The UC Preservation Program got off to a highly successful start in FY 86-87. All Components of the Program were implemented as planned, with the following specific achievements in each Program component:

1. Environmental Monitoring and Disaster Preparedness

* Environmental monitoring programs have been started (or plans developed) for all campuses (accomplished in conjunction with the NEH funded Preservation Implementation Project.

* Environmental monitoring equipment has been purchased and distributed to all campuses (except for Santa Barbara, which will receive its equipment in FY 87-88):

Hygrothermographs / Psychrometers


Berkeley 0/0
Davis 0/0
Irvine 1/0
Los Angeles 3/1
Riverside 1/1
San Diego 0/1
San Francisco 1/1
Santa Barbara 1/1
Santa Cruz 1/1

Total cost $4,097 (excluding Santa Barbara)


(The campuses that did not receive equipment already have purchased it out of their own funds, thus reducing costs to the Program.)

* Disaster preparedness and response plans have been written or are in preparation for all nine campuses (achieved in conjunction with the NEH funded Preservation Implementation Project).

* Disaster salvage supplies have been purchased (or funds set aside):


9,400 record storage boxes $16,920
94 rolls freezer wrap $ 3,760
Total cost $20,680


(Some of the supplies were not purchased in FY 86-87 because SRLF was not able to take receipt of the shipment. Berkeley spent the funds and will provide the Program with the supplies in FY 87-88 as soon as SRLF is able to accept shipment.)

The two regional library facilities will be stocked with supplies sufficient to salvage 94,000 volumes. To my knowledge, this will become the largest institutional stockpile of salvage supplies in the country. In the event of a major disaster, salvage will be able to begin immediately rather than be delayed for several days while waiting for a commercial supplier to deliver supplies to the disaster site.

2. Education and Training.

* UC Preservation Microfilming Policies and Procedures, 2/19/87, were developed and adopted. The document outlines procedures for the library’s preservation replacement staff for preparation and evaluation of materials to be microfilmed, and provides specifications for the microfilmer that control practices and ensure quality.

* The Director investigated mutual preservation concerns with the Getty libraries (Center for the History of Art and the Humanities Library, and the Conservation Institute Library). A meeting was held in Los Angeles to follow up interest. Rough ideas for a cooperative project were drafted for discussion. Present at the meeting in the role of observer was a representative of the Getty Grants Program, though the guidelines for the Grants Program currently do not include library preservation needs.

* The Program provided technical support for all campuses as needed. Examples thus far have included salvage of damaged materials, environmental control standards, identification and evaluation of microfilming service bureaus, and assistance to the regional storage facilities (including serving on the Building Committee for NRLF, Phase II).

* A visit and meeting at the Center for Research Libraries was undertaken to evaluate the preservation program for materials held by the Center, and to explore appropriate ways for the UCPP to become involved.

3. Library Binding Services

* A review of binding services was initiated to ensure that the libraries are receiving the best possible services at the lowest possible costs. A document, Library Binding Review Campus Data, was prepared for and reviewed by the Operations Committee and the supervisors of the northern and southern binderies. Collection of campus data has begun and will be continued into FY 87-88. UC binding costs and costs for commercial alternatives will be compiled. Ways to reduce unit costs through increased cooperation among campuses and between binderies will be explored. The position of the university and state on contracting for binding services outside the university and state will be determined. University procedures for fund allocations for binding will be reviewed.

* Following discussions with UC preservation administrators about library needs, two new services have been introduced experimentally at the binderies: the northern bindery has begun to manufacture custom-sized “phase boxes” for protection of materials with several separate parts (e.g., music parts, groups of loose plates) and for protection of rare or very fragile volumes. Cost: approximately $15/box, much less than cloth covered boxes made heretofore. The southern bindery has started a program to photocopy and bind volumes from brittle originals. Costs appear to be less than equivalent services available commercially.

4. Preservation Technologies Review

* The Director visited the Library of Congress to informally review progress on the optical disk project. The project is considered a technical success in that materials are stored on and retrieved from the system. The Library cannot decide to what purpose to put the system. The equipment already is less than state of the art. A testing program to determine longevity of optical disks is not being pursued currently due to staffing problems and lack of administrative attention.

* The Director participated in a conference at Columbia University to explore and evaluate state of the art technologies for salvage of library and archive collections following a disaster. For UC’s protection, investigations will be made on the feasibility of a portable (among campuses) vacuum freeze dry unit to dry wet materials, kill mold, and exterminate insects.

5. Preservation Operations Committee

* Three meetings of the Operations Committee were held in FY 86-87, November, February, and June, to start each of the components of the UC Preservation Program. The Committee has found its meetings very valuable to develop procedures and establish cooperative working relationships among the preservation programs on all campuses. Minutes of the meetings are available. Future meetings will be scheduled as needed, with as few as possible to accomplish the work of the Committee.

6. Preservation Reformatting

* Funds were distributed to all campuses to identify, prepare, film, and provide bibliographic control for brittle volumes and preservation master microfilms made from them. Some campuses have expended all funds, others have liened their monies and will finish production (indicated by a + following the figure) early in FY 87-88.



B 162,000 pp.
D 107,384 pp.
I 4,400+pp.
LA 21,768+pp.
R 15,600+pp.
SD 40,992 pp.
SF 21,150 pp.
SB 58,400 pp.
SC 1,620+pp.


Total pages filmed: 433,314 pp.

* A meeting was held with OCLC to explore its use for recording master negative information for OCLC campuses. Interim procedures were established for UC campuses to search OCLC, as well as RLIN, for master negative information, thereby allowing UC to avoid overlap in filming progress among campuses. A major problem not yet resolved is that some cataloging units on some of the campuses do not follow national standards for cataloging master negative microfilms.This problem must be resolved before our preservation microfilming program is able to be entirely successful.

Respectfully submitted,
Barclay W. Ogden
16 September 87

Attachments: UC Preservation Program Financial Statement FY 86-87
Rosters of Membership of Preservation Steering Committee, FY 86-87

UC Preservation Program Fnancial Statement, FY 1986-1987


Component Original
End of Yr.
1. Envi/Disaster
  S & E 20,000 19,192 24,777 (5,585)
  Staffing 3,400 3,258 3,036 222
2. Ed. & Train
  S & E 5,000 4,791 0 4,791
  Tele/copies 1,100 1,054 1,054 0
  Travel 1,600 1,533 165 1,368
  Staffing 17,550 16,815 18,526 (1,711)
3. Lib Binding
  Tele/copies 1,000 926 300 626
  Travel 800 766 737 29
  Staffing 16,100 15,426 16,054 (628)
4. Pres. Tech.
  Staffing 3,400 3,258 3,036 222
5. Operations Ctte.
  Staffing 3,400 3,258 3,036 222
6. Reformatting
  S & E (filming)
    Berkeley 21,108 20,225 20,225 0
    Davis 16,332 15,648 15,648 0
    Irvine 12,507 11,983 11,983 0
    Los Angeles 22,936 21,975 21,975 0
    Riverside 9,154 8,770 8,770 0
    San Diego 13,334 12,776 12,776 0
    San Francisco 5,000 4,791 4,791 0
    Santa Barbara 11,887 11,389 11,389 0
    Santa Cruz 7,592 7,274 7,274 0
  Staffing   6,800 6,516 6,072 444
Total 200,000 191,624 191,624 0


Last reviewed: March 4, 2004