[Evaluation Report on Year 2000 Readiness of Automated Information Systemsat the U.S. Geological Survey]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Report No. 99-i-166

Title: Evaluation Report on Year 2000 Readiness of Automated Information
       Systemsat the U.S. Geological Survey

Date:  January 8, 1999




                  **********DISCLAIMER**********

This file contains an ASCII representation of an OIG report.
No attempt has been made to display graphic images
or illustrations.
Some tables may be included, but may not resemble those
in the printed version.
A printed copy of this report may be obtained by referring
to the PDF
file or by calling the Office of Inspector General, Division of
Acquisition and Management Operations at (202) 208-4599.

                  ******************************






U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Inspector General




EVALUATION REPORT


YEAR 2000 READINESS OF AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS
AT THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

REPORT NO. 99-I-166
JANUARY 1999


MEMORANDUM


             TO:  The Secretary

           FROM:  Eljay B. Bowron
                  Inspector General

SUBJECT SUMMARY:  Final Evaluation Report - "Year 2000
                  Readiness of Automated Information Systems at
                  the U.S. Geological Survey" (No. 99-i-166)

Attached for your information is a copy of the subject final
evaluation report.  The objective of our evaluation was to
determine whether the U.S. Geological Survey inventoried its
automated information systems and identified those systems that
were mission critical and were not Y2K (Year 2000)  compliant and
whether the Geological Survey and the Washington Administrative
Service Center (1) developed auditable cost estimates for
renovating systems to be Y2K compliant; (2) identified,  by name,
individuals  responsible for ensuring that the Geological Survey
is Y2K compliant; (3) ensured that responsible individuals'
personnel performance evaluation plans included critical elements
related to identifying and remedying Y2K problems; (4) developed
a credible plan that included milestones and a critical path to
ensure that the Geological Survey is Y2K compliant;  and (5)
developed a contingency plan that would address the failure of
any part of the systems not being Y2K ready.  This review was
conducted at the request of the Department of the Interior's
Chief Information Officer.

Regarding the areas  evaluated, we found that the Geological
Survey had completed action for one area but had not completed
all actions for the five remaining areas.  Specifically, the
Geological Survey had designated responsible officials but had
not completed an inventory of its automated information systems,
developed auditable cost estimates for all of its
mission-critical systems, included critical elements related to
identifying and remedying Y2K problems in all responsible
individuals' annual personnel performance evaluation plans,
developed credible plans that included milestones and critical
paths to ensure Y2K compliance, and developed contingency plans
that would address any part of the systems not being Y2K  ready.
Subsequent  to our fieldwork, the Geological Survey responded
that it had completed actions for four of the areas and, on the
remaining area, was in the process of completing an inventory of
its automated information systems.

We also concluded that the Washington Administrative Service
Center had completed the requirements for four areas and that one
area was not applicable.  Specifically, Service Center Y2K
project management had developed auditable cost estimates and a
credible plan, including milestones where applicable; had
completed actions on the designation of responsible individuals;
and had included critical elements related to identifying and
remedying Y2K problems in all responsible individuals' annual
personnel performance evaluation plans.   However, according to
Service Center Y2K project management, the development of a
contingency plan for the Federal Financial System and the
Interior Department Electronic Acquisition System was not needed.
As a result of the progress made by Service Center Y2K project
management, we believe that the Service Center may meet the
Office of Management and Budget's target date of March 1999 for
having compliant Y2K systems implemented provided that the Y2K
project proceeds as scheduled.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact
me at (202) 208-5745 or  Mr. Robert J. Williams, Assistant
Inspector General for Audits,  at (202) 208-4252.


Attachment





EVALUATION REPORT                            A-IN-GSV-001-98-R



Memorandum


           To:  Director, U.S. Geological Survey

         From:  Robert J. Williams
                Assistant Inspector General for Audits

      Subject:  Evaluation Report on Year 2000 Readiness of
                Automated Information Systemsat the U.S.
                Geological Survey (No. 99-i-166)

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our evaluation of the
year2000 (Y2K) readiness of automated information systems at
the U.S. Geological Survey and the Geological Survey's
WashingtonAdministrative Service Center.[1]  The objective
of our reviewwas to determine whether the Geological Survey
inventoried itsautomated information systems and identified those
systems thatwere mission critical and were not Y2K compliant and
whether theGeological Survey and the Service Center (1) developed
auditablecost estimates for renovating systems to be Y2K
compliant; (2)identified, by name, individuals responsible for
ensuring thatthe Geological Survey is Y2K compliant; (3) ensured
thatresponsible individuals' annual personnel performance
evaluationplans included critical elements related to identifying
andremedying Y2K problems; (4) developed a credible plan
thatincluded milestones and a critical path to ensure that
theGeological Survey is Y2K compliant; and (5) developed
acontingency plan that would address the failure of any part
ofthe systems not being Y2K ready.  This review was conducted
atthe request of the Department of the Interior's Chief
InformationOfficer to assist the Information Officer in
monitoring theprogress of Departmental agencies in ensuring
Y2Kreadiness,implementing Y2K compliant systems, and validating
the accuracyof the information reported by the Departmental
agencies to theChief Information Officer.

BACKGROUND

The "Y2K problem" is the term used to describe the
potentialfailure of information technology systems, applications,
andhardware related to the change to the year 2000.  Many
computersystems that use two digits to keep track of the date
will, onJanuary 1, 2000, recognize "double zero" not as 2000 but
as 1900.This could cause computer systems  to stop running or to
startgenerating erroneous data. The  problem has been recognized
as nationally significant by the  President  in Executive Order
13073, issued in February 1998.  The  Secretary of  the Interior,
in a December 1997 memorandum, stated that the  Y2K  problem was
critical to the Department in meeting its mission  and that
resolution of the problem was one  of  his highest priorities.
Further, Office  of Management and Budget Memorandum 98-02,
"Progress  Reports on Fixing Year 2000 Difficulties," issued on
January  20, 1998, requires all Federal executive branch agencies
to ensure that Federal  Government systems do not fail because of
the change to the  year 2000  and to have all systems,
applications, and hardware  renovated  by  September 1998,
validated by January 1999, and implemented  (that is,  "fixes to
all systems--both mission critical and non-mission  critical")
by March 1999.  The Office of Management and Budget, in
Memorandum  98-02, states that it is to provide "information to
the  Congress and  the public as part of its [Office of
Management and Budget's] quarterly  summary reports on agency
progress . . . [and] to report on the  status  of agency
validation and contingency planning efforts and on  progress  in
fixing . . . equipment that is date sensitive."

The Department has developed the "Department of the Interior
Year  2000 Management Plan," which focuses on the resolution of
the Y2K problem and provides an overall strategy for managing
Departmental mission-critical systems and infrastructure.  The
Department has a multitiered approach to managing the Y2K problem
that includes a top tier, which  comprises the Secretary of the
Interior; the Information Technology Steering Committee, which
consists of the Chief of Staff and Assistant Secretaries; and the
Chief Information Officer, who is responsible for the
Department's Y2K issues.  This tier, which represents
senior-level Departmental managers, provides the Y2K project's
direction and resources and ensures accurate reporting to
external organizations, such as the Office of Management and
Budget and the Congress.  A Departmentwide Y2K project team,
which reports to the Chief Information Officer and comprises
representatives from each agency and the Office of the Secretary,
was tasked with developing the Department's "Year 2000 Management
Plan," refining inventory data on the Department's
mission-critical and information technology portfolio systems,[2]
and monitoring and reporting the progress of each conversion. In
addition, a Y2K Embedded Microchip[3] Coordinators Team has been
established to inventory and monitor embedded microchip
technology Y2K problems.  The team is led by the Office of
Managing Risk and Public Safety and comprises representatives of
the eight Departmental agencies, the Denver Administrative
Service Center, and various Departmental offices.

The Department's August 1998 "Progress Report," which was
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, reported that
the Department had 91 mission-critical systems, of which the U.S.
Geological Survey had 13 systems (see the Appendix).   In
addition, the Federal Financial System (FFS) and the Interior
Department Electronic Acquisition System (IDEAS), which were
maintained by the Service Center, are 2 of the Office of the
Secretary's mission-critical systems and are 2 of the
Department's 13 information technology portfolio systems. To
address the Y2K problems, the Geological Survey established the
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) Millennium Task Force.  The
structure included an executive Y2K manager who is the Associate
Director for Operations; a Y2K program coordinator; Y2K
coordinators at Geological Survey division offices; and Y2K
contacts for telecommunication infrastructure, embedded
technology, and administrative systems.  The Service Center also
established a Y2K project management structure that included
representatives on the Task Force.

SCOPE OF EVALUATION

To accomplish our objective, we reviewed the documentation
available that supported the Geological Survey's information
submitted to the Department's Chief Information Officer for the
June, July, and August "Progress Reports" and the available
documentation that supported the information submitted by the
Service Center to the Office of the Secretary for FFS and IDEAS.
We performed our evaluation from June through August 1998 at the
Geological Survey's National Center located in Reston, Virginia.
We interviewed personnel responsible for project coordination to
identify the Geological Survey's and the Service Center's Y2K
plans and progress.  We also interviewed personnel involved in
various aspects of the Y2K project, including coordination,
compliance identification, software remediation, and project
management.

The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the "Quality
Standards for Inspections," issued by the President's Council on
Integrity and Efficiency, and included such tests and inspection
procedures considered necessary to accomplish the objective. Our
conclusions on the status of the progress made by the Geological
Survey in addressing and remediating Y2K problems were based on
reviews of documentation maintained by the Geological Survey and
discussions with the Y2K coordinators throughout the Geological
Survey and with individuals performing remediation or replacement
of noncompliant applications or hardware.  Also, our conclusions
on the status of the progress made by the Washington
Administrative Service Center were based on reviews of
documentation and discussions withY2K project management and with
individuals performing testing, remediation, or replacement of
noncompliant applications or hardware.  As specifically agreed to
in our discussions with the Department's Chief Information
Officer, we did not validate or certify that the Geological
Survey's or the Service Center's systems were Y2K compliant.

RESULTS OF EVALUATION

Regarding the six areas that the Chief Information Officer
requested us to evaluate, we found that the Geological Survey had
completed action for one area but had not completed all actions
for the five remaining areas.  Specifically, the Geological
Survey had designated responsible officials but had not completed
an inventory of its automated information systems, developed
auditable cost estimates for all of its mission-critical systems,
included critical elements related to identifying and remedying
Y2K problems in all responsible individuals' annual personnel
performance evaluation plans, developed credible plans that
included milestones and critical paths to ensureY2K compliance,
and developed contingency plans that would address any part of
the systems not being Y2K ready.  As a result, we believe that
there is an increased  risk that the Geological Survey may not
meet the Office of Management and Budget's target date of March
1999 for having compliant Y2K systems implemented.

Additionally, of the five areas that the Chief Information
Officer had requested us to review, we concluded that the
Washington Administrative Service Center had completed the
requirements for four areas and that one area was not applicable.
Specifically, Service Center Y2K project management had developed
auditable cost estimates and a credible plan, including
milestones where applicable; had completed actions on the
designation of responsible individuals; and had included critical
elements related to identifying and remedying Y2K problems in all
responsible individuals' annual personnel performance evaluation
plans.   However, according to Service Center Y2K project
management, the development of a contingency plan for FFS and
IDEAS was not needed.  As a result of the progress made by
Service Center Y2K project management, we believe that the
Service Center may meet the Office of Management and Budget's
target date of March 1999 for having compliant Y2K systems
implemented provided that the Y2K project pro ceeds as scheduled.

The specific actions taken by the Geological Survey and the
Service Center related to each area and other issues affecting
the Geological Survey's and the Service Center's Y2K progress are
discussed in the paragraphs that follow. Automated Information
Systems Inventory The Geological Survey had not performed an
inventory of all of its automated information systems (mission
and nonmission critical). According to the Department's milestone
dates, agencies were required to have mission-critical systems
inventoried and systems that were not Y2K compliant identified by
June 1997.  Although the Geological Survey reported 13
mission-critical systems, these systems were not identified
through a systematic inventory but had been identified previously
by the Geological Survey as mission critical.  As a result of not
performing an inventory of all mission- and nonmission-critical
systems, the Geological Survey may have other systems that are
mission critical and should have been reported to the
Department's Chief Information Officer and to the Office of
Management and Budget. Therefore, we determined that the
Geological Survey had not completed this requirement. During
meetings with Y2K project management after our fieldwork was
completed, Y2K project management stated that it was c ontinuing
its efforts to complete an inventory of automated information
systems.

The Department's Chief Information Officer requested that we
determine the progress of the Geological Survey in addressing Y2K
problems related to telecommunications equipment and embedded
microchips in information systems and facilities.  We found that
the Geological Survey, at the time of our review, had begun to
inventory and test telecommunications equipment and to inventory
embedded microchips in information systems, scientific equipment,
and facilities.  Although Geological Survey Y2K project
management had begun to inventory and test telecommunications
equipment, they had not prepared a comprehensive overview,
neither graphic nor in narrative form, of the Geological Survey's
communications systems. Without a comprehensive overview of the
communications systems, the risk is increased that a complete
inventory may not be accomplished. We also found that
telecommunications equipment for the Department of the Interior
Network (DOINET[4]) had been tested.  According to the "DOINET
Compliance Verification Test Results," the impact on Y2K
compliance was "minimal," and the portions of the DOINET network
tested were found to be Y2K compliant, although some anomalies
had occurred. Auditable Cost Estimates We found that only 1 of
the 13 cost estimates that the Geological Survey had reported to
the Department's Chief Information Officer in the August 1998
"Progress Report" was auditable.  The revised cost of $74,588 for
the Seismic Event Data Analysis System (SEDAS) was supported by
estimates established for each phase of the project using a
project management tool and a supportable basis for the estimate.

Although this same project management tool and estimate basis
were used to develop revised cost estimates for the Mineral
Resource Data System (MRDS), the Global Seismograph Network
(GSN), and the U.S. National Seismograph Network (USNSN) systems,
these revised auditable cost estimates were not reported to the
Department's Chief Information Officer in the August 1998
"Progress Report."  The documentation to support the reported
incurred costs of $14,446 for the National Coal Resources Data
System (NCRDS) was not provided.  The documentation used to
support the Geological Survey's cost estimates for correcting the
Y2K problems in each of the Geological Survey's remaining eight
mission-critical systems was not maintained; therefore, these
cost estimates were not auditable.  Subsequent to our fieldwork,
the Geological Survey provided us with documentation pertaining
to Y2K funding requirements for fiscal year 1999.  The
documentation identified, by object code, estimated costs for 2
of the 13 mission-critical systems reported, the GSN and the
National Water Information System (NWIS). However, this
documentation did not agree with the amounts reported in the
August 1998 "Progress Report" and did not specifically identify
the basis for these estimates. Consequently, the Geological
Survey had not completed this requirement.

We found that the cost estimates developed by the vendor for the
Y2K effort related to FFS were auditable and supported.  Service
Center Y2K project management said that since IDEAS was Y2K
compliant by design, specific Y2K costs were not applicable.
Therefore, the Service Center had completed this requirement.

Designation of Responsible Individuals Geological Survey
documentation identified 15 individuals, excluding
representatives from the Washington Administrative Service
Center, as responsible for Y2K compliance.  Specifically, we
found that the Geological Survey had designated, by name, the Y2K
executive; the Geological Survey Y2K program coordinator; Y2K
coordinators in each of the Geological Survey's division offices;
coordinators for its administrative systems, telecommunication
infrastructure, and embedded technology; and technical managers
and other responsible individuals. Therefore, the Geological
Survey had completed this requirement.

We also found that the Service Center specifically named
individuals responsible for FFS and IDEAS Y2K compliance and had
named representatives on the Geological Survey's  USGS Millennium
Task Force. Therefore, the Service Center had completed this
requirement.

Annual Personnel Performance Evaluation Plans

The Secretary of the Interior's December 1997 memorandum required
that "a critical performance element for identifying and
remedying" the Y2K problem be included as part of each
responsible official's annual personnel performance evaluation
plan.  Responsible officials are defined in the memorandum as
agency directors, agency Y2K executives, agency information
resources management coordinators, safety officials, and all
others as determined by the Y2K executives.   We found that the
Geological Survey's Y2K executive, the Geological Survey's
Information Resources Management Coordinator, the Y2K program
coordinator, and 8 of the remaining 12 individuals assigned Y2K
coordination duties had elements addressing Y2K objectives in
their annual personnel performanc e evaluation plans.  Subsequent
to our fieldwork, Geological Survey Y2K project management
provided documentation indicating that three of the remaining
four individuals assigned to the Y2K project had an element
addressing Y2K in their annual personnel performance evaluation
plans. According to Y2K project management, the remaining
individual did not have a Y2K objective in the annual personnel
performance evaluation plan because the individual had no direct
Y2K involvement. However, documentation provided during our
fieldwork indicated that this individual was part of the Y2K
project management team and was specifically required by the
Associate Director of Operations to have a Y2K objective included
in the annual personnel performance evaluation plan.  Therefore,
the Geological Survey had not completed this requirement.

We found that the four individuals assigned responsibility for
the Y2K project at the Service Center had elements addressing Y2K
objectives in their annual personnel performance evaluation
plans. Therefore, the Service Center had completed this
requirement.

Plan for Milestones

We found that the Geological Survey had developed credible plans
which included milestones with critical paths for 5 of the 13
mission-critical systems reported as part of the Geological
Survey's Y2K project.  In July 1998, the Geological Survey
developed plans to correct the Y2K problems in five systems:
NCRDS, MRDS, USNSN, GSN, and SEDAS. Although a draft plan, dated
July 1998, for the Map Catalog (MapCat) System was developed, the
plan did not address the independent validation and verification
phase.  There were final plans, developed in July 1998, for the
Distributed Ordering Research Reporting and Accounting Network
(DORRAN), the Assignment Management System (AMS), and the
Operational Database (ODB) system, along with a draft plan for
the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS).  However,
milestones for each of the steps to be performed were not
identified in the plans for these four systems. In addition, we
found that plans had not been formally developed for the
Distributed Information System-II (DIS-II), the Administrative
Information System (AIS), and the National Water Information
System (NWIS).   Therefore, the Geological Survey had not
completed this requirement at the time of our review.  In our
November 1998 meeting with Geological Survey officials, Y2K
project management stated that 10 of the 13 systems had been
renovated and documentation had been submitted to the Department
for certification.  The documentation provided to us indicated
that independent verification and validation had been completed
for 5 of the 10 systems. Therefore, because these five systems
had undergone independent verification and validation, we believe
that project management plans for these five systems (MapCat,
DORRAN, AMS, ODB, and GNIS) would not be necessary. However, the
Geological Survey had not provided us documentation for the
remaining eight systems to support that the plan would not be
necessary.

We found that the Service Center had a credible plan with a
critical path to address Y2K compliance for FFS.  The contractor,
which was responsible for remediating FFS, had provided the
Service Center with credible plans and milestones for delivery of
the Y2K compliant version of FFS.  In addition, the Department of
the Interior's Software Advisory Board, which comprises
representatives from all Departmental agencies that use and are
responsible for testing and maintaining FFS, had developed target
testing and production installation dates for the Y2K compliant
version of FFS.  Because Service Center officials stated that
IDEAS was Y2K compliant by design and that the certification of
Y2K compliance had been submitted to the Department, a plan was
not required.  Therefore, the Service Center had completed this
requirement.

Contingency Plans

We found that the Geological Survey had contingency plans for 4,
including 1 in draft, of the reported 13 mission-critical
systems. However, the contingency plans for the four systems were
not specifically related to Y2K but addressed general information
technology disaster recovery.  Therefore, we believe that the
plans for the four systems did not address the failure of the
system not being Y2K ready.  In addition, the Geological Survey
did not develop a contingency plan for NCRDS because, according
to Geologic Division Y2K project management, this system was
compliant and awaiting certification.  The Geologic Division's
Y2K project management also stated that the Geological Survey did
not develop a contingency plan for GSN because a contingency plan
would be cost prohibitive and thus not feasible.  Instead, the
Geologic Division's master plan for renovation of the GSN
included revised dates based on an accelerated schedule, which
required additional resources of $199,580 to be allocated to the
effort.  The Department's August 1998 "Progress Report" to the
Office of Management and Budget stated that the "allocation of
additional resources to accelerate the compliance schedule is
being determined."   Since implementation of a contingency plan
is not feasible, we believe that it is critical for the
Geological Survey to address the resource requirement to meet the
accelerated schedule to ensure full implementation of a
mission-critical system that is Y2K compliant by March 1999.

According to Water Resources Division Y2K project management, the
Geological  Survey had not developed contingency plans for NWIS
because the system was planned to be Y2K compliant and to be
fully implemented by September 1998.  However, Water Resources
DivisionY2K project management said that they needed an upgrade
to the required graphics software to meet Y2K compliance.  The
Y2K project management further stated that the Geological Survey
needed a new software program to support the Web interface with
the NWIS but that the software was not expected to be released
until December 1998.  In our October 6, 1998, meeting, Y2K
project management stated that the upgrade to the graphics
software had been ordered and that  reprogramming of the Web
interface had been completed.  In our November 4, 1998, meeting,
the Water Resources Division Y2K project management stated that
NWIS had been implemented.  Therefore, we believe that a
contingency plan would not be necessary for NWIS.  The Geological
Survey said that it had not developed formal contingency plans
for the remaining six mission-critical systems because the
systems were to be compliant prior to March 1999.  Therefore, the
Geological Survey had not completed this requirement.

The Washington Administrative Service Center had not developed
contingency plans related to Y2K for Office of the Secretary
systems, which operated on the Geological Survey's mainframe.
This occurred, according to Service Center Y2K project
management, because contingency planning for FFS was the
responsibility of the Department's Office of Financial
Management, which is the system owner.  Office of the Secretary
officials stated that a contingency plan for FFS was being
developed.  Further, Service Center Y2K project management said
that contingency planning was not applicable for IDEAS because
IDEAS was Y2K compliant by design.  Consequently, the requirement
for contingency planning on the part of the Service Center for
Y2K did not apply.
Other Issues

We noted other issues that affected the Geological Survey's and
the Service Center's Y2K readiness efforts as follows:

   - Data Exchange.  The Department of the Interior and the
   Office of Management and Budget required that an inventory of
   all data exchanges with outside parties be completed by
   February 1, 1998, and that coordination with these parties to
   determine a transition plan occur by March 1, 1998.  We found
   that the Geological Survey had not completed an inventory of
   all of its data exchange partners.  For example, the Water
   Resources Division Y2K coordinator said that there are more
   than 1,000 cooperating Federal, state, and local agencies for
   the Water Resources Division but that a complete inventory of
   these exchange partners was not available.  However, of the
   data exchange partners that were inventoried, we found
   documentation to support that those partners were contacted by
   Division Y2K coordinators.

The Service Center had identified two interfaces with systems
external to the Service Center,  both of which were with other
Federal Government entities.  The Service Center Y2K project
management had contacted the U.S. Treasury, which was one of the
interfaces, and determined that FFS data could be interfaced.
The Department's Federal Personnel Payroll System, at the Bureau
of Reclamation's Denver Administrative Service Center, was the
other interface that had been addressed.  Thus, the inventory of
data exchange partners was
complete.

   - Independent Verification and Validation.  According to the
   Geological Survey's Y2K project management, independent
   verification and validation testing of renovated
   mission-critical systems was to be performed internally by
   Geological Survey staff because of the expertise needed to
   test the systems. Y2K project management stated that
   independent verification and validation testing had begun for
   all but three of the mission-critical systems.

Service Center Y2K project management said that the Service
Center was relying on acceptance testing of the new FFS software
release performed internally and on each of the Departmental
agencies to meet the independent verification and validation
testing requirements.  However, we believe that by relying on
acceptance testing and not performing any type of integrated
testing, the Service Center will not be assured that all FFS
modules will function in the year 2000 as designed. Further, we
found that although the Service Center had submitted a request to
the Department's Chief Information Officer to certify IDEAS Y2K
compliance, the software had not been independently verified.
Specifically, the Service Center's Procurement Systems Branch,
which participated in the procurement of the software, tested the
IDEAS-Procurement Desktop and the Procurement Desktop Web
Application, and the developer of IDEAS tested the IDEAS Business
Opportunities, which interfaces with IDEAS. The Department's
independent verification and validation guidelines dated August
1998  require that mission-critical systems be independently
reviewed, verified, and validated by individuals who have no part
in the development or renovation of the software.  We believe
that the independent verification and validation performed by the
Service Center did not meet the Department's guidelines. However,
Departmental Y2K project management stated that the testing
performed on FFS and IDEAS met the Department's independent
verification and validation requirement.

   - Mainframe Computer Operating System.  The Geological
   Survey's mainframe computer, which is the computer where FFS
   acceptance testing is to be performed, has the same operating
   system as the Denver Administrative Service Center's mainframe
   computer (which is not Y2K compliant and will not be compliant
   unless more than 100 program temporary fixes are implemented
   or the system is upgraded to a newer version of the operating
   system).  According to Geological SurveyY2K project
   management, the operating system was upgraded and implemented
   in September 1998, and application level testing for FFS and
   IDEAS was scheduled for September 25 through December 31,
   1998.  However, if delays are encountered in testing the
   applications, the Geological Survey should develop a
   contingency plan to ensure that the operating system does not
   adversely affect the compliant FFS and IDEA systems or other
   client applications.

During an October 6, 1998, exit conference to discuss a
preliminary draft of this report and a subsequent meeting on
November 4, 1998, Geological Survey project management generally
agreed with our evaluation.  Based on the actions taken by
project management to address the incomplete areas and on the
additional information provided, we made changes to the report as
appropriate and have not made any recommendations.

Since this report does not contain any recommendations, a
response is not required.

The legislation, as amended, creating the Office of Inspector
General requires semiannual reporting to the Congress on all
audit reports issued, the monetary impact of audit findings,
actions taken to implement audit recommendations, and
identification of each significant recommendation on which
corrective action has not been taken.

We appreciate the assistance of personnel at the U.S. Geological
Survey's National Center, including the Washington Administrative
Service Center, in the conduct of our review.

APPENDIX
Page  of 2

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MISSION-CRITICAL SYSTEMS INVENTORY[5]

System Name or
Acronym

Description

Estimated Cost for
Compliance

Distributed Ordering Research Reporting & Accounting Network
(DORRAN)

This system  tracks orders for U.S. Geological Survey products by
the general public. It interfaces with the Federal Financial
System.

$452,500

National Coal Resources Data System (NCRDS)

This system analyzes, distributes, and stores data relevant to
coal quantity and quality via the Internet.

10,000

Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS)

This system contains a relational database of mineral deposits
throughout the United States.

5,000

Seismic Event Data Analysis System (SEDAS)

This alert system allows rapid response to potentially hazardous
earthquakes.

74,588

Global Seismograph Network (GSN)

This system collects and provides data from the Global Digital
Seismic Network to research institutions.

192,000

U.S. National Seismograph Network (USNSN)

This system provides national seismic coverage for earthquake
monitoring, research, and engineering purposes.

10,000

Administrative Information System (AIS)

This system contains the financial and personnel information
database for the Water Resources Division.

20,000

National Water Information System (NWIS)

This system is a hydrologic database containing all water
information collected by the Geological Survey.

140,000

Distributed Information System-II (DIS-II)

Data General Unix systems process the financial and personnel
information and data from the hydrologic database (NWIS).

80,000

System Name or
Acronym

Description

Estimated Cost for
Compliance

Geographic Names Information System (GNIS)

This system maintains official feature names to support the U.S.
Board on Geographic Names.  Any date-related functions use ORACLE
constructs and are Y2K compliant.

95,000

Assignment Management System (AMS)

This system manages and tracks work assignments to the
organizational elements within the National Mapping Division.

124,650

Map Catalog (MAPCAT) System

This system contains a catalog of all maps distributed by the
National Mapping Division.  Any date-related functions use Oracle
constructs and are Y2K compliant.

95,000

Operational Database (ODB)

This database consists of production status and presents the
availability of National Mapping Division products.

95,000

Total

$1,393,738

[1] Effective October 1, 1998, the Washington
Administrative.Service Center was.transferred from the Geological
Survey to the Department's.Office of the Secretary..

[2] The portfolio is an inventory listing of 13 crosscutting
or.sensitive systems.that are receiving attention at the
Secretarial level..

[3] Embedded microchips are "integrated circuits
(miniature.circuit boards)" that.control "electrical devices"
which include "elevators; heating,.ventilation, and
air.conditioning (HVAC) systems; water and gas flow
controllers;.aircraft navigational.systems; . . . medical
equipment"; and office devices such as.telephones,
facsimile.machines, pagers, and cellular telephones.  (Department
of the.Interior's Office of.Managing Risk and Public Safety "Year
2000 Embedded Microchip.Hazards" [Web site]).

[4] DOINET is a communications network backbone used
to.communicate between.Departmental agencies.  A backbone is the
part of the network.that handles the major.traffic.  The backbone
employs the highest-speed transmission.paths in the network
and.may also run the longest distance, generally spanning a
large.geographic area..(Department of the Interior's "Year 2000
Management Plan, ".dated February 1998, and.the Computer Desktop
Encyclopedia, Version 9.4, 4th quarter,.1996).[5] Information is
from the Geological Survey's Y2K project.management as of
August.1998.




ILLEGAL OR WASTEFUL ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE REPORTED

TO THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL BY:

Sending written documents to:



Within the Continental United States

U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Inspector General
1849 C Street,N.W.
Mail Stop 5341
Washington, D.C. 20240

Calling:

Our 24 hour
Telephone HOTLINE
1-800-424-5081 or
(202) 208-5300

TDD for hearing impaired
(202) 208-2420 or
1-800-354-0996



Outside the Continental United States


Caribbean Region

U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Inspector General
Eastern Division- Investigations
1550 Wilson Boulevard
Suite 410
Arlington, Virginia 22209

Calling:
(703) 235-9221


North Pacific Region

U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Inspector General
North Pacific Region
238 Archbishop F.C. F'lores Street
Suite 807, PDN Building
Agana, Guam 96910


Calling:
(700) 550-7428 or
COMM 9-011-671-472-7279