----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Michael Fry" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 5:41:50 PM
Subject: Re: query about BLM maps






Robert,

I was and still am on board with the requirement that Regionals keep copies of everything, but I've never understood why *all* copies of *that particular title* should be retained. They appear in the Superseded List as "Discard if revised", but they are also marked with the "R", which indicates that they are supposed to be retained for long term public access not by legal requirement of Title 44, but by "a consensus agreement of the Regionals."

As a former map librarian at a Regional, I've always had reservations about the logic behind that "R". It makes no sense to me that Regionals should have to keep every edition of, say, every Nevada Minerals Management map they ever get but *don't* have to keep old editions of even their own state's 7.5-minute maps, which, from my East Coast seat, are far more widely used (and useful) for historical purposes than anything the BLM has ever produced. I'm not arguing that old BLMs don't have a use. I *am* arguing that if, years ago, "the Regionals" decided to agree, outside the scope of Title 44, that some add'l titles were worth keeping, these BLM maps wouldn't have been at the top of my list. Or even close. The requirement might make a lot more sense in BLM states, and if that's the case then this "consensus agreement" should be flexible enough to allow other Regionals to adjust as appropriate.

In short, I would raise this with your Regional librarian and see if s/he agrees that the "consensus agreement of the Regionals" is reasonably understood as a suggestion rather than a requirement. If your collection is like U-Md.'s was/is, you have maps cases overflowing with BLM maps that nobody ever looks at. It's a waste of space and labor.

$.03

mf




--
Michael Fry
Senior Map Librarian
National Geographic Society
1145 17th St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
202.857.7098
[log in to unmask]




On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Angie Cope < [log in to unmask] > wrote:


----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Robert S Dalton" < [log in to unmask] >
To: "Air Photo Maps, GIS Forum - Map Librarianship ( [log in to unmask] )" < [log in to unmask] >
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 3:49:12 PM
Subject: query about BLM maps




Folks,



This question is particularly targeted toward you if you work in a Regional FDLP library, but I welcome insight from any one on the list.



The question is about the BLM minerals management and surface management maps. It arises from several years experience working with our maps collection but not really trained as a maps librarian. In other words, I know enough to be dangerous.



If I am reading the FDLP supersede list correctly, Regionals are supposed to keep all editions of these maps. I would like to know the rationale, and I have two reasons in particular for asking.



As far as I can tell, these maps exclusively cover states in the US West, and as you can see from my signature, my library and its community are not there. Secondly, to my knowledge, no one has ever asked for one of these maps. I take that to mean that researchers and students here are not interested in these.



So, why does Regionals have to keep all of these?



Thanks,

Robert



Robert S. Dalton

Interim Head, Davis Research and Instructional Services

Subject Librarian for History, Religious Studies, and Jewish Studies

PO Box 8890

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB# 3922

Chapel Hill, NC 27515-8890

Phone: 919-962-1151

Fax: 919-962-5537

Email: [log in to unmask]