTED RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 44 8.0 FUTURE THREATS TO RESOURCES ................................................................................... 45 9.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 46 9.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY ............................................................................................................ 46 9.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility.................................................... 46 9.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility ................................................................................ 48 9.2 EVALUATED RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 50 9.2.1 Documentary Collection .............................................................................................. 50 9.2.2 Documentary Collection .............................................................................................. 52 9.2.3 Bomber Alert Facility................................................................................................... 52 9.2.4 Missile Launch Control Facility .................................................................................. 52 9.2.5 Missile Launch Facility Trainer ................................................................................... 53 10.0 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................. 54 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: DETAILED RESOURCE CONTENTS APPENDIX F: EXTANT SOURCES OF INFORMATION
viii
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Bases Selected for the Air Combat Command Cold War Study .............................. 2 Location of Whiteman Air Force Base...................................................................... 6 Whiteman Air Force Base Layout ............................................................................. 8 Standard Strategic Air Command Base Layout ........................................................ 9 Whiteman Air Force Base Land Use Diagram ......................................................... 12 Standard Strategic Air Command Base Land Use Diagram ..................................... 13 Whiteman Air Force Base 1950-1960....................................................................... 22 Whiteman Air Force Base 1960-1970....................................................................... 24 Whiteman Air Force Base 1970-1980....................................................................... 25 Whiteman Air Force Base 1980-Present ................................................................... 26
LIST OF TABLES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is a reconnaissance inventory of Cold War related resources on Whiteman Air Force Base (AFB). Whiteman 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.
The current host unit on Whiteman AFB is the 509th Bomb Wing (BW). It accepted host responsibilities for the base from the 351st Missile Wing (MW) on July 1, 1993. The 509th BW is made up of the 509th Operations Group, the 509th Logistics Group, the 509th Support Group, the 509th Security Police Group, and the 509th Medical Group. Each of these groups has its attendant squadron, whose missions are in support of the overall missions on base.
One of the main missions on the base at present is that of the 509th BW, the United States Air Force's (USAF) only B-2 Stealth bomber flying operation: The primary mission of the B-2 is to enable any theater commander to hold at risk and, if necessary, attack an enemy's war making potential, especially those targets which, if not destroyed in the first hours or days of a conflict, would allow unacceptable damage to be inflicted on the friendly side (Whiteman AFB 1994:4). The 509th Operations Support Squadron and the 393rd Bomb Squadron are the units which fly and support the B-2 and its mission. Additionally, the 509th Operations Group flies and maintains the T-38 Talon as a companion trainer to the B-2. The T-38 supplements the mission as a basic proficiency trainer due to the limited number of training flights available in the B-2.
The 509th Logistics Group is comprised of the 509th Logistics Support Squadron, the 509th Maintenance Squadron, the 509th Contracting Squadron, the 509th Supply Squadron, and the 509th Transportation Squadron. All of these units work to ensure the accomplishment of the day-to-day mission of the base. The 509th Support Group comprises the 509th Mission Support Squadron, the 509th Services Squadron, the 509th Communications Squadron, and the 509th Civil Engineering Squadron (CES). The 509th Support Group is charged with meeting the needs of every person on the base who must support the mission. The 509th Security Police Group is comprised of the 509th Security Support Squadron, the 509th Security Police Squadron, and the 351st Missile Security
Squadron. The 509th Security Police Group is responsible for a dual-wing security mission: deactivating the Minuteman II intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) system and protecting the B-2. The 509th Medical Group is responsible for the good health of the military and their families assigned to Whiteman AFB and providing excellent health care to the retired military and their families residing in the local area.
The second main mission at Whiteman AFB is that of the 351st MW. The 351st Operations Group is comprised of the 351st Operations Support Squadron, the 508th and 509th Missile Squadrons, the 47th Rescue Flight (flying the HH-1H Huey helicopter), and the 351st Maintenance Group. All these units are charged with accomplishing the mission of the 351st MW: to operate, maintain, secure, and safely deactivate the Minuteman II weapon system in accordance with the Presidential directive in regard to START.
Whiteman AFB has taken on a third mission, that of the 442nd Fighter Wing (FW). This wing currently operates and maintains the A-10 Thunderbolt II. It is responsible for the manning, training, and combat readiness of Air Force Reserve units and the Missouri Air National Guard (MANG) unit at Whiteman AFB.
Whiteman AFB is located in Johnson County, 60 mi (96 km) southeast of Kansas City, Missouri, 9 mi (14 km) west of Warrensburg, and 2 mi (3 km) south of Knob Noster. The region is positioned on the northern fringe of the Ozark Mountains in the Central Lowlands physiographic province (Figure 2.1). Its elevation is 834 ft (254 m) above mean sea level (USAF Historical Research Agency 1943). The immediate area is characterized by slightly rolling topography, and is used mainly as farmland. The base is bounded by Knob Noster State Park and State
Highway 132 on the west, on the east by State Route D, on the north by agricultural lands that intervene between the base and Knob Noster, and on the south by agricultural and grazing lands (USAF 1989:33).
The layout of Whiteman AFB (Figure 2.2) is fundamentally similar to the standard SAC base layout (Figure 2.3). Any variations from that layout are related to the historic functions of the base.
The central feature of Whiteman AFB, like all air bases, is the air field portion of the base. The main or instrument runway is positioned in a north/northeast-south/southwest orientation and is 12,400 ft (3,779 m) long and 200 ft (61 m) wide. This runway has been the main runway since the early 1950s. Prior to this, in 1943, the base had four 7,200 ft (2,194 m) runways oriented northsouth, east-west, northeast-southwest, and northwest-southeast. Portions of the other runways can still be seen as breached expanses of concrete. The eastern end of the old east-west runway is currently being used as a transient missile holding facility.
The flight apron is located along the western side of the instrument runway. Mission and support buildings are found along the entire western side of the apron. Mission buildings, namely hangers associated with the B-2 bomber, were built along the eastern side of the apron at the northern end. The alert facilities are located at the northeastern corner of the base. Weapons and warhead storage facilities are separated from the rest of the base, located on the eastern side of the main runway beside the old northeast-southwest runway.
Unaccompanied housing is centrally located at the base. Accompanied or family housing is located on the western side of the base in two separate areas. Commander's housing is located within the northern one of these two areas.
The two accompanied housing areas are divided by a community area that includes the main gate, school, youth center, church, clubs, and visitor's quarters. Other community facilities are centrally located on the base. A recreational greenbelt extends from the southern end of the base north to
10
between the family housing and the unaccompanied housing. The base golf course lies east of the northern family housing area and is outside of the base perimeter. This property is leased, not owned, by the USAF.
Industrial buildings and facilities are located at the northern end of the base between the northern family housing and the northern end of the flight line mission buildings. This land use is likely related to the existence of a railroad line located several miles north of the base. The shortest railroad spur would lead to the northern end of the base.
2.4 BASE LAND USE
11
Figure 2.4 is a diagrammatic land use plan for Whiteman AFB, and Figure 2.5 is a diagrammatic land use plan of a standard SAC base. Whiteman AFB follows the standard plan in a majority of ways. In both plans, all areas except the weapons and warhead storage areas are located to one side of the flight line, with the mission buildings against the flight line. The headquarters tend to be located away from the flight line near the middle of the base. The alert facility is located near one end of the runway.
Differences between Whiteman AFB and the standard SAC base land use are few. At Whiteman AFB, the main runway is separated from the mission buildings by open space and a large parking ramp. Several hangars associated with the B-2 bomber stand in isolation east of the ramp and removed from the rest of the flight line mission buildings. This varies from the standard plan, which has all mission buildings grouped together along one side of the flight line. The community land use at Whiteman AFB is broken into three areas. One, a community belt of sorts, leads from the main entrance between two units of family housing into the core of the base and various headquarters buildings. The second community area is centrally located, and the third, consisting of the hospital, is surrounded by family housing and recreation areas. This is different from the standard diagram, which shows most of the community buildings located in one central area. Although Whiteman AFB has the standard golf course location and dispersal of recreational areas within housing areas, Whiteman AFB uses a recreational greenbelt to divide some of the housing areas from the mission, headquarters, and support areas.
14
At the beginning of the Cold War era, Sedalia Army Air Field (AAF) had been in existence just three years. It began as a glider training field near Warrensburg, Missouri in 1942. Two other sites for the installation had been considered, but lack of room for expansion negated their use. The mayor of Warrensburg, Mr. A. G. Taubert, and the president of the chamber of commerce, Mr. E. C. Houx, convinced Colonel Ox, the United States Army officer in charge of the search and survey of potential installation sites, to consider the area near Knob Noster called the "Blue Flats." Upon seeing the area, Colonel Ox recommended its selection and purchase. The Blue Flats area, called such by the locals because of its loose, gray-blue top soil, was purchased and developed as the training field (USAF Historical Research Agency 1956:1).
Before construction began on the air field, work was initiated in May of 1942 on a spur line of the Missouri Pacific Railway to the site. Construction of the air field's runways was started and finished in 25 days (USAF Historical Research Agency 1956:1). During that time, Sedalia AAF was activated and placed under the direction of the I Troop Carrier Command. The air field's primary mission was the activation of troop carrier units and the advanced training of glider pilots. Many troop carrier wings and groups established themselves at Sedalia AAF for the duration of their training. However, the majority of these tactical organizations received about three months of training at the air field before moving on to other installations for more advanced training and then overseas to theaters of operation (USAF Historical Research Agency 1956:3). By September 1943, 4,290 personnel were assigned to Sedalia AAF.
In April of 1944, all units at the installation were consolidated and placed under the 813th Army Air Force Base Unit (AAFBU). The mission of the 813th AAFBU and Sedalia AAF was to train combat crews and individuals for overseas replacements. Radio operator, mechanic,
communications, navigation, and weather schools were all conducted at Sedalia AAF. In the first
15
quarter of 1945, the conversion from C-47s to C-46s and the attendant combat crew training were the priority (Hooker 1993:7).
After World War II was over, Sedalia AAF was scheduled to be deactivated. On March 28, 1946, the 813th AAFBU was deactivated, and, in its place, the 332nd AAFBU was activated and assigned to the Third Air Force and the newly organized Tactical Air Command (TAC) (Miller 1988:5). Deactivation and closure of the air field continued as the main mission. In September of 1946, the USAF became a separate branch of the military. On December 14, 1947, the air field was turned over to Air Materiel Command (AMC), and 11 civilian caretakers took over responsibility for the base.
In 1949, Sedalia AAF was considered as a location for the USAF Academy; however, a site in Colorado was chosen. Also in 1949, the Soviet Union developed an atomic bomb. Truman's plan to cut defense spending was overshadowed by the National Security Council's (NSC's) advice to commence a massive military build-up in order to counteract the new Communist threat. North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950, and the reality of the Communist threat became even more obvious. All previous budget constraints were loosened (Lewis et al. 1995). Within this context, SAC, with its new global deterrence mission, needed additional bases. Funds were allocated for modernizing and maintaining existing bases rather than building new ones (Lewis et al. 1995). Almost immediately, SAC annexed Sedalia AAF to be under its command. On August 1, 1951, Sedalia AAF became Sedalia AFB, under the Second Air Force of SAC (Miller 1988:6).
Rehabilitation of the base continued into 1952 under the 4224th Air Base Squadron (ABS) as work was undertaken to prepare the base to deploy a B-47 Stratojet wing with 30 aircraft (Miller 1988:7). On October 20, 1952, the 4224th ABS was deactivated, and the 340th Bombardment Wing (BMW) was activated at Sedalia AFB. The members of the 340th BMW were receiving training in anticipation of the arrival of the B-47s and the associated KC-97 tankers. In late March of 1954, the first B-47 assigned to the base touched down at Sedalia AFB.
16
In 1955, USAF Headquarters notified Sedalia AFB that it would be renamed in honor of Second Lieutenant George A. Whiteman. Lt. Whiteman was a native of Sedalia, Missouri and was one of the first American airmen killed in World War II. He was stationed with the 44th Pursuit Squadron (Interceptor), 18th Pursuit Group, Wheeler Field, Hawaii. On December 7, 1941, when the
Japanese aircraft attacked Pearl Harbor, Lt. Whiteman managed to reach his fighter and attempted to engage the enemy in combat. The Japanese pilots shot him down just as he became airborne. By the time the rescue teams found the 22 year old pilot, he was dead (Miller 1988:8).
Despite the work done at Whiteman AFB and the mission of the B-47, the aircraft was being phased out of the USAF inventory for the newer and more advanced B-52 Stratofortress. Whiteman AFB had served well as a B-47 strategic bomber base, but there were no plans to continue the strategic bomber mission at the base (Miller 1988:10).
Once again, national policy and strategy had a direct bearing on Whiteman AFB and its future. As early as 1955, work on the Minuteman ICBM had begun, and, by 1958, the development stage had been reached (Lewis et al. 1995). One major development in the Minuteman series was the ratio of 10 missiles or launch facilities (LF) to one launch control facility (LCF), which makes this missile system less expensive than the older Atlas and Titan systems. The Minuteman uses a solid fuel propellent, and so is a much safer system than the more volatile liquid-fueled Titan. Lighter weight, smaller size, and lower cost distinguish Minuteman from earlier ICBMs. Minuteman missiles are deployed in hardened, dispersed LFs, and provide a highly reliable, survivable, and responsive deterrent force; during the Cold War, this force maintained a near 100% alert rate (USAF n.d.). In April of 1961, test borings were made within a 50 mi (80 km) radius of Whiteman AFB to explore the geological compatibility of the area for a Minuteman missile complex. In June, the Department of Defense (DoD) announced that Whiteman AFB had been chosen as a support base for a Minuteman missile complex (Miller 1988:11).
On April 14, 1962, the ground breaking ceremonies were held for the first Minuteman complex at Whiteman AFB. Four agencies, two military and two civilian, were involved in the missile
17
construction and installation program, The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ballistic Missile Construction Office (CEBMCO) was designated the Deputy for Construction under the Whiteman, USAF Site Activation Task Force (SATAF) organization. The Corps of Engineers directly
supervised the construction of the LF, LCF, and support facilities by the Prime Contractor (civilian). The Boeing Corporation (civilian) was the integrating contractor for installation and checkout of the missile and its components (Antonelli 1964).
Strategic Missile Wing (SMW) IV was deployed on and around Whiteman AFB throughout 14 counties and covered well over 8,000 mi (20,718 km ) in western central Missouri. SMW IV consisted of 15 flights, with each flight responsible for one LCF and 10 LFs. The individual LFs were located approximately 5 to 30 mi (1.5 to 9 km) from the respective LCF for that flight. The LCFs were 14 to 38 mi (22 to 41 km) from the respective squadron office location, in this case, Whiteman AFB (Antonelli 1964:I-4). Whiteman AFB has the smallest of all the missile areas, and is the only base to have an LCF located within the boundaries of the base (Oscar-1, Real Property No. 1230).
2 2
By June 1962, excavation of 90 of the planned 150 LF sites was underway. As launch tube liners were installed and concrete was poured around the tubes of the initial 90 sites, construction started on the other 60 sites. Road upgrading and bridge reconstruction also had to be accomplished in order to lay the network communication cables. This voice network system, called the Hardened Intersite Cable System (HICS), was an elaborate link joining each LCF throughout the state. The cable system measured 1,777 mi (2,859 km). In addition to roads, bridges, and cables, land rights had to be acquired from more than 6,429 landowners (351st SMW History Office n.d.:32). Construction continued until November 1962 when the installation of the 150th launch tube was completed.
During the missile site construction, the 340th BMW continued scaling down its operations in readiness for the deactivation and phaseout of the B-47s and the re-deployment of the KC-97 tankers. On February 1, 1963, the 351st SMW was activated and assigned three squadrons: the
18
508th Strategic Missile Squadron (SMS), 509th SMS, and the 510th SMS. On September 1, 1963, the 340th BMW departed for Bergstrom AFB, Texas, and the 351st SMW became the sole wing at Whiteman AFB and therefore assumed base host responsibilities.
SATAF successfully turned over the missile sites to SAC in operational condition one after the other through late 1963 and early 1964. The first operational flight was Bravo of the 508th SMS; other flights followed, with Oscar Flight of the 510th SMS being the final delivery. The 351st SMW was now, two years after the formal ground breaking, a combat-ready deterrent force of SAC on full alert duty (351st SMW History Office n.d.).
In May 1966, the 351st SMW began a program called Force Modernization whereby the existing Minuteman missiles were replaced by the new Minuteman II ICBMs, and the LFs and LCFs were modified to work with the new missile. Whiteman AFB's SMW IV was the second Minuteman wing to receive the newer and more sophisticated Minuteman II missile. Lima Flight of the 509th SMS was handed over to the Boeing Company to begin the modifications. On September 21, 1967, the first on-base LF maintenance trainer, the "T-12," was accepted into the inventory of the 351st SMW (Office of the Historian, Headquarters, SAC 1983:52). On October 19, 1967, formal
ceremonies were held at Whiteman AFB to mark the completion of the Force Modernization program (351st SMW History Office n.d.).
In 1967, survivability of command, control, and communications was an important facet of the national defense. President Kennedy had developed the Post-Attack Command and Control System (PACCS) in 1962, and other systems came on line to ensure survivability of communications links. The Emergency Rocket Communication System (ERCS) went on line to replace the Blue Scout Junior rockets of 1963 (Lewis et al. 1995). During the modernization program of the Minuteman missiles, the ERCS system, known as 494L, was made operational for the 510th SMS using 10 of the squadron's 50 missiles. The 510th SMS was the only squadron in the Air Force operating ERCS. Each ERCS missile carried a communications payload similar in appearance to the nuclear warhead reentry vehicle loaded on a Minuteman II. Each communications payload included two
19
ultra-high frequency (UHF) transmitters that could each broadcast on any of 10 frequencies. The transmitters were automatically activated when the payload and missile separated during flight (Turley 1991). The ERCS system was a deterrent force from 1967 through 1991, when it was deactivated.
Early in 1968, SAC was dispersing its alert forces, and Whiteman AFB entered into an agreement with the 43rd BMW, Little Rock AFB, Arkansas to support 18 Convair B-58 Hustler bombers and seven KC-135A Stratotankers. Not until July 1969 did four of the supersonic bombers arrive to carry out SAC's Satellite Basing Program. The USAF phased out the B-58s, and they departed from the base in December of 1969. SAC then announced that four of the original seven KC-135A tankers would remain on alert status at Whiteman AFB after July 1, 1970.
The Spanish Navy training program "Matador" got underway at Whiteman AFB in March 1976 when the first AV-8B Harrier aircraft arrived. The program ended in October the same year. Base personnel were treated to the unusual sight of this aircraft maneuvering through its vertical takeoffs and landings during the program (Miller 1988:15).
The 351st SMW maintained its mission of nuclear deterrence by continually training and evaluating systems and personnel. In 1979, a major modification called the Silo Upgrade Program (SUP) was begun. Shortly after the completion of SUP, the 351st SMW embarked upon project Rivet Switch. This was a modification to the UHF radios located in the wing's launch control centers (LCCs) (351st SMW History Office 1989).
In the middle to late 1980s, Whiteman AFB saw more growth and modernization.
Several
upgrades to the missile systems and the manning of those systems dominated the operations and maintenance of the 351st SMW. These improvements allowed the wing to perform its duties and maintain an effectively high state of readiness (Hooker 1993:17).
20
General social changes occurring during the Cold War were reflected at Whiteman AFB with the opening of the missile operations career field to women. Studies regarding the feasibility of including women in missile crews were being done as early as 1975 (Vaughn 1975; White 1979). Both studies agreed that there were no legal or job-related barriers that prevented women from entering the Minuteman crew force. Both authors recommended initial implementation programs to permit women officers to enter combat crew duty. On March 25, 1986, Captains Nancy K. Dean and Linda S. Aldrich of Whiteman AFB's Alpha Flight, became the first female combat crew members to pull alert duty at a Minuteman site, Alpha-1 (Donovan 1991:2). Whiteman AFB's 351st SMW had also been the first wing to have black officers pull alert duty as missile combat crew members. In January 1988, the 351st SMW made another first when 1st Lt. Charles Carr and 2nd Lt. Kara Bloomer pulled the first male/female split gender crew alert (Hooker 1993:18).
In January 1987, the announcement was made that Whiteman AFB would become the first home of the USAF's B-2 bomber. The base became a hub of construction as SAC released approximately 90 million dollars for B-2 support projects for fiscal year 1988 (Hooker 1993:18). The 509th BMW was activated at the base to carry forward the B-2 bomber mission.
With Eastern European nations leaving the Soviet Bloc and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the world began to change in many ways. In January 1991, the USAF announced that all Minuteman II ICBM wings, including the 351st SMW, would be deactivated. START, signed by President George Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev in July 1991, signaled a future change at Whiteman AFB. The diminishing threat of nuclear war brought about another significant event on September 27, 1991. President Bush addressed the nation in response to the significant developments regarding the end of the Cold War. During his speech, the President ordered, as a goodwill gesture to the new leaders of the former Soviet Union, the immediate stand down of the nuclear armed alert missiles already scheduled for phase-out under the START treaty . "At 1459 hours on 28 September 1991, Whiteman AFB officials reported to the Commander in Chief of Strategic Air Command (CINCSAC), General George L. Butler, that the directive had been
21
complied with. For the men and women of Whiteman AFB, this represented the Cold War victory" (Hooker 1993:20).
In June 1992, Whiteman AFB was reassigned to the newly created ACC. In July 1993, the newly renamed 351st MW transferred base host responsibilities to the newly renamed 509th BW. The 509th BW continues its mission with the B-2 bomber. The 351st MW continues the deactivation and dismantling of the Minuteman II launch complexes.
When the Blue Flats area south of Knob Noster was chosen as the site of the Sedalia glider training field, and subsequently renamed Sedalia AAF, the facility was made up of 3,370 acres (1,363 ha) and contained four runways, each 7,200 ft (2,194 m) by 150 ft (46 m) wide (Figure 3.1). Seven hangars for both powered aircraft and gliders were located to the west of the north-south runway and apron.
In 1951, the base was brought back to life under SAC, and new facilities were needed to support the base's B-47 mission. This included stronger runways to support the weight of the new plane. Improvements continued through the 1950s with the construction of a new north-south runway 200 ft (61 m) wide and 10,400 ft (3,170 m) long and the installation of a runway approach lighting system (Figure 3.1). A waste processing plant was constructed along with a 250,000 gallon water storage tank and a maintenance shop. New family housing and other community facilities were added, such as an elementary school, library, post office, swimming pool, gymnasium, baseball diamonds, tennis and basketball courts, football field, and a base commissary. A nine-hole golf course, on the western side of the base across State Highway 132, was added in 1958. Work was also begun on a new base chapel.
23
The 1960s brought continued development on the base (Figure 3.2), as well as missile complex construction at 150 locations in the surrounding 8,000 mi (20,718 km ). This was for the Minuteman ICBMs that Whiteman AFB took on as its primary mission. A new alert facility was completed in 1960. A new base theater was opened in 1969, as well as a child care center. The late 1960s saw the return of the flying mission when the base prepared for the B-58 that was to stand alert duty. The alert facility was once more prepared for that function. The B-58 was only stationed at Whiteman AFB for a short time and was replaced in 1970 with four KC-135A tankers which were to stand alert duty.
2 2
In the 1970s, a new hospital was completed (Figure 3.3).
In 1978, construction on a new
commissary was begun. Other refurbishing projects continued on the base, including housing and recreational areas that were expanded.
The 1980s brought a lot of change for Whiteman AFB. New facilities, such as the civil engineering complex, a missile maintenance complex, and several more dormitories, were constructed (Figure 3.4). In 1987, SAC released almost 90 million dollars for B-2 support projects. Many of the support buildings along the flight line were replaced or completely refitted in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The construction work in support of the B-2 mission is ongoing and expected to continue for some time.
27
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the reconnaissance inventory of Whiteman 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
28
As part of the reconnaissance inventory of Whiteman 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 Whiteman 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.
29
30
31
32
Between August 22 and 26, 1994, Mariah investigators Patience E. Patterson and David P. Staley conducted a reconnaissance inventory at Whiteman AFB. Upon arrival, the field team met with the point of contact, Mr. Don Meuschke, the Cultural/Natural Resources Officer within the 509th CES. The team advised him of its schedule and the objectives and needs for accomplishing the inventory.
Mr. Meuschke and SSgt Vickie Shirkey provided a base tour to familiarize the field team with the base layout and the types of facilities present and a preliminary assessment of which facilities might be significant in the context of the study. An in-brief meeting, attended by commanders and staff of the 351st MW and the 509th CES, was conducted prior to the base tour on the field team's first day at Whiteman AFB. The meeting provided an opportunity for the CES staff to present the Whiteman AFB mission and plans for future development and also afforded the Mariah field team an opportunity to explain the project.
33
Mr. Meuschke introduced the team to Ms. Sara Kelchner of the Real Property Office, and the team discussed the need for copies of the Real Property Change List, earlier planning documents, old property inventories, and other pertinent documents the office might have in its files. Access to older files containing the Property Change Cards was also requested by the field team. The team was introduced to Mr. David Duffer of the CES Drafting Office and made arrangements to acquire computer disk copies and print-outs of base maps. An inventory of this office included a review of old project files containing architectural drawings, maps, and aerial photographs. Copies of base maps from several decades were also gathered to assist in the assessment of base development and land use.
On August 24, the team inventoried the combined History Offices of the 509th BW and the 351st MW. The team briefed Sgt Rice of the 351st MW on the project and the research needs. TSgt Roger Hooker of the 509th BW was on temporary reassignment. However, the team was able to access his document collection. The team's investigation in this office included a cursory inventory of the files, photograph collections, and awards and the gathering of copies of histories, fact sheets, and other pertinent documents. The field team also visited the 509th Public Affairs Office to gather current mission statements and inquire as to any historical documents that office might contain. At the Base Planner's Office, on August 25, Mr. Robert Steinkuckler provided copies of portions of the Comprehensive Base Plan and other planning documents identifying proposed developments and demolition.
Over the course of the base visit, the team was provided special tours of on-base and off-base missile facilities by Mr. Meuschke (509th CES), SSgt Shirkey (509th BW), Major Robert Rochester (351st MW), and Mr. James Boling (Real Property Office). The on-base missile
facilities included the Oscar-1 LCF and the T-12 LF maintenance trainer. The team also toured a sample of off-base facilities in various stages of decommissioning, including Echo-1 LCF and missile LF sites Echo-8, India-2, India-3, India-4, and Oscar-8. Throughout the base visit, a photographic inventory of resources on base was conducted by the team between scheduled tours and appointments.
34
On August 26, an out-brief meeting was conducted to discuss the field team's findings and to discuss any ramifications of the study. A detailed and extensive discussion of the Section 106, NHPA review process was beneficial in relieving institutional anxieties at the base.
35
During the reconnaissance inventory of Whiteman AFB, 115 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.
36
Five resources were evaluated at Whiteman AFB, three of them falling under the DoD category of real property and two under records/documents. 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
6.1.1 Documentation
This documentary collection, located in the Site Development Office of the 509th CES, contains architectural drawings, plans, maps, and photographs pertaining to construction, maintenance, and modifications to Whiteman AFB facilities. The drawings and plans are on linen, vellum, or mylar, and most pertain to individual buildings dating from the 1950s to the present. Additional drawings in the collection pertain to more general systems such as roads, parking lots, lighting, and various comprehensive planning graphics. Drawings of special note include plans dating to the 1940s and the original base construction, and a small subset of drawings pertaining to the Minuteman ICBM mission at the base. The collection also includes base layout maps and a set of aerial photographs of the base. A more in-depth inventory of the collection is presented in Appendix E. This
38
collection provides detailed information on the historical development of the base and is a source of information about individual facilities.
This collection is in disarray and the contents have not been inventoried. The maps and drawings are an actively used resource, and, as such, are pulled and refiled and are subject to continuous wear.
This large collection includes materials from both the 509th BW and the 351st MW. The collection includes wing histories, reports, files, newspaper clippings, trophies, slides, photographs, videos, and newsreels of the history of the base and the major wings at the base. Although generally not focused on buildings, the collection contains unique materials pertinent to people and events at the base. Notable are the records related to the Minuteman development and operations at the base. These are particularly significant as that mission is gradually being phased out of existence at Whiteman AFB. Minuteman-related documents may be useful in any interpretive efforts conducted at the base. Many of the other elements of the collection would provide a variety of interesting objects and documents that would contribute to displays of base history. A more in-depth inventory of the collection is presented in Appendix E. At present, the collection is located in one office and is subject to chaotic filing and storage conditions.
This Bomber Alert Facility is a semisubterranean building, constructed of reinforced concrete and concrete block, with 33,586 ft of space. Like other alert buildings, the ground floor of this facility
2
39
is partially underground with an earthen berm surrounding the building. Ramped tunnels rise from the ground floors, and open, descending ramps emerge from the top floor. The building is located at the northern end of the base along the western side of the instrument runway.
The facility was constructed in 1960 and housed alert crews of B-47 aircraft until 1963. The building was redesignated as an academic classroom in 1966. In 1968, klaxons and alert lights were installed and the building was redesignated as an alert facility in preparation for B-58 crews who assumed alert duty at the location for six months during 1969. It is hypothesized that a contingent of KC-135A tankers used this building for alert duty from 1970 until 1976. This facility is currently being used as offices and classrooms for Reserve Forces Operational Training.
The facility retains much of its external integrity. The interior of the facility was not inspected. However, the facility has only been used as an alert facility or for classrooms and offices, and the real property card for the building indicates no major renovations. Therefore the building's interior integrity is determined to be intact.
The Bomber Alert Facility is extremely important to Whiteman AFB's Cold War context and to Cold War history at the national level. It 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 the Killian Report, meeting the needs of deterrence through a survivable force and the dispersion of bombers across the country (Lewis et al. 1995).
The "molehole" configuration of this alert facility, with its earthen berm and ramps, is representative of the nation's overall alert posture taken during the Cold War. This alert facility is notable in that it supported B-47 and B-58 aircraft, in contrast to most bomber alert facilities which were associated with the B-52. This facility allowed for maximum readiness and rapid deployment in response to enemy aggression, and thereby embodied the SAC strategy of deterrence. This facility was used for this purpose during Phases II and III of the Cold War era, and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
40
6.2.2 Missiles
6.2.2.1 Missile Launch Control Facility (Resource No. 13054, Real Property No. 1230)
The Oscar-1 LCF includes above-ground wood-framed support buildings, hardened underground communication silos, and an underground elevator that leads to two underground capsules. Both capsules are constructed of reinforced concrete and are steel-lined. An 8 ton blast door separates the 50-100 ft vertical access shaft from the capsules. One capsule is the launch control equipment capsule, which contains stand-by generators and other life-support and environmental systems. On the other side of the tunnel junction and behind another 8-ton blast door lies the LCC capsule. The alert crew and all essential equipment in this capsule are positioned on a shock-insulated floor suspended from the blast proof outer shell by four liquid-spring shock isolators. A 21 ft long escape tube, filled with loose sand, extends toward the ground surface. All of these features address the importance of survivability. Oscar-1 is surrounded by relatively open spaces in the southern central area of the base. The facility is bounded by open lots and playing fields to the north and south, the small-arms training range and buildings to the east, and a recreational greenbelt to the west.
Oscar-1 was built in 1964 to be used with the Minuteman I"B" missile. Retrofitting of these missile complexes to the Minuteman II began at Whiteman AFB in 1966. The Minuteman missile system underwent almost constant upgrades and modifications. This missile LCF was used as such between 1964 and 1991.
This facility currently houses the Whiteman Heritage Center. Although the interior of the above ground building has been modified slightly for use as offices and an interpretive center, the vast majority of the facility has been left intact. Several of the electronic face-plates or panels within the LCC capsule have been removed; however, plans have been made to substitute copies or mock-up panels as replacements. Current plans are for the facility to become the permanent home of the Heritage Center with additional interpretive displays and tours of the facility. Some of the more
41
recent interior modifications, including ceiling and wall coverings, are planned to be replaced with more authentic materials and colors. This resource exhibits a high degree of both exterior and interior integrity.
Oscar-1 is exceptionally significant to the base and national Cold War contexts for a number of reasons. This LCF is unique in that it is the only such facility located within the confines of a base. Because of its proximity to base facilities, the associated above-ground structures are smaller than other LCFs. The Whiteman AFB Minuteman facilities as a group are also distinctive because all utilities are in an underground capsule rather than in an above ground building. However, perhaps the most significant aspect of Oscar-1's function was that it was one of the five LCFs in the 510th SMS that was part of the ERCS. This redundant command, control, and communications system replaced the Blue Scout Junior system, its predecessor, in 1967. The system was capable of sending force execution messages via UHF recorders after launch. The transmitters were emplaced within 10 of the possible 50 Minuteman silos controlled by the 510th SMS. This system was developed in response to the Kennedy administration's concern for survivable command, control, and communication (Lewis et al. 1995). This facility was used for this purpose during Phases III and IV of the Cold War era, and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
None were evaluated at Whiteman AFB.
42
6.4.1.1 Missile Launch Facility Trainer (Resource No. 13008, Real Property No. 1100)
This facility is more specifically called the T-12 Missile LF Trainer. The trainer was constructed in 1967 to be used as a training facility for Minuteman missile maintenance crews, and is located just west of the southern end of the flight line mission buildings and northeast of the Oscar-1 LCF. Although the trainer is not an actual LF, it was built to replicate all aspects of an actual one. However, this structure includes specialized architectural elements specific to the trainer and its requirements for greater access by personnel. Like an actual LF, this trainer consists of a blastresistant underground silo made of reinforced concrete with a steel plate liner. The trainer has a launch tube that holds a missile and is approximately 80 ft deep. Beneath the ground, the launch tube is surrounded by a two-level annular equipment room with suspended platforms that afford access for missile service. The launch tube is sealed by a 100 ton door or launcher closure. A single hatch provides access to the normal launch tube and maintenance decks. Unique to the launch trainer is an above-ground concrete building with a staircase that leads down to the twolevel equipment room.
The trainer has functioned as a LF trainer since its construction. Because the facility continues to be used, all aspects of its integrity have been retained. Given the active development at the base, the open space surrounding the launch trainer is likely to be needed for construction or parking in the future. This development could have a possible effect on this resource.
The significance of the trainer stems from its direct association with the Minuteman ICBM system. This missile system was a major advance in the development of the nation's deterrence capability because of its cheaper one LCF to 10 LFs configuration, which allowed a greater proliferation of missiles. Also, this system used solid fuel that was stored in the missile rather
43
than the liquid fuel which had to be loaded into Titan missiles just before firing. This reduction in time between receiving the order to launch and the actual launching made this missile more survivable, thus fulfilling the nation's need for greater deterrent capability. This facility was used for this purpose during Phases III and IV of the Cold War era, and meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c).
None were evaluated at Whiteman AFB.
44
The purpose of the reconnaissance inventory was to provide initial information on the kinds of Cold War resources extant on Whiteman 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. Because of security, access to buildings along the flight line or within the weapons storage area was not secured. As a result, several buildings were noted as existing but were not evaluated. However, the recent construction dates and the functional labels for a majority of these buildings suggest they are not significant within the Cold War context. 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 Whiteman AFB. In the future, these resources should be investigated further in more comprehensive analyses.
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 Whiteman AFB revealed approximately 100 citations. Most of these are unit histories and special collections. More specific topics include the histories of Minuteman construction, peace demonstrators, and women missile crews. The vast majority of these documents are available on microfilm. Future studies of Cold War history at Whiteman AFB should allot time to researching these documents.
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 F.
45
Whiteman AFB is currently undergoing extensive development and construction related to the establishment of the B-2 bomber at the base. Meanwhile, the Minuteman mission of Whiteman AFB is being eliminated, the missiles are being removed from their silos, and nearly all of the LFs and LCFs are being destroyed as per START. In addition to all this construction and demolition, several historic preservation studies are simultaneously underway.
Architectural and construction plans are currently being developed for extensive remodeling of the Bomber Alert Facility (Real Property No. 6). These plans include the removal of the characteristic tunnels and expansion of the top floor of the building. These developments will adversely effect the external integrity of this facility, which has been recommended in this report as eligible to the NRHP.
Both the Oscar-1 Missile LCF (Real Property No. 1230) and the T-12 Missile LF Trainer (Real Property No. 1100) are located within areas of relatively open space. Demands for building and parking space may eventually compress this space. Fortunately, both resources are included within existing preservation plans for the base. The Missile LCF will become the home of the Whiteman Heritage Center's offices and exhibits, and will provide interpretive tours of this LCF and the Missile LF Trainer. Short term plans call for the removal of all hazardous materials from these resources and minor safety modifications within the facilities for effective public exhibition.
46
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 Whiteman 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.
47
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 Whiteman 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
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 Whiteman AFB have not been evaluated, and thus must be considered and treated as eligible until an evaluation and determination of eligibility are made.
48
These
49
50
Recommendations for the evaluated resources at Whiteman AFB are presented below. Table 9.1 summarizes these recommendations. More than one recommendation may apply to a given
This collection of architectural drawings, plan, maps, and aerial photographs is valuable for the information it provides on the development of the base during the Cold War era. It is a
continuously used resource, and as such, is in disarray and is subject to wear. It is recommended that the collection be inventoried and copied. It is further recommended that the copies remain at the base for its use, with the originals stored at a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
52
This collection consists of wing histories, reports, files, newsclippings, slides, photographs, newsreel, and videos of the history of the base and its major wings. It also contains trophies won by the various squadrons in multi-base competitions. Currently, the collection is subject to chaotic storage conditions. It is recommended that the trophies be stored in a trophy case for public viewing. It is recommended that the rest of the collection be inventoried and copied, with the copies remaining at the base for its use and the originals going to a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation.
This building is evaluated as exceptionally important within the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases II and III. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) based on it as 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. This integrity of the building is intact based upon visual inspection and the lack of documented major renovations. 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 Missile Launch Control Facility (Resource No. 13054, Real Property No. 1230)
This facility is evaluated as exceptionally important to the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases III and IV. It meets NRHP criterion (a) based on its role in providing a survivable force to meet the needs of deterrence and a redundant, survivable communications system for command and control, and criterion (c) based upon its structural components which are unique to this facility type and identify it as an example of Cold War military architecture. The integrity of
53
the facility is intact based upon visual inspection and the lack of documented major renovations. Therefore, this facility is recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Recommendations include stewardship to maintain the integrity of the facility, and further documentation to nominate the resource to the NRHP. This facility could be considered the centerpiece of a potential National Register multiple property nomination that would include the T-12 Missile LF Trainer (Real Property No. 1100) and the Transporter Erectors (Resource Nos. 13009 and 13010).
9.2.5 Missile Launch Facility Trainer (Resource No. 13008, Real Property No. 1100)
This facility is evaluated as exceptionally significant to the base and national Cold War contexts during Phases III and IV. It meets NRHP criteria (a) and (c) based on its role in sustaining a survivable force for the needs of deterrence and on its structural components which are unique to this facility type and identify it as an example of Cold War military architecture. The integrity of the facility is intact based upon visual inspection and the uninterrupted, continued used of the facility as a missile maintenance trainer. Therefore, this facility is recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Recommendations include stewardship to maintain the integrity of the facility and further documentation to nominate the resource to the NRHP.
54
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. Antonelli, A.M. Lt. Colonel 1964 History of Construction Activities and Contract Administration Phases Encountered by Whiteman Area Office Corps of Engineers CEBMCO During Construction of Minuteman Strategic Missile Wing IV, Whiteman AFB, Missouri. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Ballistic Missile Construction Office, Los Angeles. Department of Defense 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. Donovan, J. L. 1991 The Integration of Women onto Minuteman Missile Crews. Master's Thesis. Manuscript on file, Central Missouri State University. Hooker, R. D. TSgt 1993 The History of Whiteman AFB, Missouri 1942-1993, From Gliders to Stealth. 509th Bomb Wing History Office, Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri. 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. Miller, T. M. Sgt. 1988 The History of Whiteman AFB, Missouri 1942-1988. 351st Strategic Missile Wing History Office. On file, 509th Bomb Wing History Office, Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri.
55
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. Office of the Historian, Headquarters, Strategic Air Command 1983 SAC Missile Chronology 1939-1982. Office of the Historian, Headquarters, Strategic Air Command, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. 351st Strategic Missile Wing History Office 1989 351st Strategic Missile Wing, 25 Years of Deterrence Whiteman AFB, 1964-1989. 351st Strategic Missile Wing History Office. On file, 509th Bomb Wing History Office, Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri. n.d. The Minutemen at Whiteman. 351st Strategic Missile Wing History Office. Manuscript on file in 509th Bomb Wing History Office, Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri. Turley, S. 1st Lt. 1991 "Emergency Rocket Communications System." A Missouri Warrior Supplement, October 18, 1991. Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri. United States Air Force 1989 Executive Order 12512 Installation Survey Report, Whiteman Air Force Base. Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri. 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. n.d. Fact Sheet. "Minuteman ICBM." 509th Bomb Wing Office of Public Affairs, Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri. United States Air Force Historical Research Agency 1943 813th AAFBU History August 1942 through April 1944. Sedalia Army Air Field. Roll No. B2530, Frame No. 628, United States Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. 1956 Brief History of Sedalia Air Force Base 1942-1954. Research Studies Institute, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. Copy of history in 509th Bomb Wing History Office, Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri.
56
Vaughn, A. D. Major 1975 Is it Feasible to Employ Women on Minuteman Missile Crews? Unpublished Air Command and Staff College Research Program Study. Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. White, J. R. Major 1979 Women on Minuteman Missile Crews. Unpublished Air Command and Staff College Research Study. Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. Whiteman Air Force Base 1994 Whiteman AFB, MO. Office of Public Affairs, 509th Bomb Wing, Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri. MARCOA Publishing Inc.
EVALUATED RESOURCES AT WHITEMAN AFB

Property Description: Field Training Facility (T-12 Missile Launch Facility Trainer) Associated Property: 13056 Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: 2/10/94 Base Map Building Number: 1100 Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Missile Training Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Missile Launch Facility Trainer Statement of Significance: A rare and critical training facility for Minuteman I and II maintenance teams for launch facilities. Currently being used. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: 3 Theme Relationship: 4 Temporal Phase Relationship: 2 Level of Importance: 3 Percent Historic Fabric: 4 Severity of Threats: 3 Total Score for Priority Matrix: 19 Comments on Threats: Although not an actual launch facility, the site is an example of the actual launch facility and also includes specialized architectural elements specific to the trainer and its requirements for greater access. No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: National Register nomination is recommended especially as part of a Whiteman Minuteman complex theme. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility Eligible
10 659 Permanent Field Training Facility
Reinforced concrete with steel plate liner Underground silo with greater than normal personnel access.

Property Description: Missile Guidance Facility (Oscar 1 Launch Control Facility) Associated Property: 13011-13015;13056 Non-Inventoried Association: All missile launch facilities and launch control facilities in the 510th Missile Squadron. Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: 2/10/94 Base Map Building Number: 1230 Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Missiles Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Missile Launch Control Facility Statement of Significance: Oscar I is the only Minuteman launch control facility located within the confines of an Air Force Base. Because of its proximity to base facilities, the support structures are smaller than other lcfs in the system. Oscar I is also unique in that it had control of all 50 missiles in the squadron and the Emergency Rocket Communications System, an important element of the Mutual Assured Destruction policy. The construction of the lcf and the lfs in the system, that is the underground construction, concrete and steel, heavy blast doors, multiple energy sources, and shock isolators, etc ensured the survivability of the system. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: Theme Relationship: Temporal Phase Relationship: Level of Importance: Percent Historic Fabric: Severity of Threats: Total Score for Priority Matrix: Comments on Threats: 4 4 2 4 4 1 19
No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: Should be listed on the National Register. This should be considered as the centerpiece of the Whiteman Minuteman Complex; a resource that should be listed as exceptionally significant. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility Eligible
10 8507 Permanent Heritage Center Missile Guidance Facility-Launch Control Facility/1964-1991 Comments on Use: Used now for tours Primary Building Materials: Reinforced Concrete and Steel Plates Character Defining Features: Underground life support capacity, launch control capsule is mounted on four shock mounted hangars and platform, escape tunnel 21 feet long, elevator to surface and missile operations building. Capsules for control and support machines were rounded steel surrounded by feet of reinforced concrete thick enough to withstand impact by thermonuclear weapons.

Property Description: Reserve Forces Operational Training (Crew Readiness Molehole) Associated Property: 13096; 13056 Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Alert Road Base Map Date: 2/10/94 Base Map Building Number: 6 Operational Support & Installations: Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Alert Facilities Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Bomber Alert Facility Statement of Significance: SAC Alert facility associated with B-47 aircraft in contrast to most facilities associated with the B-52. This facility was used as an alert facility from 1960 to 1963 and then perhaps again in 1968. The buildings exterior represents the classic molehole construction complete with ramped tunnels for rapid egress. The significance of the alert facility lies in its and its association with the B-47 bomber. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: 4 Theme Relationship: 4 Temporal Phase Relationship: 3 Level of Importance: 3 Percent Historic Fabric: 4 Severity of Threats: 4 Total Score for Priority Matrix: 22 Comments on Threats: Facility is in danger of loosing its integrity as an alert facility because of plans to remove tunnels and expansion of the above ground story. No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: Yes Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: No Comments on Resource Management: Exceptionally significant and NRHP eligible. Importance: Exceptional Eligibility Eligible Height: 15 Square Footage: 33586 Original Planned Duration: Permanent Existing Use: Reserve Forces Operational Training (442 FW) Other Use/Dates: Crew Readiness 1960-63;68? Comments on Use: Primary Building Materials: Reinforced concrete and concrete block Character Defining Features: Underground construction, covered tunnel ramps.

Property Description: Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: Base Map Building Number: Architectural drawings, map, photos 13008, 13054, 13055
2/10/94 inside 705
Operational Support & Installations: Documentation Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Documentary Collection Statement of Significance: Flat files in site development office contain detailed drawings of individual buildings and general topics with dates ranging from the 1940s and the beginning of the base to present. Collection includes vellum, paper, cloth, and mylar drawings. Many of these are likely to be unique. Twenty unorganized files contain details of Minuteman construction and minuteman sites. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: 3 Theme Relationship: 2 Temporal Phase Relationship: 4 Level of Importance: 2 Percent Historic Fabric: 4 Severity of Threats: 2 Total Score for Priority Matrix: 17 Comments on Threats: Files are in disarray. The value of this resource is not recognized. No Further Work: Stewardship: National Register Listing: Further Documentation: Preservation/Conservation/Repair: Comments on Resource Management: Object Condition: Record/Document Category: Year of Document: Period of Association: Comments on Condition: No Yes No Yes Yes
In Storage/Benign Neglect Architectural Drawing Various 1940 - 1990 Records need to be cared for

Property Description: Wing History Offices containing 509th BW and 351st MW histories, reports, files, records, trophies, photographs, slides, and movie reels. Associated Property: Non-Inventoried Association: Sub-installation: Address: Base Map Date: 2/10/94 Base Map Building Number: inside 1000 Operational Support & Installations: Documentation Combat Weapons and Support Systems: Training Facilities: Material Development Facilities: Intelligence: Property Type: Documentary Collection Statement of Significance: Office files may contain unique reference materials, cilppings, reports, etc. Cold War Relationship-Nat'l. Recognition: 3 Theme Relationship: 4 Temporal Phase Relationship: 4 Level of Importance: 2 Percent Historic Fabric: 4 Severity of Threats: 1 Total Score for Priority Matrix: 18 Comments on Threats: Threat to resource only due to chaotic filing conditions. No Further Work: No Stewardship: Yes National Register Listing: No Further Documentation: Yes Preservation/Conservation/Repair: Yes Comments on Resource Management: Files and collections need to be inventoried and curated if deemed valuable, remainder should be organized and filed. Object Condition: Record/Document Category: Year of Document: Period of Association: Comments on Condition: Being Preserved Various Various 1940-1990 Records are being preserved but need organization.
APPENDIX E: DETAILED RESOURCE CONTENTS
E-1
CONTENTS OF DOCUMENTARY COLLECTION (RESOURCE NO. 13056, LOCATED IN REAL PROPERTY NO. 705)
120 Flat File Drawers: Twenty unorganized files containing as-built and detailed drawings of Minuteman facilities (may possibly include drawings of Real Property No. 1100) Approx. 80 files containing drawings of individual buildings organized by real property numbers; includes plans and modifications of evaluated Real Property Nos. 6 and 1230 dating to 1958 and 1964 respectively Approx. 20 files of general systems such as base parking, railroads, and roads; contains plans and as-built drawings spanning 1940s-1990s on mylar, vellum, and sailcloth Complete set of high altitude aerial photographs of missile facilities Limited selection of 1980s large-scale aerial photographs of base
Wooden Map Compartments: Miscellaneous rolls of project maps dating circa 1970s and 1980s
Loose Storage on Top of Flat Files: Bound Base Comprehensive Plan, 1970s Minuteman base facility drawings such as locational and plan drawings; compiled by Base Design Section-Boeing Corporation Housing drawings and details in two wooden binders
E-2
CONTENTS OF DOCUMENTARY COLLECTION (RESOURCE NO. 13116, LOCATED IN REAL PROPERTY NO. 1000)
File Cabinets: 509th BW histories, 1943-1993: 16 file drawers 351st MW histories, 1963-1993: 20 file drawers Civil Engineering files, late 1980s-1990s: 1 file cabinet Whiteman AFB 25 year history: 3 file cabinets Cabinet No. 1: Current working history files and collection of videos and newsreels; collection of four scrapbooks of the 1980s and 1990s on top of the cabinet Cabinet No. 2: Peacekeeper newspaper clippings; technical manuals ca. 1978; Strategic Missile Evaluating Squadron 19731990; IG reports 1973-1990; historic and reference files regarding women, integration, and operations; automated missile crew scheduling Cabinet No. 3: Missile construction newspaper clippings; peace protester destruction 1984; 451st achievement reports 19651967; modification records; maintenance records; Rivet Mile; Minuteman handouts and manufacturer pamphlets; test reports; 16 large binders of slides of people, awards, events, and buildings, ca. 1980s1990s, located on top of Cabinet No. 2 and 3; video collection - 11 cassettes predominately regarding the B-2
E-3
Photograph Collection: Massive unorganized collection of prints and slides dating from the 1960s to the 1990s; majority of collection dates to the 1990s with various missile development and construction photos of the 1960s mixed in
Trophies: Seven Fairchild trophies
F-1
BASE CONTACTS
The following people were contacted during the base visit by the field team to help identify Cold War material culture and provide research materials.
Mr. Don Meuschke Cultural/Natural Resource Officer 509 CES/CERR 930 Arnold Ave Whiteman AFB, MO 65305-5022 (816) 687-1227 Mr. David Duffer Drafting Office Manager 509 CES/CERR 930 Arnold Ave Whiteman AFB, MO 65305-5022 (816) 687-6280 Ms. Sara Kelchner Real Property Officer 509 CES/CERR 930 Arnold Ave Whiteman AFB, MO 65305-5022 (816) 687-6299 TSgt Rice 351st MW Historian 509th BW/HO 555 Mitchell Ave, Ste 210 Whiteman AFB, MO 65305-5022 (816) 687-1145 SSgt Vickie Shirkey Heritage Center 509 CES/CERR 930 Arnold Ave Whiteman AFB, MO 65305-5022 (816) 687-1227
F-2
Major Robert Rochester 351st MW 555 Mitchell Ave Whiteman AFB, MO 65305-5022 (816) 687-1227 Mr. Robert Steinkuckler Planner 509 CES/CERR 930 Arnold Ave Whiteman AFB, MO 65305-5022 (816) 687-6306 SSgt Sharpe Facility Security Officer 509 SPS/SPAC Whiteman AFB, MO 65305 (816) 687-6914
F-3
INFORMAL INTERVIEWS
The following people were informally interviewed by the Mariah field team while at the base. They were identified as people possessing extensive knowledge of Whiteman AFB's history and Cold War context.
Mr. Don Meuschke, Cultural/Natural Resource Officer, August 22-26, 1994 TSgt Rice, 351st MW Historian, August 24, 1994 SSgt Vickie Shirkey, Heritage Center, August 22-26, 1994 Major Robert Rochester, 351st MW/Heritage Center, August 23, 1994 Mr. Robert Steinkuckler, Planner, August 25, 1994
VOLUME III: SUMMARY REPORT AND FINAL PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Prepared by R. Blake Roxlau Katherine J. Roxlau with contributions by Karen Lewis
November 1997
Summary Report and Final Programmatic Recommendations
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AAB AAF ABW ACC ACCS ACE, FW ACHP ADC AEC AFB AFLC AFR AFRES AFS AFSC AMARC AMC ANG ARDC ARW ATC BG BMEWS BMG BMW BW CONAC DEW DoD ECM EIG FIS FW GLCM HABS IAAFA ICBM LCF LF MAC
Army Air Base Army Airfield Air Base Wing Air Combat Command Airborne Command and Control Squadron Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Air Defense Command Atomic Energy Commission Air Force Base Air Force Logistics Command Air Force Range Air Force Reserve Air Force Station Air Force Systems Command Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center Air Materiel Command Air National Guard Air Research and Development Command Air Refueling Wing Air Training Command Bomb Group Ballistic Missile Early Warning System Bombardment Group Bombardment Wing Bomb Wing Continental Air Command Distant Early Warning Department of Defense Electronic Countermeasure Engineering Installations Group Fighter Interceptor Squadron Fighter Wing Ground Launched Cruise Missile Historic American Buildings Survey Inter-American Air Force Academy Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Launch Control Facility Launch Facility Military Airlift Command
ii
Mariah MATS MIRV NACA NEADS/SOCC NHL NHPA NPS NRHP NSC OTH-B PACCS PAVE PAWS POW RADC RDJTF SAC SAGE SALT SHPO SLBM SMW SW TAC TALC USAF USCENTCOM USREDCOM USSOCOM USSPACECOM USSTRATCOM USSTRIKCOM WSA -
Mariah Associates, Inc. Military Airlift Transport Service Multiple Independently-Targetable Reentry Vehicle National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Northeast Air Defense Sector/Sector Operations Control Center National Historic Landmark National Historic Preservation Act National Park Service National Register of Historic Places National Security Council Over the Horizon Backscatter Post Attack Command and Control System Position Acquisition Vehicle Entry Phased Array Warning System Prisoner-of-war Rome Air Development Center Rapid Deployment Joint Tactical Force Strategic Air Command Semi-Automatic Ground Environment Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty State Historic Preservation Officer Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile Strategic Missile Wing Strategic Wing Tactical Air Command Tactical Airlift Center U.S. Air Force United States Central Command United States Readiness Command United States Special Operations Command United States Space Command United States Strategic Command United States Strike Command Weapons Storage Area
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. Cold War - a war of political beliefs that lasted four and one-half decades from 1945 to 1989, and which took place between democratic countries and communist or socialist countries. The United States and the Soviet Union were the main Cold War opponents. No actual, physical battles occurred between these two countries, but the arms race in which they engaged was a major feature of the Cold War era. Cuban Missile Crisis - a U.S. - U.S.S.R. confrontation that nearly led to war between the superpowers. The crisis began on October 16, 1962 when intelligence reports confirmed that the Soviets were installing nuclear ballistic missiles in Cuba. President Kennedy responded with a naval blockade of Cuba. On October 28, the Soviet Union agreed to remove its missiles. Distant Early Warning Line - developed in response to the Killian Report, this early warning detection system was designed to track enemy bombers and missiles travelling over the Arctic Circle towards the United States. This line consists of over 50 radar stations stretching across the Arctic Circle from the Aleutian Islands of Alaska to Iceland. 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.'s military. It contains recommendations for research and development of new technologies, including longrange nuclear missiles, as well as 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, aims to reduce environmental damage caused by nuclear testing.
iv
National Command Authority - the President and the Secretary of Defense, who are responsible for making final decisions about the use of U.S. nuclear weapons. National Emergency Airborne Command Post - one of three National Military Command Centers which directly supports the National Command Authority and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In the event of a national emergency, this airborne command post provides a survivable means of executing National Command Authority war orders. National Register of Historic Places - a listing, maintained by the Keeper of the Register under the Secretary of the Interior, of historic buildings, structures, 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 large military buildup by the Soviet Union. Operation Paperclip - a mission carried out during the last days of World War II whereby German scientists from Peenemunde, the research and development facility for the V-2 rocket, were transported to the United States to begin development of American rocket systems. Post Attack Command and Control System - a system of airplanes that could serve as U.S. command posts should command centers on the ground become inoperable. These modified Boeing 707 aircraft were originally supervised by the Strategic Air Command. They are now under the control of U.S. Strategic Command. Section 106 - a review process in the National Historic Preservation Act by which effects of a federal 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 to the National Register of Historic Places. Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty I - signed in 1972, this is the first treaty to actually limit the number of nuclear weapons deployed. Anti-ballistic missile systems and strategic missile launchers are the weapons systems limited in this agreement.
Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty II - developed in 1979, this treaty further limits the number of nuclear weapons deployed by each side by setting numerically equal limits. The treaty also addresses modernization of the systems for the first time, allowing development of only one new intercontinental ballistic missile. Though this agreement was not signed, due to deterioration of U.S. - U.S.S.R. relations in the late 1970s, both sides agreed to abide by its terms. Strategic Defense Initiative - a U.S. research program, also known as "Star Wars," to determine whether a defensive space shield could be built to destroy attacking ballistic missiles. Vladivostok Accord - signed in 1974, this agreement sets 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 sets numerically equal limits on the number of nuclear weapons deployed by each side. It also limits for the first time nuclear weapons equipped with more than one warhead.
vi
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF ACRONYMS............................................................................................................. i GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................ iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE STUDY .......................................................... 1 1.2 COLD WAR COMMANDS........................................................................................ 3 2.0 COLD WAR HISTORIC CONTEXT ............................................................................... 5 3.0 METHODOLOGY AND TECHNIQUES ......................................................................... 3.1 INVENTORY METHODOLOGY .............................................................................. 3.2 METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATION OF IMPORTANT RESOURCES ............... 3.2.1 Documentation ................................................................................................... 3.2.2 Evaluation of Importance.................................................................................... 3.2.2.1 Cold War Context ...................................................................................... 3.2.2.2 NRHP Criteria............................................................................................ 3.2.2.3 Exceptional Importance.............................................................................. 3.2.3 Evaluation of Integrity ........................................................................................ 3.2.4 Priority Matrix .................................................................................................... 3.2.5 Resource Organization........................................................................................ 3.3 FIELDWORK TECHNIQUES .................................................................................... 3.4 METHODOLOGY PROBLEMS................................................................................. 4.0 INVENTORIED BASES .................................................................................................. 4.1 BASE SUMMARIES .................................................................................................. 4.1.1 Barksdale AFB ................................................................................................... 4.1.2 Beale AFB.......................................................................................................... 4.1.3 Cannon AFB....................................................................................................... 4.1.4 Castle AFB ......................................................................................................... 4.1.5 Davis-Monthan AFB........................................................................................... 4.1.6 Dyess AFB ......................................................................................................... 4.1.7 Ellsworth AFB.................................................................................................... 4.1.8 Fairchild AFB..................................................................................................... 4.1.9 Griffiss AFB ....................................................................................................... 4.1.10 Holloman AFB ................................................................................................. 4.1.11 Homestead AFB ............................................................................................... 4.1.12 Howard AFB .................................................................................................... 4.1.13 K.I. Sawyer AFB .............................................................................................. 4.1.14 Langley AFB .................................................................................................... 9 9 10 10 11 11 11 12 13 13 14 15 16 19 19 19 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 34 35
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 4.1.15 Little Rock AFB .............................................................................................. 4.1.16 Loring AFB ...................................................................................................... 4.1.17 MacDill AFB .................................................................................................... 4.1.18 McConnell AFB ............................................................................................... 4.1.19 Minot AFB ....................................................................................................... 4.1.20 Moody AFB...................................................................................................... 4.1.21 Mountain Home AFB ....................................................................................... 4.1.22 Nellis AFB........................................................................................................ 4.1.23 Offutt AFB ....................................................................................................... 4.1.24 Pope AFB ......................................................................................................... 4.1.25 Seymour Johnson AFB ..................................................................................... 4.1.26 Shaw AFB ........................................................................................................ 4.1.27 Whiteman AFB................................................................................................. 4.2 BASE LAND USE AND LAYOUT ............................................................................ 5.0 EVALUATED RESOURCES ........................................................................................... 5.1 OPERATIONAL AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS............................................... 5.1.1 Base and Command Centers ............................................................................... 5.1.2 Communications................................................................................................. 5.1.3 Housing .............................................................................................................. 5.1.4 Memorial ............................................................................................................ 5.1.5 Documentation ................................................................................................... 5.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS .................................................. 5.2.1 Alert Facilities .................................................................................................... 5.2.2 Communications................................................................................................. 5.2.3 Ground Vehicles and Equipment......................................................................... 5.2.4 Maintenance Docks/Hangars............................................................................... 5.2.5 Missiles .............................................................................................................. 5.2.6 Storage ............................................................................................................... 5.2.7 Documentation ................................................................................................... 5.3 TRAINING FACILITIES............................................................................................ 5.3.1 Flight Training.................................................................................................... 5.3.2 Combat Training................................................................................................. 5.3.3 Combat Support Training.................................................................................... 5.3.4 Missile Training.................................................................................................. 5.4 MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES ............................................................. 5.4.1 Research Laboratories......................................................................................... 5.4.2 Test Sites ............................................................................................................ 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 46 47 48 51 53 53 53 53 54 54 55 55 56 56 56 56 57 57 58 58 58 58 58 59 59 60
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 5.5 INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES................................................................................... 5.5.1 Communications................................................................................................. 5.5.2 Radar Sites ......................................................................................................... 5.5.3 Spy Satellites ...................................................................................................... 5.5.4 Weather Reconnaissance..................................................................................... 6.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 6.1 NRHP ELIGIBILITY.................................................................................................. 6.1.1 Evaluation and Determination of NRHP Eligibility............................................. 6.1.2 Implications of NRHP Eligibility........................................................................ 6.2 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS....................................... 6.2.1 Real Property Resources ..................................................................................... 6.2.1.1 Ineligible Resources................................................................................... 6.2.1.2 Future Eligible Resources........................................................................... 6.2.1.3 Potentially Eligible Resources.................................................................... 6.2.1.4 Eligible Resources...................................................................................... 6.2.1.5 NRHP Listed Resources............................................................................. 6.2.1.6 Object Resources ....................................................................................... 6.2.2 Literary Resources .............................................................................................. 6.3 APPLICATION OF PRIORITY MATRIX.................................................................. 7.0 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................... 7.1 WHY PRESERVATION? ........................................................................................... 7.2 THE PUBLIC AND COLD WAR RESOURCES........................................................ 7.3 NOMINATION OF RESOURCES TO THE NRHP.................................................... 7.3.1 Individual Resource Nominations ....................................................................... 7.3.2 Historic District Nominations ............................................................................. 7.3.3 Multiple Property Nominations........................................................................... 7.4 ASSOCIATED RESOURCES..................................................................................... 7.5 PRESERVATION RANKING SYSTEM .................................................................... 60 60 60 60 61 63 63 63 65 66 66 67 68 70 70 70 71 75 81 91 91 92 93 93 93 94 95 96
8.0 FINAL PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................... 99 8.1 MULTIPLE PROPERTY LISTING ............................................................................ 99 8.2 ELIGIBLE AND POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE RESOURCES .................................... 99 8.2.1 Historic Districts................................................................................................ 100 8.2.1.1 Historic District at Ellsworth AFB............................................................. 100 8.2.1.2 Historic District at Holloman AFB ............................................................ 101 8.2.1.3 Historic District at Minot AFB .................................................................. 102 8.2.1.4 Historic District at K.I. Sawyer AFB ......................................................... 104 8.2.1.5 Historic District at Loring AFB ................................................................. 104
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 8.2.1.6 Historic District at Offutt AFB .................................................................. 106 8.2.1.7 Historic District at Nellis AFB .................................................................. 107 8.2.2 Individual Nominations...................................................................................... 108 8.3 FUTURE ELIGIBLE RESOURCES .......................................................................... 108 8.4 INELIGIBLE RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 109 8.5 OBJECT RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 109 8.6 LITERARY RESOURCES......................................................................................... 109 9.0 REFERENCES CITED .................................................................................................... 111 APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: LIST OF INDIVIDUAL BASE REPORTS SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON ARCHIVE CURATION
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Figure 4.1 Figure 6.1 Figure 6.2
Location of Cold War Study Bases.................................................................... 2 Changes in Base Command Throughout the Cold War Era ............................... 20 Range of Priority Matrix Scores for All Evaluated Resources ........................... 90 Range of Priority Matrix Scores for Literary Resources and Real Property Resources ........................................................................................... 90 Location of Recommended Historic Districts ................................................... 101
Figure 8.1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 Table 5.1
Major Missions During the Cold War Era ......................................................... 21 Categorization of Evaluated Resources by Property Group, Subgroup, and Type ................................................................................................................. 51 Preliminary Recommendations for Ineligible Resources.................................... 68
Table 6.1
xi
LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Page Table 6.2 Preliminary Recommendations for Future Eligible Resources................................. 69 Table 6.3 Preliminary Recommendations for Potentially Eligible Resources .......................... 71 Table 6.4 Preliminary Recommendations for Eligible Resources............................................ 72 Table 6.5 Resources Already Listed on the NRHP.................................................................. 75 Table 6.6 Preliminary Recommendations for Object Resources.............................................. 76 Table 6.7 Preliminary Recommendations for Literary Resources............................................ 77 Table 6.8 Priority Matrix Scores for the Evaluated Resources in Order of Priority.................. 82 Table 7.1 Preservation Ranking of Eligible and Potentially Eligible Resources ...................... 97
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Photograph 4.1 Photograph 4.2 Photograph 4.3
Segregated Storage Igloo in the WSA of Barksdale AFB, Louisiana ........... 22 High Speed Test Track at Holloman AFB, New Mexico ............................. 32 Tactical Air Command Headquarters Building at Langley AFB, Virginia ............................................................................................. 37 Missile Launch Control Facility Oscar-1 at Whiteman AFB, Missouri ............................................................................................ 49 Strategic Air Command Commander's Housing at Offutt AFB, Nebraska............................................................................................ 54 Fighter Alert Facility at Langley AFB, Virginia .......................................... 55 Large Aircraft Maintenance Dock at Loring AFB, Maine............................ 57 Missile Launch Facility Trainer at Whiteman AFB, Missouri...................... 59 PAVE PAWS Facility at Beale AFB, California.......................................... 61
Photograph 4.4
Photograph 5.1
Photograph 5.2 Photograph 5.3 Photograph 5.4 Photograph 5.5
xii
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS (Continued) Page Photograph 8.1 Photograph 8.2 Launch Ramps at Holloman AFB, New Mexico......................................... 102 Remains of the Control Room of SAGE Facility at Minot AFB, North Dakota.................................................................................... 103 Fighter Alert Facility and Apron at K.I. Sawyer AFB, Michigan.................................................................................................... 105 Bomber Alert Facility at Loring AFB, Maine ............................................. 106 Strategic Air Command Memorial Chapel at Offutt AFB, Nebraska.................................................................................................... 107
Photograph 8.3
Photograph 8.4 Photograph 8.5
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE STUDY
Air Combat Command (ACC) contracted Mariah Associates, Inc. (Mariah) through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District (ACE, FW) to locate, evaluate, interpret, and prioritize important Cold War material culture at 27 selected ACC bases within the United States and Panama (Figure 1.1). The project was primarily funded by the Department of Defense (DoD), with some additional funding from the Legacy Program. The contract was managed by the ACE, FW. As a basis for the project, Mariah developed a historic context for evaluation of ACC resources and a conceptual methodology to guide determinations of the historical significance of these resources (Lewis et al. 1995). The material culture at the ACC installations was evaluated within the context of the Cold War through the use of a consistent methodology applied on a nationwide basis.
The overall goal of the Cold War study is to comply with Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966. Section 110 requires federal agencies to inventory cultural resources under their control and to evaluate those that are significant or potentially eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). This study will provide the tools for ACC to determine which resources are eligible for the NRHP and to select resources for nomination to the NRHP.
The study included the evaluation of real property, personal property, and records and documents which are important within the context of the Cold War at each base. The four themes under which the resources were evaluated included national policy and military strategy, technology, military architecture and engineering, and United States society and culture. Classified resources were included in the study. However, none of these resources were determined to be important, and none were evaluated. Therefore, these materials are not discussed in this document.
The study evaluated and provided preliminary recommendations for any resources that embodied exceptional importance due to their relationship to the Cold War, thus allowing resources that were less than fifty years of age to be considered as eligible for nomination to the NRHP. A material culture inventory report, detailing the evaluation of real property, personal property, and records and documents, and providing preliminary recommendations, was completed for each base. The Command Cultural Resources Manager for ACC, in consultation with the relevant State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the base commander, and United States Air Force (USAF) Headquarters, will make final determinations of NRHP eligibility for the evaluated Cold War resources at each base.
This report summarizes the individual base findings of the Cold War material culture study and provides programmatic recommendations. This document describes the study's historic context and project methodology, summarizes individual base descriptions and histories, compares base layout and land use patterns, describes resources selected for evaluation, and presents preliminary recommendations for the evaluated resources at each base. The priority ranking system applied during the study is discussed, along with the results. Finally, a programmatic approach to management and treatment of these evaluated resources is provided.
1.2 COLD WAR COMMANDS
The end of the Cold War, and the lessons learned during the Gulf War of 1990 to 1991, resulted in the reorganization of the DoD. ACC was formed June 1, 1992 to incorporate the assets of the Strategic Air Command (SAC), the Tactical Air Command (TAC), and the Military Airlift Command (MAC). ACC also inherited the resources of the Air Defense Command (ADC) whose assets had been divided between TAC and SAC when it was deactivated in 1980. During the Cold War, SAC controlled strategic nuclear weapons in the form of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and long-range nuclear bombers, and had the responsibility of strategic reconnaissance. TAC promoted the goals of U.S. policy with the maintenance of tactical air power and, after 1980, also had the responsibility of air defense. MAC provided global rapid
transport of personnel and equipment. ADC was responsible for the defense of U.S. airspace and, until its 1980 deactivation, maintained a fighter interceptor force and early warning and response systems. Each of these commands played a different roll in the various U.S. Cold War strategies.
2.0 COLD WAR HISTORIC CONTEXT
Prior to initiation of the base inventories, Mariah developed a historic context for the Cold War. The context set the framework for evaluating ACC resources and defining significance. Evaluation of a resource within that resource's historic context ensures an understanding of its role and helps in making comparisons among similar resources.
The historic context prepared for the study presents four broad topics: the Cold War and its effect on American society and culture, U.S. policy and military strategy during the Cold War, the development of the Air Force during the Cold War, and ACC material culture resulting from Cold War policies and strategies.
The American society and culture chapter is designed to aid in the evaluation of resources that reflect American attitudes as they related to the Cold War. The fears and anxieties about nuclear war that pervaded every aspect of the Cold War era culture, including television, books, and other popular culture mediums, are related.
The U.S. policy and military strategy chapter discusses the significant historic developments of the Cold War and illustrates the cause-and-effect relationship between events and development of policies and strategies. Major policy trends during the Cold War era are divided into four temporal phases which are subsequently used to aid in the evaluation of material culture on each base. The four phases are as follows:
Phase I - July 1945 to January 1953
Phase I begins with the testing of the first atomic device at the Trinity Site, which led to the surrender of Japan and the end of World War II. This event spurred a period of intense technological experimentation. Spanning the Truman administration, this phase
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
Phase II 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, both superpowers leaned toward a more amiable co-existence and a condition of detente was born.
Phase III - November 1963 to January 1981
Phase III spans the Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations. The 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
Phase IV begins with the presidency of Ronald Reagan and ends with the destruction 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 nuclear arms reduction talks. Detente was replaced with deterrence through intimidation, with a focus on the threat of the Strategic Defense Initiative.
The historic context chapter dealing with development of the Air Force during the Cold War discusses the major commands of the Air Force, related agencies, and the development and primary roles of these commands and agencies. The chapter also illustrates the interrelationships among commands and between commands and agencies.
The ACC material culture chapter concentrates on the technical systems and associated structures that were developed at ACC bases in order to meet the specific needs of Cold War missions. Examples of this are the numerous specially constructed bomber alert facilities and missile launch control facilities, both of which played important roles in the deterrence mission. The amount of material culture produced during the Cold War is phenomenal. For example, entire bases were constructed in order to support fighter interceptors. Huge missile fields of ICBM silos and launch control facilities were constructed in remote locations. Runways were lengthened, redesigned, and reconstructed with concrete in order to support heavier and faster jet aircraft. In short, the Air Force infrastructure underwent drastic remodeling to accommodate the needs of the Cold War.
3.0 METHODOLOGY AND TECHNIQUES
The methodology for the reconnaissance inventory study was developed to help ACC meet its requirements under Section 110 of the NHPA, namely, to ensure that resources that are potentially eligible for inclusion in the NRHP are identified and evaluated. To this end, the reconnaissance inventory of each of the 27 bases consisted of two major tasks: an overall inventory of resources and an evaluation of important resources.
Prior to conducting the base visits, the base was notified of the visit and requested to provide escorts for the field teams. They were also asked to provide documentary materials on real property at the base and on base history.
3.1 INVENTORY METHODOLOGY
During site visits, the first major task was an general inventory of base material culture resources which typify or describe the base and the base's mission as it relates to the Cold War era. The purpose of this inventory was to record the range of Cold War 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 black-and-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. For this study, objects was added as a fifth type of real property resource to accommodate Air Force owned items that do not fall under the other types. 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
10
property. Specifically, these may include photographs, videotapes, manuscripts, books, reports, newspapers, maps, oral histories, or architectural drawings (DoD 1993:13).
This organizational scheme was used in defining the resources and is used throughout the remainder of this document to help understand the evaluated resources and for management purposes.
3.2 METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATION OF IMPORTANT RESOURCES
For the second major task of the reconnaissance inventory, certain inventoried resources were selected for further 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 the study (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 focused on determining the integrity of the selected resources and the importance of these resources, both within the context of the Cold War and with regard to NRHP criteria. These three values are necessary to establish the significance of a resource and to examine its potential eligibility to the NRHP.
3.2.1 Documentation
The evaluated resources were documented using a Mariah Property Management Form designed specifically for the ACC Cold War study (Lewis and Higgins 1994). The form was completed for each evaluated resource and details 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.
11
importance of resources within the Cold War era is hindered by two issues: 1) a lack of historical perspective due to the recent origin of the resources and 2) an absence of data for comparative evaluation due to uncompleted 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 (DoD 1993), the National Park Service (NPS) Interagency Resources Division (NPS 1990; 1991a, 1991b), and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) (ACHP 1991).
In this study, resources were considered for their importance to American history, architecture, engineering, or culture. To be considered important within the historic context of the Cold War, resources needed to possess value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the Cold War heritage of the United States. A resource needed to be associated with critical aspects of policy and strategy, technology, architectural and engineering design, or social impacts or persons of the Cold War, and correspond to one of the four temporal phases established in the historic context. The importance of each evaluated resource was addressed within one or more of these aspects.
The historic importance of the evaluated resources was also addressed in relation to four NRHP criteria. The criteria are very similar to the four aspects of the Cold War listed above. These NRHP criteria, adapted by the USAF Interim Guidance (USAF 1993) to meet the needs of Cold War studies, are as follows:
12
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 United States Cold War history and aid in understanding that pattern; b) portray a direct and important association with the lives of persons nationally significant in United States Cold War history; c) embody the characteristics of an architectural, engineering, technological, or scientific type specimen valuable for understanding a component of United States Cold War history or representing some great idea or ideal of United States citizenry embodying the Cold War; or d) have yielded or be likely to yield information of importance to United States Cold War history. 3.2.2.3 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 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 sufficient duration to allow an adequate perspective for evaluating the true historic 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 more recent significant properties is allowed if they are of exceptional importance.
A number of tools are useful in determining exceptional importance. For this study, the historic context of the Cold War was developed to aid in 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 Air Force and its properties. Evaluation of a resource within this historic context ensures an understanding of its role and
13
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). All Cold War resources determined eligible for the NRHP must meet the exceptional importance requirement because the Cold War by definition of this project began in 1945.
Integrity of a resource is defined as retaining enough physical presence to enable that resource to communicate its importance. Authenticity of a resource's historical identity, evidenced by the survival of physical 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 1991a: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 that makes 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 which 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.
As part of the documentation and evaluation process, a priority matrix was completed for each evaluated resource. This matrix calculates the level of urgency for further attention for a
resource. The higher the priority matrix score, the higher the priority for management attention
14
to that resource.
These judgements regarding resource priority should be viewed as a
management tool rather than as a strict ranking of historic 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 each evaluated resource was ranked, with possible scores for each topic ranging from 1 to 4. The first topic is the strength of the relationship between the resource and the role the base played in the Cold War. A resource that has a direct relationship to the Cold War received a higher score than a resource with a weak relationship. The second topic indicates the association of the resource to the four aspects of the Cold War: policy and strategy, technology, architectural and engineering design, and social impact. Resources related to policy and strategy received a "4," while a resource pertaining to "social impact" received a "1." The third ranking places the resource within the four temporal phases. A resource relating to the earlier phases of the Cold War scored higher than a more recent resource. The fourth topic measures the level of contextual importance of the resource. The greater the importance of the resource within the Cold War context, the higher the score. The fifth indicates the percentage of remaining historic fabric, or integrity, of the resource. Those resources with high integrity received a score of "4," while resources with very low integrity received a score of "1." Finally, the sixth topic ranks the severity of existing threats to the integrity of the resource. A threatened resource scored higher than a resource that was maintained and not threatened.
The USAF Interim Guidance (USAF 1993) refers to resources as property types and suggests five property type groups that characterize extant Cold War resources. These groups are: 1) operational and support installations, 2) combat weapons and support systems, 3) training facilities, 4) materiel development facilities, and
15
5) intelligence facilities. Each of these groups has a number of subgroups which further categorize particular types of resources. These groupings are based on functional descriptions and are another way of
organizing the resources. The grouping scheme was adapted by Mariah for use in this study. It was applied to the evaluated resources for use in management and is used throughout this document to organize the evaluated resources.
3.3 FIELDWORK TECHNIQUES
Fieldwork consisted of reconnaissance visits to each of the 27 bases. This was accomplished by three field teams, each comprised of a historian and an archaeologist. The two major tasks were included in the fieldwork: a photographic inventory of property types regardless of their
importance within the Cold War context, and documentation and evaluation of important Cold War resources.
Upon arrival at a base, the field team met with key personnel such as the base or wing historian, cultural resource specialists, and real property officers. A tour of the base was arranged during which the team identified important Cold War era resources for further evaluation. Real
property files and relevant publications and documents on base history and missions were reviewed, and a number of informal interviews were conducted with base personnel.
A major task at each base was a photographic inventory of real property resources which typify the base and the base's mission as it relates to the Cold War era. The purpose of the inventory was to record the range of Cold War 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 black-and-white 35 mm photographs.
After completion of the photographic inventory, the field team reviewed and selected specific Cold War resources for further documentation and evaluation. Tours of these resources were
16
arranged when possible, though in many instances access was not possible.
Resource
evaluations were recorded on the Mariah Property Management Form using a computer database.
The database was designed to document several aspects of the resources including construction date, primary use, building material, history of use, level of integrity, and a statement of significance. The database also provided the scoring for the priority matrix system described above (Section 3.2.4).
3.4 METHODOLOGY PROBLEMS
Several difficulties were encountered during the course of developing the methodology for the project. One of these was the lack of previously conducted inventories, resulting in uncertainty among the field teams as to the types of resources that would be encountered during the study. Certain examples of Cold War era resources that had been evaluated and nominated as National Historic Landmarks (NHL), such as the Titan II missile complex at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base (AFB), were known to exist. However, the vast majority of resources that would be encountered during the inventory were as yet unrecorded.
After the two initial base visits had been completed, it became apparent that most base buildings were not of major importance within the Cold War context. While virtually all buildings on active AFBs had some type of Cold War era role, most clearly did not embody the base's mission during the Cold War era. For example, a corrosion control hangar may have played an important role in keeping aircraft in operational service, but it cannot be seen as an icon of the Cold War. On the other hand, fighter alert facilities often retain many features that exemplify their previous function as Cold War air defense facilities. With a minimal amount of interpretation, an
individual can envision fighter aircraft and their crews scrambling on an intercept mission. In this case, the direct relation to the base's Cold War era mission is undeniable.
17
As a result of these observations on early base visits, field teams began to scrutinize buildings more rigidly. In order to be evaluated, a building had to possess features or characteristics that set it apart as playing a direct and significant role in Cold War operations and strategy as defined by the base's mission.
Another concern was inconsistencies in selecting and evaluating resources. This was due to the use of two-person field teams, composed of various combinations of six team members. Each
member and each team had a unique outlook on the resources they encountered and evaluated.
The development of consistency was addressed in a variety of ways, including the assignment of a document coordinator, team meetings, and final evaluation coordination once all 27 bases had been inventoried. The document coordinator reviewed and edited all 27 individual base reports. This coordinator added a single and consistent element to all base reports and ensured that individual teams were selecting and evaluating resources using the same criteria. Meetings were held periodically among all field team members, the document coordinator, and the project manager to discuss the resources evaluated and any problems that arose during field work. Finally, after all base inventories were complete, a panel that included the document coordinator and at least one member from each field team reviewed all evaluated resources and identified minor changes to further ensure consistency.
18
19
4.0 INVENTORIED BASES
4.1 BASE SUMMARIES
Twenty-seven bases were inventoried as part of this project. The following brief descriptions summarize each base's location, mission, and history. Figure 4.1 illustrates the changes in command of each base throughout the Cold War era, and Table 4.1 shows the major missions held by each base during this time.
4.1.1 Barksdale AFB
Barksdale AFB is located in northwestern Louisiana, adjacent to Bossier City and 2 mi (3.2 km) northeast of Shreveport. The installation supports the Eighth Air Force headquarters and the 2nd Bomb Wing (BW), currently deploying B-52H bombers.
The base was originally established as Barksdale Army Airfield (AAF) in 1930, and the 3rd Attack Wing began arriving for training in 1935. During World War II, the base served as an operational and flight training center. Training for B-26 combat crews continued through 1945, and pilot instruction continued under Air Training Command (ATC) until 1948.
Barksdale AAF was renamed Barksdale AFB in 1948, and the 47th Bombardment Group (BMG) was assigned to the installation. In 1950, SAC took over command of the base, and the 47th BMG converted to the B-45 bomber, making Barksdale AFB the first installation in the Air Force to house a jet bomber unit. Bossier Base, located inside Barksdale AFB, was a nuclear weapons stockpile established by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in 1951, and later became the weapons storage area (WSA) under the responsibility of Barksdale AFB (Photograph 4.1). The Second Air Force, in charge of SAC operational units, was assigned to Barksdale AFB between 1950 and 1975. B-47 bombers were located at the base in 1954 but were replaced by B52 bombers and a refueling tanker force in 1958.
23
Camp Beale was established in 1942 for U.S. Army operations and, during World War II, served as a training base for U.S. Army armored divisions, a hospital, and a German prisoner-of-war (POW) camp. After the war, the camp functioned as a separation center for returning troops.
In 1947, the installation was acquired by the Air Force, renamed Beale Air Force Range (AFR), and used for bomber training for units stationed at nearby Mather AFB. In 1951, Beale AFR was renamed Beale AFB, and in 1956, the installation was assigned to SAC and designated a dispersal location for bombers and tankers. KC-135 tankers and B-52 bombers began
operational service at Beale AFB in 1959. Beale AFB used radar systems to detect incoming aircraft and operated a Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) facility responsible for the San Francisco Defense Sector. The SAGE system controlled interceptors in flight through a
complex computer and communications system. Between 1962 and 1965, Beale AFB also maintained nine Titan I missile launch facilities (LFs) located at three sites around the base.
The SR-71 strategic reconnaissance plane was assigned to Beale AFB in 1964. This unique plane flew high altitude, worldwide reconnaissance missions from Beale AFB until 1990, when it was retired due to budgetary constraints. The U-2R, another strategic reconnaissance aircraft, was assigned to Beale AFB in 1976 and continues as the only type of aircraft operational at the base. A Precision Acquisition Vehicle Entry Phased Array Warning System (PAVE PAWS) became operational at the base in 1979. This building, along with three others now operated by the U.S. Space Command (USSPACECOM), is responsible for detecting submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) fired at the United States.
Several important Cold War missions were carried out at Beale AFB, including SAC bomber and tanker alert, U-2R and SR-71 reconnaissance, SAGE sector responsibilities, and PAVE PAWS missile detection.
24
4.1.3 Cannon AFB
Cannon AFB is located in extreme eastern New Mexico, approximately 0.6 mi (0.96 km) west of Clovis, New Mexico, and supports the operation of the 27th Fighter Wing (FW). The wing currently flies F-111 fighter bomber and EF-111A electronic countermeasures (ECM) aircraft.
The history of this installation extends to the 1920s when it was established as Portair Field, a commercial and private landing field. In the 1930s, the airfield was renamed the Clovis
Municipal Airport and in 1942, it became Clovis AAF. SAC became the host of the field in 1946 and briefly used the installation for bomber operations.
In 1947, the name of the airfield was changed to Clovis AFB, and then the base was deactivated. In 1950, Clovis AFB was chosen as one of many bases to undergo expansion due to recommendations of the National Security Council (NSC) document NSC-68 and the initiation of the Korean War, and the base reactivated as an ATC installation. A year later, TAC became the base host. A number of fighter and fighter-bomber aircraft units were stationed at the installation between 1950 and 1956. The base was designated a permanent installation in 1957 and renamed after General John Cannon, former Twelfth Air Force and TAC commander. F-100 fighters were stationed at Cannon AFB in 1957, and the 27th FW was assigned to the base in 1958. Since 1969, the F-111 fighter-bomber and the EF-111A ECM aircraft have been assigned to Cannon AFB.
The primary Cold War mission at Cannon AFB was fighter and fighter-bomber training. Cannon AFB is the primary USAF installation to fly the F-111 and EF-111A aircraft.
25
4.1.4 Castle AFB
Castle AFB is located in north central California approximately 8 mi (13 km) north of Merced. The base is scheduled for closure in 1995. The 93rd BW is currently the base host and operated B-52G bombers and KC-135A/R tankers.
Merced Army Flying School was established in 1941 as a basic pilot training school for World War II recruits using BT-113A light trainers. The school was renamed Merced AAF in 1943, and pilot training continued until 1945. The facility was renamed Castle AAF in 1946 to honor a B-17 pilot killed in action.
In 1946, SAC assumed control of the field and activated the 93rd BMG with B-29 bombers, which was then replaced by the 93rd Bombardment Wing (BMW). SAC designated the
installation Castle AFB in 1948, and in 1949, the 93rd BMW was equipped with B-50 bombers. The 93d BMW flew B-47 jet bombers between 1954 and 1955 as it awaited delivery of B-52s. The first operational B-52 bombers in the Air Force were assigned to Castle AFB in 1955 to perform the role of combat readiness and aircrew training. Also in 1955, the 456th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS) under ADC was assigned to Castle AFB. They originally operated F86 aircraft and later converted to F-102 and F-106 aircraft. In 1956, KC-135 tankers were assigned to the base and began both crew training and operational missions. The 456th FIS was replaced by TAC's 84th FIS in 1973, which in turn was replaced by the 318th FIS in 1981.
The primary Cold War mission at Castle AFB was training for SAC bombers and tankers. Castle AFB also served as an ADC fighter-interceptor base between 1956 and 1968. The alert mission continued under TAC from 1973-1989.
26
4.1.5 Davis-Monthan AFB
Davis-Monthan AFB is located in southern Arizona, adjacent to the city of Tucson.
The
installation currently supports the 355th Wing, which maintains EC-130 ECM aircraft and A/OA-10 attack aircraft for close air support and forward air control support. Davis-Monthan AFB is also home to the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center (AMARC), where retired aircraft are scrapped, stored, or reconditioned.
Davis-Monthan AAF was established in 1927 as a refueling and maintenance stopover for army aircraft. During World War II, the field's role increased to support a mission of training B-17, B24, and B-29 aircrews. After the war, the field served as a storage center for B-29 and C-47 aircraft, which marked the beginning of the AMARC.
In 1946, SAC and B-29 bombers were both assigned to Davis-Monthan AAF. The field was renamed Davis-Monthan AFB in 1948, and B-50 bombers and KB-29 tankers began flying the same year. The 43rd and 303rd BMWs began converting to B-47s in 1953, which served in the deterrence role until 1964. Also in 1953, the 15th FIS began service at the installation, equipped with F-86 fighters. Davis-Monthan AFB was also home to U-2 strategic reconnaissance aircraft, and fighter crew training continued in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1976, TAC assumed command of the installation.
Eighteen Titan II missiles, located around the Tucson area, were placed on alert in 1963 and continued on alert status until 1984. Since then, all but one launch facility has been razed. The remaining facility is now part of the Pima Air and Space Museum.
Several important Cold War missions were carried out at Davis-Monthan AFB, including SAC bomber alert, ADC fighter interceptor alert, U-2 reconnaissance, and Titan II strategic deterrence. Another important aspect of Davis-Monthan AFB is the AMARC.
27
4.1.6 Dyess AFB
Dyess AFB is located adjacent to the city of Abilene in north-central Texas. It is currently home to the 7th Wing which operates B-1B bombers and C-130E transports.
The installation was established as Tye AAF in 1942 and served as a training base until it was deactivated in 1947. In 1952, in response to the Korean conflict and the military buildup initiated by the recommendations of NSC-68, the installation was appropriated as a USAF base, and in 1953, SAC took command of the base. During this re-establishment period, the base was designated Abilene AFB. In 1956, it was renamed Dyess AFB after Lt. Col. William Dyess, who led the air defense of the Philippines during the opening stages of World War II.
SAC B-47 bombers and KC-97 tankers were stationed at Dyess AFB beginning in 1955. These aircraft were on base until 1962, when the B-52 bombers and KC-135 tankers began to replace them. In 1983, it was announced that Dyess AFB had been chosen to receive the B-1B bomber. The B-52s and the KC-135s were redeployed, and the first B-1B arrived at Dyess in 1985.
Missiles were also stationed at Dyess AFB for a short period of time. Between 1962 and 1965, 12 Atlas F ICBMs were operated by the 578th Strategic Missile Squadron. In 1987, the
Peacekeeper Rail Garrison was proposed for deployment at Dyess AFB. Although advanced planning efforts were completed, the rail garrison did not become operational.
The primary Cold War mission at Dyess AFB was SAC bomber and tanker alert. Dyess AFB also controlled Atlas F missiles for strategic deterrence.
28
4.1.7 Ellsworth AFB
Ellsworth AFB is located approximately 12 mi (19 km) northeast of Rapid City, in western South Dakota. Currently, the 28th BW, flying the B-1B bomber, and the 99th Wing, a development and training unit, operate from the base. The 44th Strategic Missile Wing (SMW), equipped with Minuteman II ICBM's, was deactivated in the fall of 1994.
Rapid City Army Air Base (AAB) was established in 1942 as a training facility for B-17 bomber crews. Later in World War II, the base was used to train weather reconnaissance crews in the operation of P-61, P-51, and other aircraft. After a post-war deactivation, the base was reopened, SAC assumed command in 1946, and the 28th BMW, with B-29 bombers, was assigned to the installation. In 1948, Rapid City AAB was declared a permanent installation. The following year, the 28th BMW converted to the B-36 bomber.
In 1950, Rapid City AAB was renamed Ellsworth AFB. In the same year, Rushmore Air Force Station (AFS) was established on the site of the current WSA. Rushmore AFS was a storage facility for nuclear weapons and associated parts operated by the AEC. In 1956, B-52 bombers began replacing the B-36s. KC-135 tankers were assigned to Ellsworth AFB in 1959 to support the deterrence mission of the 28th BMW. Titan I missiles were stationed in the vicinity of Ellsworth AFB in 1962. Their alert duty was short-lived, as they were replaced the same year with 150 Minuteman I ICBM's. The Minuteman I's were replaced by Minuteman II's in 1971. In 1992, deactivation of the missile sites began.
Several important Cold War missions were carried out at Ellsworth AFB, including SAC bomber and tanker alert and strategic deterrence with Titan I, Minuteman I, and Minuteman II missile systems. Ellsworth AFB also houses the WSA that was originally an AEC nuclear storage area.
29
4.1.8 Fairchild AFB
Fairchild AFB is located approximately 12 mi (19 km) west of Spokane in eastern Washington. The current host of the base is the 92nd Air Refueling Wing (ARW) under Air Mobility Command (AMC). B-52H bombers and KC-135R tankers were operated under the 92nd BW until ACC relinquished command of the base on July 1, 1994. The USAF Survival Training School began operations at Fairchild AFB in 1971 and the school continues to provide training for POW situations and other survival skills.
Fairchild AFB was established as Spokane Army Air Depot in 1942 as a repair center for aircraft, primarily the B-17 bomber. The depot was deactivated after World War II but was reactivated in 1946. SAC assumed command of the installation in 1947 and assigned two B-29 bomber wings to the base.
In 1951, the base was renamed Fairchild AFB and the first B-36 bombers were assigned. B-52 bombers became operational at the installation in 1956 and 1957, and the first KC-135 tankers began service in 1957. Nine Atlas missile complexes, surrounding Fairchild AFB, were
activated in 1960. The missiles were deactivated in 1965 after being replaced by more advanced ICBMs deployed at other installations.
The Deep Creek AFS, a storage facility for nuclear weapons and associated parts, was established in 1952 and operated by the AEC. The Deep Creek AFS merged with Fairchild AFB in 1962 and is now the WSA at Fairchild AFB.
Several important Cold War missions were carried out at Fairchild AFB, including SAC bomber and tanker alert and strategic deterrence using Atlas missiles. Fairchild AFB also housed an AEC nuclear operations and storage area.
30
4.1.9 Griffiss AFB
Griffiss AFB is located in central New York approximately 2 mi (3.2 km) east of Rome. The installation currently supports the 416th BW operation of B-52G bombers and KC-135R tankers. There are several notable tenant units at the installation, including Rome Laboratory, the Northeast Air Defense Sector/Sector Operations Control Center (NEADS/SOCC), and the 485th Engineering Installations Group (EIG).
The base was established in 1941 as Rome Air Depot. During World War II, the installation served as a storage, shipping, and maintenance center. In 1946, AMC assumed command of the installation and in 1948, the installation was officially designated Griffiss AFB after Lt. Colonel Townsend Griffiss, the first American killed in the World War II European theater. The same year, Griffiss AFB was assigned the role of research, development, and testing of electronic equipment.
The Rome Air Development Center (RADC) was opened on Griffiss AFB in 1951 with the mission of developing and testing electronic air-ground systems including detection, control, communications, and data transmission systems. All of these systems were intended for use in the nuclear deterrence and early warning missions. At this time, Air Research and Development Command (ARDC) became the base host. RADC developed several early warning systems throughout the Cold War era, including the Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line, Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS), and the SAGE system. In 1954, AMC once again took control of the base.
Griffiss AFB supported an interceptor mission beginning in 1955 with the arrival of the 465th FIS. The 49th FIS replaced the 465th in 1959 and continued in service until 1987. The interceptor squadrons were responsible for the defense of the northeastern United States and Nova Scotia. In 1961, AMC was renamed Air Force Logistics Command (AFLC). SAC began its tenure at Griffiss AFB in 1959 with the assignment of the 4039th Strategic Wing (SW). The
31
SW operated B-52 bombers and KC-135 tankers. The 416th BMW assumed the bomber and tanker alert mission in 1963. In 1970, SAC assumed command of the base.
The NEADS was established at Griffiss AFB in 1987. As part of the air defense network, the installation monitors all aircraft entering U.S. airspace and challenges unidentified aircraft. Griffiss AFB is scheduled to close in 1995, although Rome Lab will continue to operate as a stand alone facility.
Several important Cold War missions were carried out at Griffiss AFB, including SAC bomber and tanker alert, ADC fighter interceptor alert, and the RADC.
4.1.10 Holloman AFB
Holloman AFB is located approximately 7 mi (11 km) southwest of Alamogordo in south-central New Mexico. The installation currently supports the operation and maintenance of the F-117A Stealth fighter by the 49th FW. The 4th Space Warning Squadron is a tenant on the base and provides missile warning and launch detection to the National Command Authority.
Alamogordo AAF was established in 1942. It was originally intended to be a British Overseas Training Program base, but plans for this mission never materialized. The base was used, however, for training of B-17 and B-29 aircrews during World War II.
After the war, SAC assumed control of the base for one year until AMC took over in 1947. The installation became the USAF guided missile range for the testing of pilotless aircraft, guided missiles, and associated equipment (Photograph 4.2). Holloman AFB in 1948. The installation was renamed
33
4.1.11 Homestead AFB
Homestead AFB is located in extreme south Florida. In 1992, the installation received extensive damage from Hurricane Andrew, causing the base operational units to be reassigned and preparations for base closure to be implemented. As preparations were underway, a
determination was made not to close Homestead AFB, but rather to realign the base as an Air Force Reserve (AFRES) station with plans for the Florida ANG and the U.S. Customs Service to be located at the installation.
The Army Air Corps established Homestead AAF in 1942 as a training base for transport aircrews. In 1943, training consisted of instruction of C-54 crews that would fly the World War II Burma-to-China supply route. Training continued until 1945, when a hurricane destroyed the installation and the Army abandoned the airfield. In 1953, the installation was reactivated and renamed Homestead AFB. In 1954, Homestead AFB was assigned to SAC as a bomber dispersal base in response to the Korean War and NSC-68. SAC B-47 bombers and KC-97 tankers were the first aircraft stationed at the base. The B-47s and KC-97s were replaced by B52 bombers and KC-135 tankers in 1960.
Homestead AFB played a crucial role during the Cuban Missile Crisis with a variety of USAF and other military units temporarily deployed to the base. Homestead AFB would have been the point of origin for a United States attack on Cuba if the conflict had escalated. As a result of the missile crisis, it was decided to permanently station tactical fighters at Homestead AFB along with the strategic forces already present. In 1968, TAC assumed command of the base, and in the early 1980s, the installation began training operations for F-4 fighter crews. In 1985, F-16 fighters were assigned as tactical assets and continued in service until the hurricane of 1992.
Several Cold War missions were carried out at Homestead AFB, including the TAC maintenance of tactical fighter crews that began with the Cuban Missile Crisis, and SAC bomber and tanker alert missions.
34
4.1.12 Howard AFB
Howard AFB is located in the Republic of Panama on the western bank of the Panama Canal, approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) southwest of Panama City. The base currently houses the 24th Wing and several tenant units. The 24th Wing's mission is to support United States interests in and around Latin America by providing, employing, and supporting airpower. Two AFRES and ANG units provide airlift capabilities on a rotational basis, and another ANG unit provides fighter support.
Howard AFB was established in 1939 as Bruja Airfield and was renamed Howard Field the same year. The installation served throughout World War II.
In 1947, the installation came under control of the new Air Force and TAC, and was renamed Howard AFB. The base alternated between auxiliary status and being officially inactive until 1961. At this time, all transportation, passenger, and cargo handling were shifted to this base from nearby Albrook AFB, which had been the main U.S. AFB in Panama. The two installations shared many functions. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 prompted the United States to install a tactical force at Howard AFB, which included fighter and airlift capabilities. The base continues to maintain air defense of the Canal Zone.
The primary Cold War mission at Howard AFB was the support of United States interests in Latin America.
4.1.13 K.I. Sawyer AFB
K.I. Sawyer AFB is located in the upper peninsula of Michigan, 21 mi (34 km) south of Marquette and 7 mi (11 km) northeast of the small community of Gwinn. The base is scheduled to close in 1995. The 410th BW maintained a bomber force at the base until the Fall of 1994.
35
K.I. Sawyer AFB was established in 1956 on the site of K.I. Sawyer Municipal Airport. The base was established as an ADC fighter interceptor base and housed a SAGE facility to counter the threat of Soviet long-range bombers. The establishment of this base and others as ADC bases derived from the 1954 Killian Report which suggested that the United States was at risk from Soviet bomber attack. The base was activated in 1956 with 25 F-102 fighter interceptors. B-52 bombers and KC-135 tankers were assigned to the base in 1958, and command of the base was shifted from ADC to SAC in 1964. A portion of the planes were on constant alert to respond to any threat of Soviet attack.
In the early 1970s, FB-111 medium bombers were based at K.I. Sawyer AFB as part of the bomber dispersal program. F-106 fighter interceptors of the 87th FIS were reassigned to TAC from ADC in 1979 and continued in service at K.I. Sawyer AFB until 1985.
Several Cold War missions were carried out at K.I. Sawyer AFB, including ADC fighter interceptor alert, SAC bomber and tanker alert, and the operation of a SAGE facility.
4.1.14 Langley AFB
Langley AFB is located approximately 3 mi (5 km) north of downtown Hampton in southeastern Virginia. The base currently houses ACC Headquarters and the 1st FW which employs the F15C and F-15D fighter aircraft.
Langley AAF was established in 1917 to support the activities of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). The field served as a training school during World War I. Between the two world wars, the airfield housed numerous units including pursuit and bomber squadrons, training and testing units, airship companies, and General Headquarters Air Force. During World War II, Langley AAF had the role of coastal patrol and anti-submarine duty, while continuing a variety of training activities.
36
Following World War II, TAC set up its headquarters at Langley AAF in order to be near Army and Navy commands, which were in the general vicinity of Washington D.C. (Photograph 4.3). In March of 1946, ATC assumed command of the installation, and in May that year, TAC resumed command. The Air Force was established as a separate service in 1947, and the field was renamed Langley AFB in 1948. In the late 1940s and 1950s, a number of units were assigned to the base, including fighters, interceptors, bombers, and reconnaissance aircraft. In the 1960s and early 1970s, transport aircraft, Bomarc air defense missiles, and EC-135 auxiliary command post aircraft were stationed at Langley AFB. In the mid-1970s, F-15 fighters were assigned to the installation.
The primary Cold War missions at Langley AFB were TAC headquarters and the maintenance of TAC operational capabilities.
4.1.15 Little Rock AFB
Little Rock AFB is located in central Arkansas, approximately 15 mi (24 km) southwest of the state capitol of Little Rock. The installation currently supports the 314th Airlift Wing, which operates the C-130E and provides airlift for United States and allied forces worldwide. The wing also operates the Combat Aerial Delivery School, which provides advanced training to C-130 pilots.
The base was established in 1952 as part of the response to the Russian acquisition of an atomic weapon and the Korean War. Activated in 1955 under the command of SAC, the base housed strategic reconnaissance operations utilizing RB-47 aircraft. In 1961, the base became a bomber facility with a shift from RB-47s to B-47 aircraft. The B-47 was phased out in 1964 and was replaced by the B-58 medium bomber until it was retired in 1970. The base was transferred from SAC to TAC in 1970, and C-130s began operation in a tactical airlift role. MAC assumed control of the base in 1974 and took over C-130 operations, which continue today under AMC.
38
Limestone AFB was authorized in 1947 and construction began immediately. Operations began in 1950, although the installation was not completed until 1953. The base is one of the few postwar bases to be built for a Cold War mission rather than converted from an older base.
In 1953, SAC assumed command of the installation, and the 42nd BMW was established and began operation of B-36 bombers. The base's name was changed to Loring AFB in 1954 to honor Major Charles J. Loring for heroics during the Korean War. In 1955, KC-97 tankers were added to the base inventory to bolster the deterrence mission. B-52 bombers replaced the B-36 in 1956, and KC-135 took over refueling duties from the KC-97s in 1957. The 42nd BMW (later designated 42nd Wing and 42nd BW) served in the deterrence role at Loring AFB until the early 1990s. The 27th FIS, operating the F-106, was operational at Loring AFB from 1959 through 1987 as part of the defense of the northeastern United States and Canada.
Several Cold War missions were carried out at Loring AFB, including SAC bomber and tanker alert and ADC fighter interceptor alert. Loring AFB also houses a WSA originally owned by the AEC.
4.1.17 MacDill AFB
MacDill AFB is located on the western coast of Florida in the metropolitan Tampa area. The current base mission is the support of two unified commands by the 6th Air Base Wing (ABW). These two commands are the United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) and the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). USCENTCOM oversees U.S. military
interests in Southwest Asia, the Arabian Peninsula, and Northeast Africa, and USSOCOM is responsible for the defense of the United States and Canada and for global deployment.
MacDill AAF was established for the purpose of defending U.S. interests in the Caribbean and was opened in 1939. During World War II, B-26, B-17, and B-29 aircrews were trained at the
39
airfield. The installation was renamed in 1946 when SAC took over base operations, deployed bombers on alert, and began operation of reconnaissance aircraft.
The base was preparing to close in 1961 when the Cuban Missile Crisis began. As a result of this crisis, SAC maintained its alert bomber force at MacDill AFB and United States Strike Command (USSTRIKCOM) was established at the base as a rapid response force capable of fighting a limited nuclear war. USSTRIKCOM operated F-84 and later F-4 fighters. In 1962, TAC assumed command of MacDill AFB.
During the Vietnam War, MacDill AFB was home to training squadrons for F-4 crews and briefly served as a training base for B-57 tactical bombers between 1968 and 1970. F-16 fighters were assigned to MacDill in 1982 to replace the F-4s. U.S. Readiness Command (USREDCOM) and Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF) were two rapid deployment commands that were tenants at the base during the early 1980s.
Several Cold War missions were carried out at MacDill AFB, including SAC bomber alert, strategic reconnaissance, tactical fighter alert, operation of a number of major command headquarters, and maintenance of limited nuclear war tactical forces.
4.1.18 McConnell AFB
McConnell AFB is located in south-central Kansas near the city of Wichita. The current base mission is the operation of KC-135R tankers by the 22nd ARW of Military Airlift Transport Service (MATS). The 384th Bomb Group (BG), equipped with the B-1B, is stationed at
McConnell AFB as a tenant unit. ACC relinquished command of McConnell AFB on January 1, 1994.
McConnell AFB was established at the Wichita Municipal Airport, the home of several aircraft manufacturers including Boeing and Cessna. AMC was in residence at the airport in 1946. In
40
1950, it was decided to locate an air force base near the Boeing plant at Wichita and train crews for the B-47 bombers, which were rolling off Boeing's assembly lines. The base was named Wichita AFB and was activated under ATC in 1951 with the mission to train B-47 crews. In 1954, the base's name was changed to McConnell AFB.
SAC assumed command in 1958 and began operating 18 Titan II missiles at sites surrounding McConnell AFB in 1962. The missiles were housed in separate complexes and stayed on alert until 1986. The B-47 crew training continued until 1963, when the aircraft was taken out of service, and TAC assumed control of the base. Throughout the 1960s, TAC trained F-105 fighter-bomber crews at McConnell AFB for service in Vietnam. In 1972, SAC again assumed command of McConnell AFB, and during the 1970s, KC-135 tankers were the main aircraft operating from the installation. In 1986, it was announced that B-1B bombers would be operated from McConnell AFB.
Several Cold War missions were carried out at McConnell AFB, including ATC training for bomber crews, SAC bomber and tanker alert, strategic deterrence with Titan II missiles, and TAC training of fighter-bombers.
4.1.19 Minot AFB
Minot AFB is located 13 mi (21 km) north of the city of Minot in north-central North Dakota. The 5th BW currently operates B-52H bombers, and the 91st Missile Group maintains Minuteman III missiles on alert.
The base was activated in 1957 as an ADC installation. The 5th FIS, equipped with F-106 fighters, was activated in 1960 and the SAGE system was operationalized a year later. Minot's SAGE system was deactivated in 1963.
41
SAC was assigned responsibility for Minot AFB in 1962, and the base assumed a strategic mission with the arrival of B-52 bombers; a contingent of KC-135 tankers had been stationed at Minot AFB since 1959. Fighter interceptors continued their mission as a tenant unit until 1988. In 1964, 150 Minuteman missiles became combat ready with launch control facilities (LCFs) and LFs surrounding Minot AFB. The Minuteman missile was a response to the fear of a "missile gap" between the United States and the U.S.S.R. In 1971, Minuteman III's, armed with Multiple Independently-Targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs), replaced the Minuteman I's at the Minot AFB LFs.
Several Cold War missions were carried out at Minot AFB, including ADC fighter interceptor alert, operation of a SAGE facility, SAC bomber and tanker alert, and strategic deterrence with Minuteman I and Minuteman III ICBMs.
4.1.20 Moody AFB
Moody AFB is located approximately 10 mi (16 km) northeast of Valdosta in south-central Georgia. The installation currently supports the 347th FW which is charged with maintaining training in offensive, defensive, and close air support operations for its F-16C/D, A-10A, and C-130E aircraft.
Moody AAF was established in 1941 as a training field for bombers, navigators, and observers. Moody AFB went through three commands in the first four years as a USAF installation: 1947 under TAC, 1948 under Continental Air Command (CONAC), and 1951 under SAC. In
September of 1951, ATC assumed command and the installation served as a pilot training base during the Korean War.
In 1951, the base was officially named Moody AFB and continued as an ATC pilot training base until 1975. During that period, several training aircraft were operated including the F-89, F-94, F-86, T-33, T-37, and T-38. In 1975, the installation was reassigned to TAC. In 1980, the base
42
was assigned a role in the RDJTF. The 347th initially operated F-4E fighters and converted to F16s beginning in 1987.
Several Cold War missions were carried out at Moody AFB, including ATC fighter training, TAC operations, and the maintenance of RDJTF crews.
4.1.21 Mountain Home AFB
Mountain Home AFB is located in southwestern Idaho approximately 50 mi (80 km) south of Boise. The base currently supports the 366th Wing, which operates KC-135R tankers, F-15C/D and F-16C/D fighters, and B-1B bombers.
The installation was activated in 1942 as Mountain Home AAB, and in 1943, was renamed Mountain Home AAF. Throughout World War II, B-24 and other bomber crews were trained at the base, and when the war ended, the base was deactivated.
In 1947, the installation was reactivated and renamed Mountain Home AFB. SAC used the installation briefly in 1948 and 1949 as a reconnaissance base and, when this mission ended, Mountain Home AFB was deactivated. In 1951, the base was reactivated and assigned to MATS. MATS trained crews for operation in the Korean War until 1953. SAC assumed control of the base again in 1953, with the assignment of the 9th BMW. The 9th BMW operated B-29 and KB-29 bomber and tanker aircraft and later B-47 and KC-97 aircraft. In the early 1960s, three Titan I ICBM sites were stationed near Mountain Home AFB under the 9th Strategic Aerospace Wing. These sites were subsequently deactivated in 1965.
TAC assumed control of Mountain Home AFB in 1966. During the 1960s and 1970s, the base hosted tactical reconnaissance and tactical fighter units, which operated RF-4C and F-111 aircraft. In 1981, the EF-111 ECM aircraft was added to the Mountain Home AFB inventory. In the late 1980s, Detachment 1 of the Northwest Air Defense Sector began operating the Over the
43
Horizon Backscatter (OTH-B), a radar facility designed to detect early missile attack. In the 1990s, F-15 and F-16 fighters were assigned to Mountain Home AFB, and the current structure of the composite wing was implemented with the reassignment of the base to ACC.
Several Cold War missions were carried out at Mountain Home AFB, including MATS crew training, SAC bomber and tanker alert, strategic deterrence with a small Titan I force, and maintenance of TAC reconnaissance and fighter units. Mountain Home AFB is the only base to house the OTH-B early warning system.
4.1.22 Nellis AFB
Nellis AFB is located in southeastern Nevada, approximately 8 mi (13 km) northeast of Las Vegas. The current base mission includes training of composite strike forces and weapons training for mission ready crews at the Weapons and Tactics Center. The USAF Demonstration Team, the Thunderbirds, is also stationed on the base. Aircraft currently operated by the 57 FW at Nellis AFB include, A-10A, F-15C/D/F, and F-16C/D.
Las Vegas Airfield was established in 1941 and after a few name changes, the facility was redesignated Las Vegas AAF in 1943. During World War II, many gunnery students and copilots were trained at the airfield. Primary and advanced pilot training were also provided near the end of the war.
In 1948, the installation was renamed Las Vegas AFB and in 1949, ATC took command of the base continuing the advanced pilot and gunnery training. In 1950, the base was renamed Nellis AFB after a Nevada World War II pilot who was killed in action. During the Korean War, the base continued its role as advanced gunnery training center for fighter pilots. The Thunderbirds were assigned to the installation in 1956, and base command was transferred to TAC in 1958. TAC continued the training missions associated with the base and added the mission of maintenance and training of operational F-105 fighters. Aircraft were continually updated to
44
meet the demands of deterrence throughout the Cold War, and the missions of advanced crew training in realistic settings and operational flying were continually adapted at Nellis AFB.
The primary Cold War mission at Nellis AFB was ATC and TAC training of fighter pilots. Nellis AFB is the only ACC installation to house a flying demonstration team.
4.1.23 Offutt AFB
Offutt AFB is located in eastern Nebraska, approximately 7 mi (11 km) south of Omaha. Offutt AFB currently supports the 55th Wing, which conducts worldwide strategic reconnaissance. United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) is a major tenant on the base. USSTRATCOM is a unified command made up mainly of Air Force and United States Navy personnel who oversee the U.S.'s strategic forces. The 2nd Airborne Command and Control Squadron (ACCS) operates the Post Attack Command and Control System (PACCS) at Offutt AFB.
Offutt AFB history dates to 1896 when Fort Crook, an Army installation, was completed on the site. Through the years, the fort served many purposes, including balloon training, and in 1920 the fort was renamed Fort Crook Flying Field. During World War II, the installation was used for a government aircraft manufacturing complex.
The Air Force took command of the field in 1946 with AMC in command. By June of the same year, ADC assumed command. In 1948, SAC assumed command of the installation, and it was renamed Offutt AFB. SAC headquarters was placed at Offutt AFB in 1948. The base houses many SAC facilities that are representative of the Cold War. The underground command center, the airborne command post, and a host of other war-fighting components were all located at Offutt.
45
Several important Cold War missions were carried out at Offutt AFB, including operating PACCS and housing SAC headquarters.
4.1.24 Pope AFB
Pope AFB is located approximately 10 mi (16 km) northwest of Fayetteville, North Carolina. It is bordered on three sides by the Fort Bragg Military Reservation. The current mission includes the 23rd Wing, a composite wing that operates C-130E transports, F-16C/D fighters, and A-10A close air-support aircraft.
Pope Field was established in 1919 as an accompanying airfield to Fort Bragg. In 1941, the Army acquired the installation and renamed it Pope AAF. During World War II, the airfield functioned as a troop carrier training facility.
In 1946, TAC assumed command of the field, and in 1948, SAC assumed command and the installation was renamed Pope AFB. Responsibility shifted several more times until TAC
assumed command of the base in 1950. Between 1950 and 1954, the Ninth Air Force was headquartered at Pope AFB, and the installation was the center of the fighter-bomber and reconnaissance assets of TAC. After the departure of the Ninth Air Force, tactical airlift became the mission at Pope AFB. A number of cargo and troop airlift missions took place throughout the 1960s and 1970s. MAC assumed command of the base in 1974, but the mission remained the same. Pope AFB continued to be one of the major airlift bases until the end of the Cold War era.
Several important Cold War missions were carried out at Pope AFB, including maintenance of TAC fighter-bomber and reconnaissance assets, headquarters for the Ninth Air Force, and TAC and MAC tactical airlift.
46
4.1.25 Seymour Johnson AFB
Seymour Johnson AFB is located 100 mi (161 km) west of the Atlantic Ocean, near Goldsboro, North Carolina. The installation currently supports the operation of KC-10A tanker and F-15E fighter aircraft by the 4th Wing.
The installation was acquired in 1942 and during World War II, conducted maintenance and repair training, processing for overseas duty, technical officer training, and P-47 pilot training. The installation was temporarily deactivated in 1946.
Seymour Johnson AFB was reactivated in 1953 and TAC assumed command of the installation. The base was turned over to AMC in October of the same year. TAC was again assigned command of Seymour Johnson AFB in 1954, and the base reactivated in 1956. The base became home to F-86 fighter training and an ADC tenant interceptor squadron. B-52 bombers and KC-135 tankers were assigned to the base in 1958 as part of the SAC deterrent force. At the same time, tactical and interceptor forces remained at the base. The bombers were removed from the base in 1982, but the tankers remained in service. KC-135s were replaced by KC-10s in 1985 and these continued in service through the end of the Cold War.
Several important Cold War missions were carried out at Seymour Johnson AFB, including TAC fighter training, ADC fighter interceptor alert, and SAC bomber and tanker alert.
4.1.26 Shaw AFB
Shaw AFB is located in east-central South Carolina, approximately 10 mi (16 km) west of Sumter. The current mission includes the operation of three squadrons of F-16C/D fighters and one squadron of A-10A attack aircraft by the 20th FW.
47
Shaw AAF was established in 1941 as a pilot training base. The installation served as a basic flying training school until 1945 when it assumed an advanced training role. After the war, the field entered a brief period of inactivity. TAC assumed control of the base in 1946 and began operating fighter aircraft. In 1948, the installation was renamed Shaw AFB.
In 1950, the base mission shifted to the operation of tactical reconnaissance aircraft. In 1954, the Ninth Air Force moved its headquarters to Shaw AFB. From the 1950s until the end of the Cold War, numerous types of tactical reconnaissance aircraft were operated from the base. These aircraft included the piston-engined RB-26, and jet engined RF-84, RB-57, RB-66, and RF-4C.
Several important Cold War missions were carried out at Shaw AFB, including the operation of fighter aircraft, the operation of reconnaissance aircraft, and the operation of the Ninth Air Force Headquarters.
4.1.27 Whiteman AFB
Whiteman AFB is located in north central Missouri, approximately 60 mi (97 km) southeast of Kansas City, Missouri. The installation currently supports the 509th BW, which operates the B2 bomber, and the 442nd FW, which operates AFRES and Missouri ANG A-10 aircraft, and is currently deactivating its Minuteman II force.
The base was established as Sedalia AAF in 1942. During World War II, the airfield initially served as a training center for glider pilots and later for radio operators, mechanics, and navigators. In 1946, TAC assumed command of the installation, and in 1947, the base was transferred to AMC. In 1948, the field was renamed the Sedalia Air Force Auxiliary Field and in 1951, it was renamed again as Sedalia AFB when SAC assumed command.
SAC began operating B-47 bombers and KC-97 tankers in 1954. The aircraft maintained a deterrence mission until 1963, when they were transferred from the base. In 1955, the base was
48
renamed Whiteman AFB for a pilot who was killed during the attack on Wheeler Field, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941.
It was determined in 1961 that Whiteman AFB should house Minuteman I ICBMs. Construction on 15 LCFs and 150 LFs was begun in 1962. The missiles became operational between 1963 and 1964. Minuteman II ICBMs replaced their predecessors in 1966 (Photograph 4.4). In 1991, the missiles were taken off alert and began deactivation. The B-2 bomber mission began at Whiteman in 1987 and continues to the present.
Several important Cold War missions were carried out at Whiteman AFB, including SAC bomber and tanker alert, strategic deterrence with Minuteman I and Minuteman II ICBMs, and AFRES and ANG fighter alert. Whiteman AFB is the only ACC installation to house the B-2 bomber.
4.2 BASE LAND USE AND LAYOUT
Prior to initiating field visits to the bases, standard land use and layout plans for TAC and SAC bases were located in two publications (Boeing Company 1970, 1985). These standard plans show the general layout of TAC and SAC bases and the patterns for land use. The layouts and land use patterns of each study base was compared with these standards to identify differences and similarities.
In general, the layouts and land use patterns at the 27 bases follow the standard plans, with a dual parallel flight line. Mission and industrial areas are closest to the flight line; headquarters, community, base support, unaccompanied housing, and recreation areas are found in the central portion of the base next to the mission area; and family housing is at the outskirts of the base beyond the central portion. Most of the base development is located on one side of the flight line, with weapon and warhead storage and industrial areas the two types of land use found on the opposite side of the flight line.
50
These bases also often have portions of the old triangular runways apparent, and some even have the old runways in use.
51
5.0 EVALUATED RESOURCES
A total of 142 resources were evaluated during the course of the ACC Cold War material culture study. Details of these resources can be found in the individual base reports (see Appendix A). Of these, 55 are literary resources and 87 are real property buildings, structures, or objects. All of the evaluated resources have been assigned to one of the five USAF property groups discussed in the methodology chapter. They have been further categorized into subgroups. Finally, each resource is defined by a property type name (Table 5.1). As an example, all missile LCFs, regardless of where they are located or whether they are for an Atlas, Titan, Minuteman, or Peacekeeper system, are called by the same property type name, Missile Launch Control Facility.
Table 5.1 Categorization of Evaluated Resources by Property Group, Subgroup, and Type
OPERATIONAL AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS (67) Base and Command Centers Major Command Headquarters (5) Major Command Post (1) Command Center (2) USAF Conference Center (1) Low Frequency Transmitter Complex (1) Unaccompanied Housing (1) Commander Housing (1) Memorial Chapel (1) Museum Collection (3) Architectural Drawing Files (5) Map Files (2) Base Newspaper Collection (3) Office Files (4) Photograph Collection (5) Documentary Collection (32)
Communications Housing Memorial Documentation
COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS (53) Alert Facilities Bomber Alert Facility (16) Bomber/Tanker Alert Facility (3) Tanker Alert Facility (3) Fighter Alert Facility (7) Command and Control Alert Facility (3) SAGE Facility (3) Bare Base Installation (1)
Communications Ground Vehicles and Equipment
52
Maintenance Docks/Hangars
Engine Test Building (1) Maintenance Hangar (1) Large Aircraft Maintenance Dock (4) Missile Launch Control Facility (1) Missile Launch Complex (2) Segregated Storage Igloo (4) Architectural Drawing Files (3) Photograph Collection (1)
Missiles Storage Documentation TRAINING FACILITIES (8) Flight Training Combat Training
Flight Simulator (1) Threat Facility Collection (1) Weapons School (1) RED FLAG Facility (1) Inter-American Air Force Academy (IAAFA) Headquarters (1) Missile Launch Facility Trainer (2) Ground Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM) Training Facility (1)
Combat Support Training Missile Training
MATERIAL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES (9) Research Laboratories Medical Science Laboratory (1) Rome Laboratory (1) USAF Tactical Airlift Center (TALC) (1) Launch Ramp (1) Blockhouse (2) Tracking and Documentation (1) Test Track (1) Weapons Guidance Laboratory (1)
Test Sites
INTELLIGENCE FACILITIES (5) Communications Radar Sites Spy Satellites Weather Reconnaissance Satellite Communications Complex (1) PAVE PAWS Facility (1) OTH-B Facility (1) Deployable Warning Complex (1) Global Weather Service (1)
( ) = Number of evaluated resources in each category.
53
5.1 OPERATIONAL AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS
Sixty-seven resources falling under the Operational and Support Installations group were evaluated. Of this number, 51 are literary resources and 16 are real property resources.
Of the 16 real property resources, nine were identified within the Base and Command Center subgroup. Property types represented under this subgroup include Major Command
Headquarters, a Major Command Post, Command Centers, and the USAF Conference Center. They were evaluated based on their roles as headquarters where Cold War policies and strategies were implemented. Several of the buildings possessed specially designed situation rooms or command posts where crisis situations and everyday operations were carried out. Examples of these types of buildings include the former TAC headquarters at Langley AFB and the former SAC headquarters at Offutt AFB.
Only one resource was evaluated within the Communications subgroup. This property type is the Low Frequency Transmitter Complex located at Offutt AFB.
5.1.3 Housing
Two base housing facilities were included in this subgroup, both of which are associated with former SAC commander General Curtis LeMay. These resources include the Commander
Housing that LeMay and all other SAC commanders save one occupied while commanding SAC forces (Photograph 5.1), and Unaccompanied Housing that LeMay commissioned in order to improve the quality of life of Air Force enlisted personnel. Both of these resources are located at Offutt AFB.
56
Three communications facilities, all SAGE Facilities, were evaluated within the Combat Weapons and Support Systems group. Located at Minot, Beale, and K.I. Sawyer AFBs, these large windowless, cube-shaped buildings housed a complex network of computers which cycled early warning data between ground-based radar stations, the SAGE Facility, and interceptor squadrons at bases in its sector, and controlled fighter interceptor aircraft in flight.
5.2.3 Ground Vehicles and Equipment
The only property type identified under this subgroup is the Bare Base Installation at Holloman AFB. It consists of a number of buildings, a taxiway, and loading aprons.
A total of six resources were evaluated under this subgroup. Property types represented include Large Aircraft Maintenance Docks at Ellsworth, Dyess, and Loring AFBs (Photograph 5.3), a Maintenance Hangar at Nellis AFB, and an Engine Test Building at Fairchild AFB. These buildings are either architecturally unique or are associated with particular Cold War aircraft.
5.2.5 Missiles
Three missile facilities, which are no longer in service but are being preserved, were evaluated in this study. These property types include Missile Launch Complexes at Davis-Monthan and Ellsworth AFBs, and a Missile Launch Control Facility at Whiteman AFB.
58
A total of eight training facilities were evaluated. All of the resources are real property.
5.3.1 Flight Training
The Flight Training resource is the Flight Simulator documented at Offutt AFB.
5.3.2 Combat Training
Three resources at Nellis AFB were evaluated as Combat Training facilities. Property types included are the RED FLAG Facility, which instructed pilots in air-to-air combat, the Threat Facility Collection, which is a collection of Soviet bloc equipment used for instructional purposes, and a Weapons School.
5.3.3 Combat Support Training
Only one evaluated resource falls under this subgroup, the IAAFA Headquarters at Howard AFB in Panama. This facility was used to train aircrews from Latin American nations that were friendly to the United States.
The evaluated Missile Training resources consist of two Missile Launch Facility Trainers at Minot and Whiteman AFBs (Photograph 5.4), and the GLCM Training Facility at DavisMonthan AFB.
60
5.4.2 Test Sites
The six Test Sites are all located at Holloman AFB and are related to a number of early Cold War weapons systems such as the Matador missile. The property types represented include two Blockhouses, a Test Track, one Launch Ramp, one Tracking and Documentation facility, and a Weapons Guidance Laboratory.
Five evaluated resources fall under the Intelligence Facilities group. All five are real property resources.
Under the subgroup Communications, a Satellite Communications Complex at Offutt AFB was evaluated. This facility provided global communication capabilities to SAC headquarters.
5.5.2 Radar Sites
Two facilities, both early warning systems, were evaluated under the Radar Sites subgroup. The OTH-B Facility was evaluated at Mountain Home AFB. This facility houses an early warning system which is designed to "see" incoming objects beyond the horizon. A PAVE PAWS Facility (Photograph 5.5), evaluated at Beale AFB, is a large early warning system that is designed to track incoming SLBMs and can also track a variety of objects in space.
5.5.3 Spy Satellites
A Deployable Warning Complex at Holloman AFB was evaluated under the subgroup Spy Satellites.
62
63
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 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 NRHP requirements. If the resource meets these requirements, it is eligible for nomination to the NRHP and thus becomes a historic property.
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 Chapter 3. The eligibility of a resource for inclusion in the NRHP also lies in the age of the resource. 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, since 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 of at least two of the following: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, as appropriate.
Recommendations in this document and in the individual base reports regarding NRHP eligibility are preliminary. It is the responsibility of the federal agency to make the formal
64
determination of eligibility in consultation with the relevant SHPO. If they cannot agree, a 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 study, 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 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 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 the study bases were not evaluated, and thus must be considered and treated as eligible until an evaluation and determination of eligibility are completed.
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 register. In some cases, historic properties, though evaluated and determined eligible, are not nominated to the list. 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
65
when re-evaluated, or a historic property may lose a previously determined eligibility. Therefore, it is necessary to re-evaluate unlisted historic properties periodically.
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 in meeting 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 Cold War 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 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 design resolution rather than to block or inhibit proposed undertakings. Thus it is a process that is 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.
66
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
6.2 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
6.2.1 Real Property Resources
In the individual base reports completed under this study (see Appendix A), each selected real property building and structure resource was evaluated for eligibility to the NRHP. A
determination of eligibility was then recommended, along with future treatment and/or management actions. The three real property object resources which were identified were not
67
evaluated for eligibility, but recommendations as to treatment and/or management actions were presented. This section summarizes these preliminary recommendations of eligibility and future actions. More than one recommendation may apply to a given resource. Terminology used in the recommendations is defined as follows:
No Further Work - recommended if the resource does not require any preservation, protection, or management actions. Stewardship - recommended if the resource requires some active management and maintenance. This is different from preservation in that the resource requires general maintenance but does not need specified repairs or specialized storage. Further Documentation - recommended if there is any further work or research to be accomplished in documenting 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 assessment of integrity is needed. Preservation/Conservation/Repair - recommended if the resource requires maintenance or repair to avoid loss or further deterioration. This is also recommended when specialized storage conditions are required to maintain the resource. National Register of Historic Places Listing - recommended if the resource appears to be eligible or potentially eligible for NRHP listing. 6.2.1.1 Ineligible Resources
Table 6.1 presents the preliminary recommendations made for the four resources recommended as ineligible to the NRHP. In general, ineligible resources were recommended for further
documentation. This means that although the resource does not meet the requirements for eligibility to the NRHP, it may retain valuable data that could be salvaged prior to any actions that would result in the deterioration or destruction of the resource. Further documentation might consist of producing detailed architectural drawings of the resource, recording building materials, or researching the history of the construction and function of the resource.
70
6.2.1.3 Potentially Eligible Resources
Recommendations for the six potentially eligible resources are presented in Table 6.3. These resources are identified as exceptionally important, but require further documentation in order to determine their eligibility to the NRHP. Eligibility could not be determined during fieldwork due to several factors, most notably, lack of access to the interior of facilities to determine integrity. Therefore, these resources may be currently eligible and thus are recommended as potentially eligible. Further documentation is recommended for these resources to complete the evaluation of eligibility. Stewardship is recommended to retain the current level of integrity in the interim during the evaluation.
6.2.1.4 Eligible Resources
Table 6.4 presents the recommendations for the 62 eligible resources. Eligible resources are those that retain a high degree of integrity and have been shown to have qualities of exceptional importance, thus making them eligible for nomination to the NRHP. Stewardship is
recommended to retain the resources' intact integrity. Further documentation is recommended to nominate the resource to the NRHP. Preservation/conservation/repair is recommended for one eligible resource that requires active treatment to retain integrity.
6.2.1.5 NRHP Listed Resources
Five resources that are already listed on the NRHP were evaluated as part of this Cold War study. All five resources had been nominated to the Register based on their importance within historic contexts other than the Cold War. Recommendations for these resources are provided in Table 6.5.
81
ensure against loss. Finally, it is recommended that the original collection be sent to a permanent curatorial facility for conservation and stewardship, with the copies kept at the respective base for its use. If a base is being closed or realigned, the copying step was removed from the recommendations.
6.3 APPLICATION OF PRIORITY MATRIX
As discussed in Section 3.2.4, a priority matrix score was computed for each evaluated resource (Table 6.8). This score, 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, calculates the urgency for further treatment and/or management attention for that resource. The higher the score, the higher the priority for attention to that resource. It should be noted that the best examples of each property type are not necessarily ranked the highest. For example, a pristine bomber alert facility that has no immediate threats could be ranked lower than a bomber alert facility with less integrity that is highly threatened.
The total matrix score can range between 6 and 24; however, the study scores ranged between 11 and 23. The range of scores for the 142 evaluated resources is very limited with 108 resources, or 76%, scored between 16 and 21 (Figure 6.1). In general, the literary resources scored lower and real property resources scored higher (Figure 6.2). This is probably due to the more direct association of real property resources such as buildings and structures with the Cold War context. For the 55 literary resources, 16 was the midpoint score, with 56% of the resources scored between 16 and 18. For the 87 real property resources, 18 was the midpoint score, with 56% of the resources falling between the scores of 19 and 21.
The problems with consistency identified in Section 3.4 apply to the priority matrix scoring. Individual team members and the teams themselves each had a unique outlook on the resources they encountered, and this outlook is reflected in the priority matrix scores. This uniqueness
91
7.0 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 WHY PRESERVATION?
Preservation of the material remains of the past is essential to possessing a thorough knowledge of that past. While the interpretations of history and of historical resources will change through time to allow for current prejudices, the resources themselves, if preserved, do not change, and thereby provide a solid link with the reality of historical fact. As long as historical resources exist, they can provide an extensive body of data on both human responses to the exigencies of life and the results of these responses to guide us when deciding how to respond to such exigencies in the future. As the old adage goes, "those who do not know the past are doomed to repeat it." In addition, historical resources act as mnemonic devices of the past, not only imparting information but also triggering emotion in the viewer toward the circumstances of that past. As such, historical resources occupy a valued role in the heritage of the United States.
The Cold War shaped the lives and expectations of millions of Americans, influenced the development of U.S. culture and society, and dominated domestic and international military, political, and diplomatic decisions and events over a forty-five year period. These effects are still apparent in all realms of the United States. Cold War tangible resources form a geographic archive which can help in shaping a contextual history of this era and can enrich our understanding of how the United States developed and emerged during this trying time.
By preserving Cold War era resources, the Air Force can preserve its heritage and educate its personnel on the legacy they inherit. Many of those who enter the service in future years will not remember the events or missions of the Cold War or the Air Force's role in world events during that era. An eighteen year old airman entering the service in 1995 was only 12 years old when the Cold War concluded in 1989. The legacy of the Cold War is important to the Air Force, and can be handed down to future generations of Air Force personnel through the preservation of historic resources.
92
In addition to the Air Force community, the general public would gain from the educational opportunities provided through the preservation of Cold War resources. Interpretation of
specific resources or groups of resources would allow the Air Force to illustrate the pivotal roles that it played throughout the Cold War era, thereby providing insight into the whole of Cold War history to the public.
7.2 THE PUBLIC AND COLD WAR RESOURCES
Many of the Cold War resources evaluated in this study would make interesting and educational attractions for civilian visitors. Although public access to historic resources is generally
desirable, the public can "access" historic resources in other ways. For example, a building in active use and not suited for public visitation could be interpreted and presented to the public in another fashion. Interpretation might consist of a presentation of photos, drawings, or videos of a resource, or a display of artifact collections from a resource. These types of presentations could be made on base in a museum or heritage center, or could be mobilized to other rural or urban venues such as fairs, museums, libraries, or schools.
The geographic location of a particular base may influence preservation efforts for its Cold War resources. For instance, a base such as the now closed Loring AFB in northeastern Maine contains numerous Cold War resources that would make excellent interpreted resources for public education and enjoyment. However, the base's remote location would seemingly make it a poor choice for preservation due to the low number of visitors who might be expected to visit the base.
On the other hand, preservation might be less controversial and ultimately more successful on a remote base since outside demand for base property and encroachment by surrounding development would be lower than in a metropolitan area. Furthermore, a rural community might hold the historic resources on a base in their area in higher regard than the residents of an urban
93
area because of the stronger economic and social effects of the base on that community. Preserving resources for visitation might also have a greater impact on the economy of a small community than it would in a heavily populated area.
Location near already developed tourist attractions is another concern when making preservation decisions. If public visitation is desired, a certain number of potential visitors are already present if the site is located near other area attractions. Also, the presence of multiple resources together on one base is more likely to attract visitors than the presence of just one resource.
7.3 NOMINATION OF RESOURCES TO THE NRHP
Nomination to the NRHP of resources that have been evaluated as eligible, potentially eligible, or future eligible is recommended. However, there are three distinct approaches that can be used when designing the nominations. The approach chosen will in turn affect the management of these 75 resources (62 eligible resources, six potentially eligible resources, and seven future eligible resources).
7.3.1 Individual Resource Nominations
The resources could be nominated to the NRHP as separate historic properties. A separate nomination for each resource would have to be prepared for submission to the NRHP. This
approach would be implemented on individual bases rather than through a nationwide effort of property nominations. Management of the resources would then continue on a singular basis.
7.3.2 Historic District Nominations
The NPS defines a historic district as a group of resources that "possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically in plan or physical development" (NPS 1990:4). In other words, a historic
94
district is a collection of resources that share common features and are associated with the same period and events in history.
Several bases possess groups of resources that could be nominated to the NRHP as historic districts. One nomination would be prepared for each district, encompassing all resources
included in that defined district. This approach would also be implemented on an individual bases rather than nominating through a nationwide effort. However, management of these resources would be somewhat simplified, in that a number of resources on a base would be considered together under one district.
7.3.3 Multiple Property Nominations
A multiple property listing includes related resources that share themes, trends, and patterns of history (NPS 1991b:2). It differs from historic districts in that it may cover any geographic scale --local, regional, state, or national. The process consists of two steps: 1) completing a documentation form which denotes the historic contexts shared by the resources and the property types that illustrate these contexts, and 2) registering individual resources or historic districts to the listing. These two things together constitute a multiple property submission. This type of listing is designed to simplify the nomination of similar or related resources and is geared toward the nomination of resources in the future. Information common to the group of resources is
presented once in the first step, which establishes the listing, while information specific to each individual resource is used in the second step. Individual resources can be nominated at any time once the multiple property listing has been established.
The multiple property listing would be established at the national level, with individual bases providing documentation on resources that would fit into this listing. Management of these resources would be simplified as they would be considered together under one listing.
95
7.4 ASSOCIATED RESOURCES
For the purposes of this study, associated resources are those resources that were not evaluated but which are directly associated with a resource that was evaluated. Associated resources have a direct connection with the function of the evaluated resource. An evaluated resource can, and often does, have more than one associated resource; however, an associated resource is usually associated with only one evaluated resource. An example is an evaluated resource, such as a bomber alert facility, that has four associated resources, such as a "christmas tree" alert apron, a guardhouse, a building for conjugal and family visits, and a recreation area reserved for personnel on alert duty.
During the inventory of the bases, resources known to be associated with evaluated resources were identified and recorded on the Mariah Property Management Form when the evaluation was conducted. Preliminary recommendations presented in the individual base reports focus solely on the evaluated resources themselves; associated resources are merely mentioned. However, when developing management and preservation plans that address the evaluated resources, especially when education is one of the goals, associated resources must also come under consideration.
Associated resources, though not considered exceptionally important with regard to the Cold War context and the NRHP criteria, are valuable for expanding the understanding and interpretation of evaluated resources. They add a certain depth of perspective, and greatly help to place the evaluated resource within its own specific context. The two kinds of resource, evaluated and associated, form a system, with the evaluated resource at the center and the associated resources revolving around it. Instead of trying to understand the Cold War
significance and function of an evaluated resource in and of itself, one is able to assimilate information from other resources also, and thus personal interpretation expands from the evaluated resource to the system.
96
The programmatic recommendations presented in Chapter 8.0 concentrate on the evaluated resources. However, in the implementation of these recommendations, resources associated with those evaluated resources must be taken into account and be made a part of any management and preservation plans.
7.5 PRESERVATION RANKING SYSTEM
In order to identify the best examples of each real property type, another ranking system was devised after all base visits were completed. It was hoped that this new ranking system would help in defining preservation recommendations for resources evaluated in this study, regardless of threats to the resources. Only those 68 resources identified as eligible or potentially eligible to the NRHP are ranked. Resources that were evaluated as future eligible, ineligible, or already listed are not ranked since they do not currently qualify for NRHP consideration or are already being actively preserved. Only real property buildings and structures are considered since object and literary resources were not evaluated for eligibility.
Using photographs of each evaluated resource and the base reports as references, each twoperson field team ranked the resources they evaluated from 1 to 10, with scores of "10" being the best example. Criteria for scoring a resource included integrity; representativeness of the
property type within the Cold War context; and whether or not the resource would, in the opinion of the field team, make a good candidate for preservation. A score of "10" is reserved for resources that are in pristine condition and appear to be as they were during the Cold War. For example, a Bomber Alert Facility that is maintained, has structural features such as rapid egress tubes, is still used periodically for alert training, and possesses only minor renovations would probably receive a "9." In contrast, a Tanker Alert Facility in average condition, with no exterior features to make it recognizable as a Cold War structure, would likely receive a "4."
The results of this ranking are presented in Table 7.1. Resources that received a score of "10" include the high speed Test Track and Blockhouse at Holloman AFB, the PAVE PAWS Facility
99
8.0 FINAL PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the considerations presented in the previous section, it is recommended that a combination of the three NRHP nomination approaches and the preliminary recommendations be implemented in the management and preservation of the evaluated resources. It is further
recommended that these resources be developed for public education whenever possible, either through direct access to the resource or by interpreting the resource through photographs and other forms of documentation.
8.1 MULTIPLE PROPERTY LISTING
It is recommended that a multiple property listing be established under which SAC, TAC, MAC, and ADC Cold War resources that are determined eligible can be registered. The documentation form that establishes a listing should be prepared and presented to the Keeper of the National Register by ACC. The listing should use the historic context written for the Cold War study as a basis for its context and the property types evaluated during this study should be the range of property types eligible for inclusion under the listing.
Once the listing is established, the individual installations should nominate resources eligible to the NRHP under their purview using this listing. In this approach, resources that share a common history, context, purpose, or some other similarity will be grouped together under one heading, making management of the resources easier. As resources are evaluated for eligibility in the future, they can be added easily under this listing, allowing them to be compared with other resources of the same property type.
8.2 ELIGIBLE AND POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE RESOURCES
All resources preliminarily recommended as eligible or potentially eligible to the NRHP should be more fully documented and nominated under the multiple property listing. This should be
100
accomplished by the individual installations using the base reports produced by this study as guides. Other preliminary recommendations such as stewardship and preservation/conservation/ repair should be followed for each nominated resource, at least until the nomination has been reviewed by the Keeper of the NRHP and a final determination has been made. Nominations produced by the installations should use a combination of the historic district and individual nomination approaches.
8.2.1 Historic Districts
Using historic district nominations when possible will not only reduce the amount of effort needed to complete the nomination of eligible resources but will also make management of the resources easier by grouping them under one nomination. Seven bases were chosen for districts based upon the presence of a number of exceptionally important resources and a continuity of theme between those resources (Figure 8.1).
8.2.1.1 Historic District at Ellsworth AFB
Ellsworth AFB, located near Rapid City, South Dakota, possesses a number of Cold War era resources that are related to strategic deterrence. These include a Bomber Alert Facility, a Tanker Alert Facility, an architecturally unique "Arch Hangar" originally designed to accommodate B-36 bombers, and several structures in the weapons storage area that feature blast-resistant construction which were used during the early years of the Cold War by the AEC. In addition to these resources, a Minuteman II LCF and LF located some distance from the main base are proposed for acquisition by the National Park Service for interpretive purposes. A Minuteman II missile maintenance facility located on the main base is already open for tours and is interpreted by the South Dakota Air and Space Museum on base.
Ellsworth AFB played a major role during the Cold War and retains many resources that embody that role. The base is located near the tourist attractions of Mt. Rushmore and the Black Hills,
104
8.2.1.4 Historic District at K.I. Sawyer AFB
K.I. Sawyer AFB, located on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, is in many respects similar to Minot AFB. It was built as a Cold War base, specifically to support bomber, tanker, and air defense missions. K.I. Sawyer AFB has Bomber, Fighter, and Tanker Alert Facilities which are all clustered near one end of the runway (Photograph 8.3) and a SAGE Facility. These facilities, which portray the concepts of strategic deterrence and air defense, could be nominated as a historic district.
Like Minot AFB, K.I. Sawyer AFB is located in a rural area, and preservation and interpretation would benefit the nearby community of Marquette and the smaller communities in the Upper Peninsula. With imminent closure of the base in the Fall of 1995, the Air Force community will depart the base. However, many bases have been reactivated after some period of time and these resources should be managed to prevent potential impacts. The presence of the deterrent force in the Upper Peninsula is an important historic aspect of the region, and the local community, although small, may value these resources.
8.2.1.5 Historic District at Loring AFB
Loring AFB, located in northern Maine, possesses several resources that could be nominated to the NRHP as a historic district. These resources include a Segregated Storage Igloo and several associated structures, a Bomber Alert Facility (Photograph 8.4), and two large, architecturally unique maintenance docks. These buildings are representative of Loring AFB's role as a nuclear bomber base on the strategic northern perimeter of the United States.
Loring AFB has since been closed. Despite this, the resources located on the former base may be important to local community members who may see value in their preservation.
108
Because of the Thunderbirds, the role of Nellis AFB as a fighter training base is already well known to the public. This historic district would profit from this publicity in the form of visitors from nearby Las Vegas, already an important tourist center. As these facilities are currently in use, these facilities might best be presented to the public through photographs and displays.
8.2.2 Individual Nominations
The remaining 32 eligible and potentially eligible resources should be documented further and nominated to the NRHP using individual nomination forms. Although these resources are
nominated individually, a base can develop them together for public education purposes, thus increasing their power in attracting visitors.
8.3 FUTURE ELIGIBLE RESOURCES
As time passes, and resources that are preliminarily recommended as eligible in the future begin to meet the 50 year eligibility requirement, individual installations need to re-evaluate these resources for eligibility to the NRHP. Resources that are found to be eligible should be
nominated either individually, as part of historic districts, or added to existing historic districts already registered under the multiple property listing. Until a formal determination of eligibility is decided, these resources should undergo stewardship to retain their current level of integrity. Because this study concentrated on exceptionally important resources, many important resources, which may become eligible when they meet the 50 year requirement, were not evaluated. As important Cold War resources on these bases become 50 years old, they should be evaluated for their eligibility to the NRHP and nominated if found eligible. The dates of construction of each evaluated resource is included in the resource data base contained in each base inventory report, and can be used to determine when a resource reaches the fifty year requirement.
109
8.4 INELIGIBLE RESOURCES
Ineligible resources have been recommended as such usually because of a lack of integrity. These four resources, though lacking integrity, still held importance within the base's Cold War context. Therefore, it is recommended that these resources preliminarily recommended as
ineligible undergo further documentation to record their importance and role within the base's Cold War context. This documentary information can then be used for public education.
8.5 OBJECT RESOURCES
The three object resources were not evaluated for their eligibility to the NRHP. However, they serve an important heritage role at the installations on which they are kept. It is recommended that the preliminary recommendations be enacted for these resources, including stewardship for all of them, preservation/conservation/repair for resources that need active preservation attention, and further documentation for those collections of objects in need of cataloging. These resources can be used for public education purposes both on base or at various locations in rural and urban communities.
8.6 LITERARY RESOURCES
Various types of literary resources were identified at the bases during this study.
Base
Newspaper Collections describe events and changes occurring at the various bases. Architectural Drawing Files, Map Files, and Photograph Collections illustrate and record the effect these changes had on base development and give details as to the construction of various base facilities. Office Files record the various missions and roles of the base. Documentary Collections are simply a mixture of the other five types of resources and are the most frequent type of literary resource identified during the study.
110
These property types are a unique resource, valuable for the information they provide about base history, Cold War history, and individual resources on the bases. These resources are needed to make determinations of eligibility and are integral to the preparation of NRHP nominations for eligible resources. They are useful in determining the level of preservation required by certain resources and are essential when planning preservation or conservation actions. When
modifications to a building or structure are required, these resources can aid in determining what alterations would affect the integrity of that resource the least. Finally, these resources provide excellent material for public education displays and programs. Due to these varied and
important roles, literary resources require some level of management and preservation.
The preliminary recommendations for these resources are to inventory and catalogue the resources, copy the resources, keep the copies at the base, and store the originals at a permanent curatorial facility for stewardship and conservation. In this way, the originals would be
preserved and the base would retain copies for use in its activities. Inventory and cataloging are necessary as the subject matter of the materials in each resource needs to be known in order for the materials to be useful. This can be done by devising a coding system for all the materials, assigning the individual codes to each item, then making a list of codes with their subject matter. Copying the materials can be accomplished in a variety of ways, from photocopying, to copying onto microfiche or microfilm, to producing negatives of photographs, to scanning materials onto CD-ROM disks. These copies could then be kept in the appropriate offices on base for any research, projects, or activities conducted there.
The original materials, along with the inventories, could be archivally stored at an established curatorial facility, such as the USAF Historical Center at Maxwell AFB, Alabama, or at some locally available facility. The bases themselves could also establish a curation facility on the installation. Sources of information on the establishment of archival curation facilities and curation methods is provided in Appendix B. Once the literary resources evaluated in this study have been curated, guidelines for the on-going curation of materials obtained in the future should be established to prevent a backlog.
111
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. Boeing Company 1970 SAC Bomber Operations and Maintenance. Boeing Military Airplane Systems Division, Seattle. 1985 TAC Fighter Operations and Maintenance. Boeing Military Airplane Company, Seattle. Department of Defense 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. Lewis, K., and H. C. Higgins 1994 Cold War Properties Inventory Field Guide. Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. MAI Project 735-15. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. Lewis, K., K. J. Roxlau, and L. E. Rhodes 1995 A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture, Volume I: Historic Context and Methodology for Assessment. Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. MAI Project 735-15. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. National Park Service 1990 National Register Bulletin 22: Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties That Have Achieved Significance Within the Last Fifty Years. Report prepared by the National Register Branch, National Park Service. Washington, D.C. 1991a National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (revised). Report prepared by the National Register Branch, National Park Service. Washington, D.C. 1991b National Register Bulletin 16B: How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form. Report prepared by the National Register Branch, National Park Service. Washington, D.C.
112
United States Air Force 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 LIST OF INDIVIDUAL BASE REPORTS
A-1
LIST OF INDIVIDUAL BASE REPORTS
Lewis, K., R. B. Roxlau, and K. J. Roxlau 1997 A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture: Volume II - 2: A Baseline Inventory of Cold War Material Culture at Beale Air Force Base. Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. 1997 A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture: Volume II - 4: A Baseline Inventory of Cold War Material Culture at Castle Air Force Base. Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. 1997 A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture: Volume II - 7: A Baseline Inventory of Cold War Material Culture at Ellsworth Air Force Base. Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. Lewis, K., D. P. Staley, and K. J. Roxlau 1997 A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture: Volume II - 10: A Baseline Inventory of Cold War Material Culture at Holloman Air Force Base. Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. Lowe, J. A., J. A. Evaskovich, and K. J. Roxlau 1997 A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture: Volume II - 1: A Baseline Inventory of Cold War Material Culture at Barksdale Air Force Base. Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. 1997 A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture: Volume II - 15: A Baseline Inventory of Cold War Material Culture at Little Rock Air Force Base. Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. 1997 A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture: Volume II - 24: A Baseline Inventory of Cold War Material Culture at Pope Air Force Base. Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. 1997 A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture: Volume II - 26: A Baseline Inventory of Cold War Material Culture at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base.
A-2
Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. Lowe, J. A., P. E. Patterson, and K. J. Roxlau 1997 A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture: Volume II - 6: A Baseline Inventory of Cold War Material Culture at Dyess Air Force Base. Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. Lowe, J. A., L. E. Rhodes, and K. J. Roxlau 1997 A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture: Volume II - 8: A Baseline Inventory of Cold War Material Culture at Fairchild Air Force Base. Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. 1997 A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture: Volume II - 22: A Baseline Inventory of Cold War Material Culture at Nellis Air Force Base. Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. 1997 A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture: Volume II - 21: A Baseline Inventory of Cold War Material Culture at Mountain Home Air Force Base. Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. Lowe, J. A., D. P. Staley, and K. J. Roxlau 1997 A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture: Volume II - 9: A Baseline Inventory of Cold War Material Culture at Griffiss Air Force Base. Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. 1997 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 AFB, Virginia. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. Patterson, P. E., D. P. Staley, and K. J. Roxlau 1997 A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture: Volume II - 5: A Baseline Inventory of Cold War Material Culture at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. 1997 A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture: Volume II - 11: A Baseline Inventory of Cold War Material Culture at Homestead Air Force Base.
A-3
Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. 1997 A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture: Volume II - 17: A Baseline Inventory of Cold War Material Culture at MacDill Air Force Base. Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. 1997 A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture: Volume II - 18: A Baseline Inventory of Cold War Material Culture at McConnell Air Force Base. Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. 1997 A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture: Volume II - 27: A Baseline Inventory of Cold War Material Culture at Whiteman Air Force Base. Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque.
1997 A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture: Volume II - 20: A Baseline Inventory of Cold War Material Culture at Moody Air Force Base. Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. Rhodes, L. E., K. Lewis, and K. J. Roxlau 1997 A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture: Volume II - 3: A Baseline Inventory of Cold War Material Culture at Cannon Air Force Base. Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. Rhodes, L. E., P. E. Patterson, and K. J. Roxlau 1997 A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture: Volume II - 23: A Baseline Inventory of Cold War Material Culture at Offutt Air Force Base. Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. Roxlau, R. B., K. Lewis, and K. J. Roxlau 1997 A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture: Volume II - 19: A Baseline Inventory of Cold War Material Culture at Minot Air Force Base. Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. 1997 A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture: Volume II - 13: A Baseline Inventory of Cold War Material Culture at K.I. Sawyer Air Force Base.
A-4
Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. 1997 A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture: Volume II - 14: A Baseline Inventory of Cold War Material Culture at Langley Air Force Base. Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. 1997 A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture: Volume II - 25: A Baseline Inventory of Cold War Material Culture at Shaw Air Force Base. Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque. Staley, D. P., P. E. Patterson, and K. J. Roxlau 1997 A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture: Volume II - 12: A Baseline Inventory of Cold War Material Culture at Howard Air Force Base. Prepared for Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque.
APPENDIX B SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON ARCHIVE CURATION
B-1
SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON ARCHIVE CURATION American Institute of Conservators 1717 K Street NW Suite 301 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 452-9545 Association for Preservation Technology International P.O. Box 8178 Fredericksburg, VA 22404 (703) 373-1621 The Getty Conservation Institute 4503 Glencoe Avenue Marina del Rey, CA 90292 (310) 393-4244 Architectural Records Management American Architectural Foundation 1735 New York Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20006 National Center for Preservation Technology and Training NSU Box 5682 Natchitoches, LA 71497 (318) 357-6464 Schrock, Nancy Carlson and Mary Campbell Cooper, Records in Architectural Offices: Suggestions for the Organization, Storage, and Conservation of Architectural Office Archives. Available from: Massachusetts Committee for the Preservation of Architectural Records P.O. Box 129 Cambridge, MA 02142 American Institute of Architects Library and Archives: Co-operative Preservation of Architectural Records. This group offers advice and information on how to identify and preserve important records. They have chapters in Utah, New York, California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Virginia, North Carolina, and Washington D.C.

Air Combat Command Cold War Inventory

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

Air Combat Command Cold War Inventory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AIR COMBAT COMMAND

A SYSTEMIC STUDY OF AIR COMBAT COMMAND COLD WAR MATERIAL CULTURE

Prepared by James A. Lowe John A. Evaskovich Katherine J. Roxlau

Mariah Associates, Inc. Albuquerque, New Mexico MAI Project 735-15

United States Air Force Air Combat Command

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

Table 6.2 Table 9.1

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

2.0 BASE DESCRIPTION

2.1 CURRENT BASE MISSION

2.2 GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

2.3 CURRENT BASE LAYOUT

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

2.4 BASE LAND USE

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

facilities, unaccompanied housing, and community areas for the academy.

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

3.0 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

3.1 BASE HISTORY AND COLD WAR CONTEXT

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

3.2 BASE DEVELOPMENT

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

4.2 EVALUATION OF IMPORTANT RESOURCES

4.2.2 Evaluation of Importance

4.2.2.1 Cold War Context

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

4.2.2.2 NRHP Criteria

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

4.2.2.3 Exceptional Importance

4.2.3 Evaluation of Integrity

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

4.2.4 Priority Matrix

management tool rather than a ranking of importance.

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

4.2.5 Resource Organization

4.3 BASE SPECIFIC METHODS

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

5.0 RECONNAISSANCE INVENTORY RESULTS

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

6.0 EVALUATION RESULTS

6.1 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT INSTALLATIONS

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

Volume II-1: Barksdale Air Force Base

6.2 COMBAT WEAPONS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS