This is not entirely correct (NB - I am a regional depository coordinator). The most current supersession criteria can be found in the FDLP guidance article Weeding a Depository Collection; further information can be found in Best Practices When Superseding and Substituting. The Superseded List described below was last updated in 2009; it's now used as a reference document rather than the definitive resource on what can and cannot be superseded. Although the Superseded List includes titles where regionals agree to voluntarily retain all editions, that is not a legal requirement; GPO has confirmed this in recent years.
The question of whether or not regionals are required to keep the last print edition of a map series that is now issued electronically was raised last year when NOAA stopped issuing nautical charts in print. The decision was that since regionals are not required to keep the last print copy of any superseded title that continues in electronic format, nautical charts should not be treated any differently; however, I don't think this was widely announced. To my knowledge, the same is true of USGS topo quads, although most if not all regionals still retain at least the last paper copy. As the Fall Depository Library Council Meeting is next week, I can confirm this with GPO; I can also raise this question at the regionals meeting that same week.
Finally, earlier this year Cheri Folkner and Mary Aagard from Boise State University published an interesting article in
Collection Management on how libraries decide whether or not to weed USGS topo maps:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2016.1159162
All,
The superseded guidelines for FDLP are at https://www.fdlp.gov/file-repository/historical-publications/superseded-list-and-guidelines.
Now, regarding different publishers, that's somewhat vague. All the US and territories topographic maps issued by the USGS are superseded by the next edition that is the same scale. Some of the more recent 7.5' were issued under that USGS series SuDoc call number, but the USFS paid for updating. (If you were cataloging using LC classification, you might have assigned these to a different series/set.) I believe that these superseded their earlier ones and Regionals were allowed to get rid of the older edition. I don’t know if GPO ever officially ruled on this. The wrinkle is that there have been a few dozen 7.5’ topos issued through FDLP with a USFS call number since the USGS stopped printing topos in 2009(?). Logically, you would expect these to replace the USGS ones, but since they were issued under a different SuDoc number, I don’t think they technically qualify. We’ve been keeping both the new map and the older map, since many of these are Oregon and they’re not taking up much additional space.
Regarding those 15’ 1:50,000 DMA red-light readable topo maps, I’m not sure they came through the FDLP. Ours are not stamped with a depository stamp and DMA ran their own map depository program until sometime in the 1980s when they started participating in the FDLP. If these were not issued through the FDLP, the FDLP Regionals are not required to keep the latest print edition. Additionally, they may not even have the series.
For non-documents librarians, the current situation is:
1) The 46 FDLP Regional depositories are currently required to keep the most recent print edition of USGS (and those post 2009 USFS 7.5’) topographic maps.
2) Regionals are not required to keep the older editions of the topo maps once a new edition is printed.
3) If you are getting rid of maps that are stamped with a Federal Depository stamp (which they should have if they were received through the FDLP) check with your Documents Librarian to make sure you are following appropriate procedures.
4) DMA and USGS topographic maps printed prior to October 1, 1984 were probably not issued through the FDLP (Larsgaard’s Map Librarianship says that is when DMA and USGS joined the FDLP. NOS joined 1988.) These maps are not necessarily held by regional depositories.
5) We are more at risk of losing access to the DMA and some of the older USGS map series than the 7.5’ paper series. The older USGS maps have been digitized, but I haven’t found a free, online source for the DMA maps. (I’m waffling on whether to get rid of these for areas outside our region).
The above is my current understanding of the situation. I admit that I haven’t been working as closely with documents librarians as I used to, and I may not have the latest info. I do know that there is talk about not requiring all regionals to maintain all copies, not only of maps but of other types of documents. So far, nothing has been implemented.
Kathy
From: Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc. <[log in to unmask]>
on behalf of Jon Jablonski <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 10:58 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: USGS Topo map survey, and an FYI
The FDLP Regional Depositories are currently required to keep the most recent printed edition of all states. The USGS online site and the newer digital versions do not officially supersede the latest print edition. That means that the 46 Regional FDLP libraries in the US should be maintaining complete sets.
I keep looking for a citation for this information. The 7.5’ maps were issued under several different SuDocs, so does that mean that you might ‘have’ to have the final edition of, say, a USGS produced quad as well as the subsequent USGS-printed but USFS-paid-for edition of the same quad? Different SuDoc number, perhaps even a different collective title.
Jon I-am-neither-a-docs-librarian-nor-a-Cataloger Jablonski.