ED 267 808

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

DOCUMENT RESUME

IR 051 469

Green, Stephen; And OthersA Preservation Program for the Colorado StateUniversity Libraries. The Final Report of the ARL/OMSPreservation Planning Program.Association of Research Libraries, Washington, D.C.Office of Management Studies.National Endowment for the Humanities (NFAH),Washington, D.C.Dec 8528p.Association of Research Libraries, Office ofManagement Studies, 1527 New Hampshire Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20036 ($10.00).Reports - Descriptive (141)

MF01 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS.*Academic Libraries; Emergency Programs; HigherEducation; Library Administration; *LibraryFacilities; *Library Materials; *Library Planning;Library Research; Long Range Planning; PositionPapers; *Preservation; Research Methodology; SelfEvaluation (Groups)*Colorado State University

ABSTRACTThis final report is a product of a Preservation

Planning Program (FPP) ::elf-study conducted by the Colorado StateUniversity Library (CSUL) working with the Association of ResearchLibraries' (ARL) Office of Management Studies (OMS). Designed to putself-help tools into the hands of library staff responsible fordeveloping plans and procedures for preserving library materials, thePPP self-study is divided into three distinct but interrelatedphases. The initial phase included the first of three site visits toCSUL by ARL/OMS staff and resulted in an interim report documentingthe institutional setting, previous preservation activities, externalfactors affecting preservation, and planning assumptions. Thedata-gathering phase raquired the creation of three investigativeforces averaging six members each. Task forces investigated threeareas: physical condition of the collection; environmental conditionsof the buildings; and the organizational/communication preservationaspects of the CSUL system. The final phase consisted of synthesizingthe three task force reports, determining the ultimate format of thefinal report, and preparing the study team's recommendations andtimetable for phase implementation. This report begins with adiscussion of the background of the institution and the externalfactors related to the current preservation situation. The reportthan details the specific concerns and interests of Colorado StateUniversity. In a final section, the library's implementation plansare presented. The document includes reports on: libraryadministration; physical condition of the collection; environmentalconditions within the libraries; preservation education; and disasterpreparedness. (THC)

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIO SASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES 1527 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 232-8656

EDITORS NOTES ON THIS PUBLICATION SERIES

This final report is one of ten in a series resulting from librariesconducting the OMS Preservation Planning Program (PPP). A two-year grantfrom the National Endowment for the Humanities enabled the OMS to selectand work with ten Association of Research Libraries members as theyconducted the Preservation Planning Program and served as demonstrationsites for other libraries in their areas. Applications from interestedlibraries were screened in Fall 1984, and ten libraries were chosen toconduct PPP self-studies from 1984 to 1986.

The Preservation Planning Program is designed to put self-help tools intothe hands of library staff responsible for developing plans and proceduresfor preserving library materials. A typical library takes from four to sixmonths to complete the Program, which involves the cooperation of 25 to 30staff members. Using a structured planning procedure, a manual, and anextensive resource notebook, library staff prepare a detailed action planfor local preservation program development for the next three to fiveyeilrs, with the on-site assistance of a librarian-consultant trained by theOfFice of Management Studies.

Most PPP final reports being with a discussion of the background of theinstitution and the external factors. related to the current preservationsituation. Task force reports then provide details on the specificconcerns and interests of the individual sites. In a final section,libraries lay out their implementation plans.

Copies of PPP final reports are available for $10.00 each, either throughlibrary distributors, or by direct order from the OMS. Prepayment isrequired, and reports should be ordered by complete title, includinglibrary name. OMS Publication order forms are available by writing orcalling OMS, 1527 New Hampshire Ave., Washington, D.C. 20036. 202 232-8656.

The Office of Management Studies was established in 1970by the Association of Research Libraries with financialsupport from the Council on Library Resources. TheOffice also has received funding from The Andrew W.

Mellon Foundation, The General Electric Foundation, TheNational Endowment for the Humanities, The LillyEndowment, inc., and the H.W. Wilson Foundation.The OMS provides self-study, training, and publicationprograms and services to academic libraries, to assistthem with organizational and staff development andstratgic planning for change.

A PRESERVATION PROGRAM FOR THE COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

The Final Report of the ARL /OMS Preservation Planning Program

December 15, 1985

ARUM Study Team

Stephen Green, ChairDorothy HaddadAntoinette LueckMyra Jo MoonJohn NewmanNancy Sedgwick

4

CONTENTS

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

II. INTRODUCTION 2

III. RECOMMENDATIONS 4

A. Administration. 4

B. Physical Condition of the Collections 7

C. Environmental Conditions Within the Libraries 12

D. Preservation Education 16

E. Disaster Preparedness Ken 18

F. Monitoring and Evaluation 19

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

This report is the product of a self-study funded in November 1984 by anARL/OMS grant. It sets out a preservation planning program and anassociated body of preservation recommendations for CSUL. Phase I of thestudy was condw:ted with on-site assistance from ARL/OMS personnel. OnFebruary 10, 1985, it resulted in an interim report documeM..ing institu-tional setting, previous preservation activities, external factorsaffecting preservation, and planning assumptions. Phase II of the studyinvolved data gathering by three task forces: Physical Condition of theCollection; Environmental Conditions in the Buildings; andOrganizational/Communication Aspects of Preservation. That work wascompleted, and Phase III commenced on April 18, 1985. Its purposes wereto synthesize the three task force reports into a final document.

ADMINISTRATION

The Study Team recommends that the Preservation Librarian be placed inthe Collection Services Division. Further recommendations are that aclassified Conservation Assistant be employed and that facilities forhands-on conservation work be created somewhere in ne Morgan Library orother suitable facility where appropriate utilties and other structuralcomponents are already available. An adequate budget should be provided.Including first year salaries and supplies, the estimated amount is$103,600. Finally, with regard to administration, the Study Teamemphasizes in the strongest possible terms that wholehearted administra-tive support is required to make any preservation eff,rt work.

PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE COLLECTION

Using valid random samples and standard categories, it was determinedthat 14.8% of material in the Morgan Library and 33.8% in the StorageFacility are in the "poor" category. That is, their use should belimited or denied. Implementation of the following recommendations willalleviate this: 1) Increase the use of acid-free pamphlet boxes; 2)Incorporate preservation concerns into the selection and buying of sup-plies and into binding operations; 3) Consider replacing material in poorcondition with microforms, photocopies, or products of emergingtechnology; 4) Select materials on acid-free paper when available; 5)Improve shelving methods for all material and all handling, includingILL. 6) Clean books and associated equipment and furniture regularly.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS WITHIN THE LIBRARIES

Dust and dirt are major concerns, as are patrons' use of food and drinkin the building. Closer monitoring of environmental conditions isnecessary,.as is better coordination with custodial and physical plantstaff on matters that affect environment in the building. Some specificchanges to pipes and other equipment are necessary. Shelving needs to beimproved in several areas. Ultraviolet light should be screened.Exhibits should be reviewed for security and preservation.

PRESERVATION EDUCATION

Major efforts must be undertaken, with active support from the Librariesadministration, to educate staff and patrons about preservation concerns.

DISASTER PREPAREDNESS

A disaster preparedness plan should be written in the near future by thePreservation Librarian.

II. INTRODUCTION

A. Background

The Colorado State University Libraries was awarded a grant by theAssociation of Research Libraries Office of Management studies inNovember 1984 to undertake an assisted self-study with the objectiveof formulating a Preservation Planning Program and preparing a setof recommendations tailored to the Libraries goals and mission. ThePreservation Planning Program was designed to incorporate technicaland procedural information about preservation in a structured plan-ning process leading to the phased development of a comprehensivepreservation program. The basic assumptions upon which the programis based are: 1. The staff of the CSU Libraries, with proper ARLassistance, is best suited to identify its preservation needs 2.

It may take several years to develop a program that meets CSULpreservation requirements 3. It is necessary to anticipate futureneeds while designing an effective preservation program.

In preparation for the planning study, the Director of Librariesreviewed the available documentation on the ARL PreservationPlanning Program, consulter with university and library staff con-cerning the operation of the program and then selected six membersto serve on the Study Team. He subsequently presented the groupwith its charge: to focus on the investigation and review of thepresent preservation policies and procedures; to evaluate andanalyze the findings and to prepare a report to the Director whichshould include an outline of a definitive long-range preservationprogram along with the requirements and implementation schedule.The Director advised the study team members that they were notexpected to formulate a full-scale disaster preparedness plan.

B. Matnodology

The Study Team was responsible for directing the entire PreservationPlanning Program process and for writing the final report. Thissix-member group was comprised of four professionals and two class-ified staff members drawn from various key or6anizational unitswithin the CSUL structure.

The ARL/OMS assisted self-study was divided into three distinct butinterrelated phases:

PhaseI - This initial phase began with the first of three sitevisits to CSUL by ARL/OMS Project Coordinator Jutta Reed-Scott andan ARL intern assistant, Drew Racine. The two consultants presented

-2-

an intxodu:tion to the basic issues surrounding preservation andthen reviewed the procedures used in this study. They were led on atour of the Libraries' facilities and met with various members ofthe staff. A six-month time frame was established with June 1, 1985set as the target date for submitting the Study Team's final reportto the Director. A working budget was later set up for the expendi-ture of the $1,000 in operating funds received as part of theARL/OMS preservation grant.

Phase-I concluded with the Study Team's preparation of an interimreport. This report was a working document intended to providebackground iaformation on the institutional setting of theLibraries, the preservation hirtory of the Libraries, externalfactors affecting preservation activities, and planning assumptionsof the study. This interim report was completed by February 10,1985.

Phase-II - This data-gathering phase required the creation of threeinvestigative task forces averaging six members each. Members ofthe Study Team chaired each of the task forces to facilitate report-ing to and discussion by the full Study Team. Volunteers weresolicited for the task forces with the intention of choosing profes-sionals and classifieds from moat Divisions and Departments in theLibraries. This goal was met through an enthusiastic response bythe Libraries staff.

The task forces were given specific charges and then investigatedthree areas: the physical condition of the collection, the environ-mental conditions of the buildings, and the organizational/com-munication preservation aspects of the CSUL system. Each of thethree task forces was responsible for reporting its findings to theStudy Team and making recommendations based upon these findings.

The teak force examining the physical condition of the collectiongathered data using two distinct approaches: 1. Structured randomsampling of the main stack areas and the Harmony Storage Facility,now the University Libraries Depository, following the methodologyoutlined in Buchanan and Coleman's 1979 article, "DeteriorationSurvey of the Stanford University Libraries Green Library StackCollection." 2. Visual impressions of virtually all areas, includ-ing Special Collections, and non-book formats.

The environmental task force conducted surveys which focused onlibrary preservation problems associated with heat, humidity, light,pollution and support structures in the Morgan Library and thebranches. CSU's Environmental Health Club assisted in positioningand monitoring six hygrothermographs and a UV light meter.

Finally, the task force assigned to investigate preservationorganization and communication conducted interviews, surveyedpreservation-related attitudes among the staff, and researchedexisting CSUL policies and procedures regarding preservation.

Phase-II concluded with the submission of the task forces reports tothe Study Team. Task force members were then discharged withthanks.

Phase-III - Phase-III commenced on April 18, 1985 with the third andfinal site v:sit of the two AM/0MS consultants. The task forcereports were reviewed and meetings were held with the Study Team andwith the Director. This final phase consisted in synthesizing thethree task force reports, determining the ultimate format of thefinal report, and preparing the Study Team's recommendations andtimetable for phased implementation.

The Study Team concluded its charge by submitting its final reportto the Director of Libraries during the first week of December 1985.

III. RECOMMENDATIONS

A. ADMINISTRATION

The systematic preservation of materials has emerged as a criticalconcern with a large segment of the library community.. CSUL hasdemonstrate: a substantial commitment to preservation activities inseveral important ways. Active partcipation in various Associationof Research Libraries and 1:esearch Libraries Group preservationprograms is indicative of CSUL's involvement in this vital area.Because CSUL is striving continuously to improve the overall qualityof its preservation methods, the administrative structure surround-ing the position of the Preservation Librarian is of paramountimportance.

The Preservation Librarian's position was established in 1982, andhas been located in the Research Services Division since itsinception. Research Services is responsible for investigatinglibrary services or activities which demand study and evaluationbefore becoming operational in nature. Applications of librarytechnology are especially appropriate vehicles for ResearchServices. One weakness in having placed the Preservation Librarianinto what is primarily a research and development unit, is theincumbent's frequent inability to integrate preservation into theday-to-day routines of the several large operational units of theLibraries. Materials Processing performs bindery, marking andrepair functons; Circulation is in charge of reshelving, stackmaintenance procedures and is the ultimate front line in identifyingreturned or discharged books/journals requiring minor repairs ormajor conservation work; and the Collection Services subjectlibrarians daily make preservation-related decisions regardingreplacement volumes, conversion to microforms, etc.

The Study Team's primary goal is to recommend an administrativestructure for the Preservation Librarian that would best lead to thecoordination and consolidation of all preservation activities in asingle office. A majority opinion within the Study Team didcoalesce around the following set of recommendations:

1. The Preservation Librarian should be transferred from theResearch Services to the Collection Services Division. While astrong case could be made for placing the PreservationLibrarian into Technical Services or for reporting directly to

a central administrative unit, a Study Team majority concluded

-4-

9

that Collection Services could offer the Preservation Librariana unique opportunity to foster a comprehensive preservationprogram on a Libraries-wide basis.

Collection Services is a large, operational unit that wouldprovide the appropriate framework needed to establish a closeworking relationship with the subject librarians. The RIZPreservation Manuel indicates that the collection developmentstaff should select wisely among competing preservation needs."In particular, preservation is an extension of collectiondevelopment and must be carefully considered as such withineach member institution." (p.9)

The recently published ARL SPEC Kit, no. 116, entitled,"Organizing for Preservation in ARL Libraries," notes that ARLlibraries are more apt to emphasize a preservation unit's linkwith collection development if a high percentage of books orjournals exhibits deterioriating paper quality and is in needof considerable preservation microfilming or replacement. TheApril 5, 1985, "Report of the Task Force on the PhysicalCondition of the Collection" does indicate that 14.8% of theMorgan Library's collection is in poor condition, while 33.8%of the Harmony (now University Libraries Depository) collectionis in poor condition. The relatively high percentage of poorquality books in a collection as recent as CSUL's tends tosupport placing the preservation unit into the CollectionServices Division.

2. The preservation unit's emphasis should be in hands-on conser-vation or repair work and should consist of the PreservationLibraran and one Conservation Assistant (or some such similartitle.) This assistant would handle the replira of librarymaterials. Appropriate equipment and facilities should beprovided. One feasible site for the preservation unit is thenewly constructed University Libraries Depository on LakeStreet. There appears to he ample room in that building, andthe ULD does contain a much higher percentage of books rated asbeing in poor condition according to the April 5, 1985 TaskForce Report (see recommendation no.1 above.) Another suitablelocation is within the Morgan Libary. Room 3 in the basementarea would serve the preservation unit's purpose well becauseof the existing facilities available already in that location.A water faucet and adequate electrical outlets are in place.

The preservation unit should also consist of either a part-timeor full-time LA-IA to assist with clerical routines. Studenthelp could lend some basic clerical support as well.

3. The repair work done at present in the Marking and RepairSection should be broken off from the Materials Processing unitand relocated to the preservation unit. This could involvetransferring or retraining existing personnel rather thancreating a new classified staff position in the Libraries.

Study Team members perceived in-house binding and marking

operations as stricty routinized processing which should remain

-5-

1 0

in their present unit. Proper repair work requires specializedpreservation training and recognizes the uniqueness of eachindividual repair operation. Clear standards and guidelineswould have to be established to differentiate between therepair and marking processes. These standards could be writtenjointly by the Preservation Librarian and the SerialsDepartment.

4. A preservation unit should receive a line budget allocationlarge enougn to undertake an effective, bands-on book repairand conservation program. A start-up preservation programwould require an initial outlay of approximately $100,000.This figure includes roughly $46,000 in salaries for thePreservation Librarian and the Conservation Assistant. Asnoted in recommendation no. 3 above, a Conservation Assistantcould be drawn from existing staff. These two salaries wouldalready be on the books. Full-time cle7ical support wouldrequire an additional $12,000 in salary. Some use of studenthelp with a part-time classified staff member would reduce thisfigure somewhat.

The salary component of the preservation unit would run asfollows:

PRESERVATION LIBRARIANCONSERVATION ASSISTANTCLASSIFIED LA-IA (fuil-time)

$30,000 (All16,000 figures12,000 Approximate)

$58,000

The remaining $42,000 in start-up costs would go toward thepurchase of supplies and equipment needed to run a preservationshop. Some major purchase items would include:

HYGROTHERMOGRAPHS (6)BOARD SHEARERSCORING DEVICEMYLAR ENCAPSUATORFREEZE/DRY CHAMBERBASIC REPAIR SUPPLIESWORKBENCH, CABINETSBOOK PRESS, SEWING FRAMEHANDI -BIND (to replace Togic drill) - -DISASTER SUPPLIES

SALARIES --- $ 58,000SUPPLIES --- 45.600

$103 ,600

$ 3,600 (All3,000 Figures1,000 Approximate)

10,00010,00010,0002,0002,0003,0001.000

$45,600

The cost of general office supplies would be added to thisfigure.

5. The preservation unit should be charged with plannng and coor-dinating the initial major libraries -wide cleaning operation.Future cleaning tasks could be incorporated into Circulationstaff procedures.

6. The Study Team recommends that the strongest possibleadministrative support be given toward preservation efforts.The CSUL Administration should stress the importance that itattaches to preservation, both within the formal preservationunit and during the Libraries staff's day-to-day decisionmaking processes and work habits. A staff preservation educa-tion program, to be fully developed by the PreservationLibrarian would reinforce the better understanding of thehidden preservation-related consequences of the CSUL staffmembers' regular work routines.

R. PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE COLLECTION

Assessing the physical condition of the Libraries' collections andproposing a set of recommendations aimed at protecting the variousmaterials housed in the Morgan Library, the remote storage facilityand the branches may be regarded as the very core of this assistedself-study. The insured value of the entire CSUL collection ispresently estimated at $52 million. A high priority must be givento protecting an investment of this magnitude.

The investigative Task Force on the Physical Condition of theColl,!ction used random sampling techniques based upon Buchanan andColeman's article entitled, "Deterioration Survey of the StanfordUniversity Libraries Green Library Stack Collection." This approachwas supplemented by a series of visual impressions made of varf.ousshelving areas. In determining the results of the sampling, theTask Force assigned a higher weighting to paper state than it did tobindings or covers.

CSUL is 9 middle-sized academic 14h..ary that houses roughly 1.5million cataloged items. While a member of both the Association ofResearch Libraries and the Research Libraries Group, the CSUL'scollections do not possess the chronological scope dnd depth of thenation's premier research institutions. Over 50% of the titlesshelved in the University Libraries Depository remote facility werepublished since 1950, while 50% of the Morgan Library titles werepublished since 1970. On balance, the collection is relativelyyoung.

Given the relative newness of the CSUL collections, the physicalcondition of the Libraries' collections exhibits a high percentageof books and periodicals that fall into the poor category. This

poor category denotes -at:rials in such an advanced state of dis-repair that use should e limited or denied. In the Morgan Library,14.8% of the collectia . is scored in poor condition; 22,8% is inmoderate condition: while 62.4% is categorized as good: Materialsin the recently constructed University Libraries Depository demon-strate more severe preservation urgency. In this facility, 33.8% ofthe materials are in poor condition; 26.9% in moderate condition;only 39.2 in good condition.

Based upon the Task Force report and numerous discussions within theStudy Team itself, the Study Team as a whole makes the following setof recommendations regarding the physical condition of thecollection:

TABLE 1

* PHYSICAL CONDITION OF MORGAN AND HARMONY SAMPLES

0

Paper

1 2 0

Binding

1 2 0

Covers

1 2

Morgan II 260 73 58 323 64 4 299 73 19n=391 y 66.5 18.7 14.8 82.6 16.4 1.0 76.5 18.7 4.9

Harmony Il 155 107 128 314 66 10 290 78 22n=39039.7 27.4 32.8 80.5 16.9 2.6 74.4 20.0 5.6

TABLE 2

Morgann=391

Harmony

n=390

II

II

SCORE (WEIGHTED AVERAGE)

0 1 2

244 89 58

62.4 22.8 14.8

153 105 132

39.2 26.9 33.8

* Harmony is now the Univerity Libraries Depository.

Score interpretation

0 = Good1 = Moderate2 = Poor

/uure, (,,IAL Yht hiver cfr) rUFIrl

Score 2: 14.8% ------

Score 1: 29.8%

_.,..

MMMMMM1;,;;;41

9!!

Figure 1

Score interpretation

0 = Good1 = Moderate2 = Poor

14

Score 0: 62.4%

Th 1-"" r 1 1 4-1L.1. [ 4 It' I 1r

Score :

Score 1: 26_9%

11111116

0:737Iaeri:4111.71:17..:I

:Ur

..

r

191,1111EM

:::.1:11...ir

..mai::.:211:71,..1......41f11111

Ilealagn1111.1111,I111;;;;SO

......1811..06

terhap"^"'"U:i;

ON

......

11.41.

f.

Figure 2

* Harmony is now the University Libraries Depository.

Score interpretation

0 = Good1 = Moderate2 = Poor

1. BINDING REPAIRS AND SUPPLIES

a. Acauire acid-free Pam boxes.

The Circulation Department should begin the phased pur-chase of acid-free pam boxes immediately. These would beused mainly for unbound issues of periodicals.

ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: Increased repair and binding costs;non-acid-free pam boxes will hasten deterioration ofmaterials.

b. Coordinate the selection and buying of supolies for arg7-servation quality and standards, Proper training in useof these supplies is also recommended.

The Preservation Librarian should implement this recommen-dation immediately on an ongoing basis. Supply costs andeffective communication among various units are factorssurrounding implementation. Improper supplies and inade-quate training in their use can result in actual harm tobooks and journals.

ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: Continued or unintended deteriora-tion of materials.

c. Actively incorporate preservation related concerns intoall binding decisions including replacement of the BRODARTequipment.

This recommendation should be jointly implemented by thePreservation and Serials Librarians. It would involve allcommercial and in-house bindery work.

Factors surrounding implementation involve increased costsfor supplies and replacing the BRODART equipment. Regularand ongoing communication between the Preservation andSerials Librarians is required. Incorporating preserv-ation concerns into binding decisions should commenceimmediately, while replacing BRODART should occur by FY1986/1987.

ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: Reduced accessibility and degrada-tion of Libraries records and materials.

2. PRESERVATION AND COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT

a. More actively consider replacement of materials in poorphysical condition with microform. photocopies orproducts associated with emerging technologies.

The Preservation Librarian, all selectors and variousothers should begin to carry out this recommendationbeginning with FY 1986/1987 and continue onward from thattime period.

-8- 1b

Several important factors are linked to thisrecommendation: additional or newer equipment must bepurchased; irregularities in the budget structure regard-ing the source of funding used to purchase microforms mustbe addressed; availability of alternative replacementformats is a concern; increased public relations effortsaimed at staff and patrons in overcoming resistance tonon-book formats must be undertaken.

ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: Limitation and loss of access toinformation; reduced or inefficient space allocation.

b. Choose books and journals on permanent. acid-freemperstock when availab/P.

Selectors, Acquisitions and the Preservation Librarianshould implement this immediately.

Factors involved are general availability of such itemsand staff awareness as to their preservation value. Thecost differential is presently insignificant, if any.

ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: Creation of an avoidable preserv-ation problem for the future.

3. SHELVING AND STACK MAINTENANCE

a. Improve shelving methods for elephant folio materials.

This recommendation is aimed primarilymap-like materials. The Preservation,Documents Librarians should coordinatethis shelving problem.

at atlases or otherCirculation andthe solution to

Implementation factors center mainly on costs derived frompurchasing atlas cases or other forms of compartmentalizedshelving. FY 1986/1987 is the acceptable time frame foraction.

ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: Increased repair costs due toimproper handling and storage.

b. Sezrezate folio from non-folio materials on the firstfloor. North wing of the Morgan Library.

This recommendation involves the Circulation andCataloging Departments. Oversized volumes bend out ofshape and crush smaller items including pam boxedmaterials. The word "FOLIO" should be added to CSUL localdata elements in RLIN records.

ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: Increased repair and binding costs;loss of shelving space which would then dictate that alarger number of materials be transferred to theUniversity Libraries Depository remote storage area; less

-9-

than ideal neatness and shelving conditions leading toincreased labor and maintenance costs.

c. Eliminate all fore-edged shelving.

The Marking unit and Circulation should share theimplementing of this recommendation. Time frame isJanuary, 1986 and continuing.

Interdepartmental coordination and the hiring and sharingof student help to monitor and correct this situation areimplementation factors.

ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: Unnecessary rebinding and wrappingof the covers and boards.

d. Utilize properly-sized bookends in all shelving areas.

Primary responsibility will rest with Circulation, butthis affects Documents, General Reference and ScienceReference as well. Purchase of appropriately-sizedbookends should begin immediately and costs phased in overthe next five years.

ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: Increased repair and binding costsresulting from undersized bookends cutting intobookcovers; overall deterioration of affected materials.

4. PREVENTIVE METHODS

a. Clean the stacks, books, furniture, equipment and the restof the Libraries on a regular and sustained basis.

The Study Team gives this recommendation a very highpriority. Implementation responsibility should residewith the Administrative Assistant in charge of thebuildings, the Preservation Librarian and the CirculationDepartment. Initial cleaning efforts could beorchestrated by the Preservation Librarian andAdministrative Assistant, and then switch over to theCirculation Department in an operational mode for ongoingcleaning regimens.

Factors surrounding successful implementation of thisrecommendation are: training programs, costs involvedwith hiring hourly staff and purchasing cleaningequipment.

ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: Disagreeable study and workenvironment (uncleanliness leads to disrespect of theLibraries and staff by patrons); increased litter bypatrons (dust and dirt are injurious to books and othermaterials and hasten deterioration).

b. Investigate possibility of participating in a regionaldeacidification program.

-10-

/6

The Preservation Librarian should take a lead role inmonitoring state, regional and national developments inthis area.

Due to anticipated high costs involved, a long-termperspective should be adopted.

ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: Hastened deterioration of

materials.

c. Continue_ to monitor collection for special preservation

problems.

This entails a sustained collabt.:ative effort involvingthe Preservation Librarian, selectors, Circulation andMaterials Processing. Staff time, enhanced interdepart-mental communication and heightened preservation educationare implementation factors. The proper time frame isimmediate and ongoing.

ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: Unnoticed deterioration or otherpreservation problems permeating the stacks or certainsegments of the collection.

d. Improve handling of ILL materials.

Recent use of bubble wrap is most helpful. The

Interlibrary Loan and Preservation Librarians shouldestablish more comprehensive standards for wrapping itemsand delivery methods.

Some slight additional costs may be necessary to implementthis recommendation as soon as possible.

ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: Damage to books due to improperhandling or shipping methods.

e. Eliminate all book drops during hours that the MorganLibrary is open.

Book drops are detrimental to books. Books crash into oneanother, fall out of overstuffed bins, etc. This is anunnecessary source of stress and physical deteriorationfor all books and journals placed into book drops.

Implementation factors could involve costs related toacquiring or constructing alternative book return devices.Extra staff time may be needed to accommodate closing the

book drops. Time frame: FY1986/1987.

ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: Needless deterioration of allcirculated items returned through book drops.

C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS WITHIN THE LIBRARIES

The Environmental Task Force charged with investigating and report-ing upon the environmental conditions prevalent in the MorganLibrary and the branch libraries discovered that obtaining informa-tion regarding the environmental data in these buildings provedquite difficult. One task force member noted that, "It seems thatno single person on campus has ready access to precise current dataon systems, capacities, capabilities and problems" of the Librariesbuildings. This underscores a communication and organizationalproblem that extends beyond the confines of the Libraries itself.Because the overall environmental quality has such a strong impacton the collections' well-being, the Study Team believes that thePreservation Librarian should serve as a clearinghouse for maintain-ing information pertaining to all aspects of environmental condi-tions in the Libraries buildings. Centralizing such informationwould prove vital for many subsequent preservation programs andmanagement planning activities.

The Environmental Task Force identified the major environmentalproblem facing the Morgan Library as significant quantities of dirtand dust in all sections of the building. This conclusion wasreached independently of the work done by the Task Force on thePhysical Condition of the Collection, but serves to reinforce theStudy Team's judgement that dust and dirt are indeed the primarypreservation obstacles that must be overcome if the collections areto be maintained at optimal storage levels.- A recommendationregarding dust and dirt comprises pert 4a of section III, B. Thebranch libraries compared to the Morgan Library are relativelyclean.

CSUL's contract with the Custodial Services unit does not requirethe custodial staff to clean or dust the books or the librarystacks. Therefore, these specific cleaning and dusting routinesmust be built into procedures using the Libraries own staff. Atpresent several collections undertake minimal cleaning of theirmaterials and stack areas, most notably the microform collection,the technical report room and the reference service areas. A sys-tematic approach to cleaning the much larger and more time consumingstack areas would require some properly trained student or staffhelp. Awareness of dirt's pernicious impact on library materialsmust be understocl by all staff members. The importance of a staffpreservation education program is vital in this context (see recom-mendation 1, section III, D.)

Six hygrothermographs were set up in numerous locations both in theMorgan Library and the three branches. Readings revealed thatduring the March 1-28, 1985 monitoring period, average temperatureswere significantly higher, and relative humidity generally lowerthan guidelines published in the ARL/OMS Preservation PlanningProgram (p.40-41) manual. Only the 4th floor, 3rd floor (East), and2d floor (far North wing) of th(1 Morgan Library recorded averagetemperatures within the recommended standard of 65° F ± 5 F year-round (see Table 3.) The Atmospheric Sciences Library was the onlybranch falling within the suggested temperature range by recordingan average temperature of 70° F. Relative humidity levels were

-12-

2u

TABLE 3

Average Temp. Average Humidity

4th floor 60 31%

3rd floor (East) 70 33

2nd floor (East) 74 27

2nd floor (Sci Ref) 77 32

2nd floor (North) 72 31

2nd floor (far North) 70 33

1st floor (North) 75 31

Special Collections 71 30

Reference 74 29

Acquisitions 77 31

Identification 76 29

Basement (far North) 72 32

Basement (North) 73 32

Basement (East) 75 28

Basement (West) 75 28

Serials 79 23

Bindery /3 31

Newspaper area 76 31

Micro Room 74 28

significantly lower than ARL guidelines which recommend 50% + 5% asthe ideal re-ige. All relative humidity levels in the Morgan Libraryand the iranches were generally in the 28-32% range. Excessivelylow relative humility can lead to desiccation of books and journals.The climate in Colorado tends to foster low relative humidity.

The Study Team makes the following recommendations regardingenvironmental conditions in the Morgan Library and the branches:

1. HVAC (Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning)

a. C n n s th

Facilities Maintenance in order to conform to acceptedpreservation suidelineli.

Such coordination is essential because the CSU FacilitiesServices Department controls the thermostats throughoutthe Morgan Library. Staff in the branch libraries alsohave no control mar the IIVAC systems. Location ofthermostats could also be reviewed.

This recommendation sbould be carried out by thePreservation Librarian working closely with theappropriate person(s) of the Libraries' centraladministrative unit. Such action would centralize infor-mation about the various Libraries facilities. Openchannels of communication between the Libraries andFacilities Maintenance would benefit both parties inproviding a proper framework of cooperation in fosteringsound preservation and environmental practices.

ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: Steady deterioration of librarymaterials and continued physical discomfort of :_taff andpatrons alike.

b. Monitor the _environmental cc-editions ibariesfacilities on a continuous basis.

The Preservation Librarian should take responsibility forimplementing this recommendation.

Equipment, such as several well-positioLadhygrothermographs, would have to be rented or purchased.This equipment would require regular maintenance andsecurity precautions. Supplies of graph paper, etc. wouldbe purchased in conjunction with monitoring equipment.The Study Team recommends spring, 1986 and ongoing as theappropriate time frame.

ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: Continued deterioration of allLibraries' materials.

c. Insulate heatinz/cooline_pipes where needed.

This in an energy-saving as well as a preservation action.Poorly insulated heating or cooling ducts could skew

-13-

22

thermostat control readings by creating unintended cool orhot spots throughout the buildings. Poorly insulatedheating pipes could result in water leaks.

The Assistant to the Director (Administration) shouldimplement this recommendation. Significant labor ormaterials costs could derive from this proposal. Becauseof potential costs, the Study Team recommends an implemen-tation date of FY 1987/1988.

ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: Potential negative effects ofimproper temperature/humidity levels on the collections.

d. Upgrade the repair priority of the Morgan Library's brokenhumidifier.

The Morgan Library's humidifier has been in a state ofdisrepair for a considerable time. Facilities Servicespersonnel have given this unit's repair status a rela-tively low priority. As seen in Table 3, relativehumidity levels were quite low compared to the ARLguidelines' optimal range. Bringing the humidifier backup to service would perhaps place the Morgan Library'srelative humidity levels up to standard.

The Assistant to the Director (Administration) should takeresponsibility for this recommendation. Commitment by theLibraries' administration and some repair costs are fac-tors to be considered. This repair request should receivethe very highest priority and the Study Team recommendsimmediate implementation.

ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: Continued deterioration of thecollection and high levels of staff and patron physicaldiscomfort.

2. SHELVING

a. Increase shelving in all photocopy areas.

Patrons finished with photocopied library materials oftenplace books onto the warm photocopy machines, the floor,or into inadequate and overcrowded shelving areas. Thethird floor copy machine in particular requires additionalreturn storage space because patrons frequently end upsetting books and bound periodicals down on the radiatoror the floor.

The Assistant to the Director (Administration) should be

charged with arranging for extra book return space nearpublic photocopy machines. This step could involve thepurchase of additional shelves or the redistribution ofpresent furniture and/or shelves. The Study Team recom-mends the purchase of such return shelves by January,1986.

-14-

23

ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: Sudden or cumulative deterioration1f any photocopied item.

b. Stabilize anv and all dangerous shelving areas throughoutthe Libraries system.

Some book shelving areas at the Atmospheric SciencesLibrary are too narrow. The Documents folio area has acritical shelving problem. Piles of oversized volumes areshelved in disarray due to inadequate shelving space.Many of these oversized books have been bent out of shapeand present a source of potential danger to staff orpatrons attempting to extricate any material forconsultation.

This is a task for the Assistant to the Director(Administration) working in collaboration with thePreservation Librarian and the various departmentsinvolved. Due to the human safety factor, the Study Teamurges immediate action on this issue even though there maybe significant costs to the Libraries.

ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: Human safety danger, threat of alawsuit, damage to library materials.

c. Assess and monitor the housing of mans, microforms andother non-book materials and assqliated eauipment.

Single maps kept in the Documents Department's map collec-tion suffer from cramped storage drawers and are prone totearing on their sides when removed from these samedrawers. Additional map storage facilities are crucial inorder to preserve the maps in this heavily usedcollection.

The drawers of some metal cabinets storing microfilm inthe central Microtext Room show signs of oxidation andleaving powdery residues. Fiche housed in the Documentstechnical report room exhibit overcrowding tendencies.

The assessment and monitoring recommended here should beundertaken by the Preservation Librarian and uhe variousselectors who determine when microform purchases areappropriate. These activities should begin immediatelyand continue.

ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: Continued deterioration of non-bookmaterials.

3. ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT.

emitting potentiallyof ultraviolet liht.

Fluorescent lights in the stacks have diffusers attached, butdo not contain UV screens. General Electric bulbs used in the

-15-24

Morgan Library's stack areas rate 88 mu watts per lumen. This

rating i8 somewhat higher than the recommended 75 mu watts

level. ZJV screens would bring the Morgan Library's stackslighting within accepted standards.

Books shelved near windows often receive direct sunlight.Several shelving areas prone to direct sunlight are the west-ernmost shelves in the basement's North wing, the third andfourth floors facing the North, and books in the ScienceReference areas closest to the win'ovs facing the West. The

cost of fully implementing this recommendation could proveconsiderable. Priority should go to Science Reference, andthen to the third and fourth floor areas where direct sunlightposes the most serious threat. The Task Force recommendsestablishing a five-year, phased plan for screening out alldamaging UV light sources. The Auraria and University ofColorado at Boulder libraries now use a 3M product priced atapproximately $2.75 per squgre foot to screen out direct sun-light from some of their windows. Other products may beequally effective.

ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: Continued deterioration and destructionof materials.

4. EXHIBITS

irtanUbartaetgytoryRiewheltibitroamforsecuitandpreservation concerns.

The Exhibits Coordinator, the Preservation Librarian and thedesignated CSUL Security Officer should examine all securityand preservation aspects of exhibits involving personal or CSULmaterials. Several members of the Study Team expzeEced concert)over the general lack of preservation knowledge surrounding themounting and display of Libraries materials during variousexhibits. This could be remedied by more direct and sustainedcommunication between the Exhibits Coordinator and thePreservation Librarian.

ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: Unintended damage to library materialsand possible security consequerces.

D. PRESERVATION EDUCATION

Aclose connection exists between the level of staff and patronpreservation awareness and the fundamental physical condition of alibrary's collections. Staff in public or technical services,including professional, classified or student hourly, handlethousands of books, serials and microforms each day. Patrons alsohandle large numbers of library materials daily, both in librarybuildings and at home. Unfamiliarity with basic library preserv-ation practices will have a deleterious effect on a librarycollection. Staff or patron preservation ignorance may lead tounnecessary or inadvertent damage, often irreversible, to librarymaterials.

25-16-

CSUL now has no Libraries-wide preservation education effort inplace aimed at staff or patrons. A truly effective educationprogram must include both staff and patrons. A comprehensive pre-servation education program should be an ongoing concern and shouldinclude a detailed plan of action.

1. STAFF

A major Libraries-wide preservation education plan should bedevised and implemented within six months. Past educationattempts have been done on an ad-hoc basis by the PreservationLibrarian generally acting alone without participation by otherstaff or Libraries Departments. All professionals and class-ified staff members should participate in the CSUL preservationeducation programs. An initial crash education program wouldserve notice to all Libraries staff that the Director ofLibraries and the Administration are serious about the impor-tance and priority st:Atched to inaugurating such an ongoingeffort. Previous lukewarm administrative support for preoer7-ation activities should be clearly perceived by all staff as nolonger a viable mode of operation. Some staff may see atten-tion to preservation concerns as mere additional work or some-one else's responsibility. Firm administrative support tocounter such misconceptions is crucial to overcome years ofinertia.

The Study Team proposes the f5llowing broad-gaugedrecommendation:

U d jamtrmgjiti n..Overall implementation and planning resonsibility should restwith the Preservation Librarian working in close cooperationwith all Libraries departments. A Preservation Committee,chaired by the Preservation Librarian, would assist in involv-ing staff drawn from various work units and in ensuring thatthe education effort continues on a routine basis. Additionalcommitments of staff members' time and costs of any educationeffort are obvious implementation factors. Time frame is FY1986/1987 and ongoing.

ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: Continued staff ignorance of preserv-ation education concepts and needless deterioration of thecollections.

2. PATRONS

Any preservation education aimed at patrons involves a morecomplex set of circumstances. University level support isrequired to make a patron education program succeed. Backingfrom CSU's central administration, colleges and individualdepartments is a crucial element in guaranteeing that CSULmaterials receive proper handling and respect from theUniversity's students and faculty members. CSUL educationefforts would be partly vitiated by a lack of cooperation orcommunication with outside agencies. Injecting basic preserv-

-17- 26

ation education philosophy into CSUL bibliographic instructionprograms may offer some unique implementation possibilities.

The following proposal is offered by the Study Team:

Undertake a comprehensive Preservation education prostram aimedat patrons who comDxise the Libraries' Primary clientele.

This recommendation should be coordinated jointly by thePreservation Librarian and the Coordinator of LibraryInstruction. A Preservation Committee, mentioned above, couldalso prove valuable in this effort. Cooperation among thePreservation Librarian, the Coordinator of Library Instruction,the Collection Services Division's subject librarians and theReference Department would be essential ingredients for successand in reaching out to faculty and students from alldepartments.

A patron directed education program will involve greater coststhan similar staff efforts. Posters, brochures, exhibits,bookmarks and other possible handouts will entail staff timeand effort along with modest costs for such materials. Whileplanning for patron education activitiu could begin by earlyspring, 1986, actual implementation would commence with FY1986/1987 on a continuing basis.

ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: Continued patron ignorance ofpreservation's importance. General deterioration of CSUL booksand journals both in the buildings and at the patrons' homes.

E. DISASTER PREPAREDNESS PLAN

To date incidents resulting in damage to library materials have beenlimited to leaking roofs and drain pipes backing up. The number ofvolumes affected has been relatively small. The last incident, whenroof leaks damaged several shelves of books and carpeting, pointedup the need for a preparedness plan. Especially evident weaknesseswere the time wasted and the inefficient use of staff because ofuncoordinated efforts, and the lack of supplies within the buildingsuch as plastic to drape over stack units, towels to interleavebooks, and equipment to clean up water from floors.

The Preservation Librarian has received formal training for disasterrecovery at two separate programs and has conducted part of aworkshop. Two other staff members, the Reference Librarian and theStack Supervisor, also participated in the program conducted at theUniversity of Wyoming last fall. The Libraries clearly hasknowledgeable resource people available around whom a plan can bedeveloped. There are any number of examples to draw from in model-ing a program; however, the committee approach for developing a planis the most satisfactory, for it increases the awareness of the

staff. Also, the plan must cover more than just having a few peopleidentified on whom to call. The ideal situation includes theorganization of a disaster recovery team consisting of staffmembers, each with his or her special assignment and expertise,which would then establish liaisons with persons in charge of the

-18-

27

facilities and coordinate the plan with campus security personnel.The Preservation Librarian should have overall authority to direct

the disaster recovery team, keep the plan up-to-date, secure emer-gency supplies to be maintained on site, and locate readily avail-

able sources for other supplies and equipment.

I. Disaster Plan

a. A committee should be formed to study the Libraries andformulate a plan designed for the Morgan Library and its

collections. It is important that the branch librariesalso be included in disaster planning.

b. The committee should include the Preservation Librarian aschair, Circulation Department head, University Archivist,Administrative Assistant in charge of the building, andrepresentatives drawn from the major departments and

divisions of the Libraries system.

c. The plan should be formulated with the aid of the RLGPreservation Manual, which outlines the essentials of adisaster plan, and the ARL Preservation Program PlanningManual, which gives the basic outline for developing theplan via the committee approach.

d. The committee should receive a very high priority withinthe CSUL administration, and should be constituted with

all due haste.

2. Mechanisms for Minor Disasters.

This is the part of the disaster plan that in all likelihoodwould be used most frequently. The Preservation Librarianshould be assigned the responsibility for organizing a group ofstaff members to respond to minor disasters such as waterleaks, etc.

F. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

The Study Team recommends that it be reconvened one year after thedate of submission of this report for a single meeting to evaluateprogress and submit a report on that subject to the Directoi of

Libraries.

28

-19-