Skip to Main Content


A Management Review of the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
September 1997

SUMMARY (PDF)

This audit examines selected management and financial practices in order to determine whether DNR has properly safeguarded and used its resources, has complied with applicable laws and regulations, and has met its statutory responsibilities.

While funds that we reviewed were used in accordance with the purposes expressed in law, in some areas financial management could be improved. Internal controls to safeguard the use of cash, equipment, and other assets are lacking in some programs. There is a potential conflict of interest in the way DNR accounts for and uses funds from a private foundation.

One systematic problem with DNR is the lack of an internal audit department. While the state auditor has recommended repeatedly since 1980 that an internal audit department be established, DNR management has not implemented this recommendation. In effect, DNR lacks a vital internal control to ensure that agency resources are used appropriately.

Another systematic problem is a general lack of written polices to guide department operations in areas such as law enforcement, the expenditure of county funds, cash transactions in the field, equipment use and maintenance, and confiscated firearms. Without written policies, the agency is leaving the door open to possible abuse and mismanagement of key resources.

Funds Management
In addition to receiving state appropriations and federal grants, DNR is allowed by law to collect and retain a variety of revenues for its operations. Most of these revenues are required by statute to be spent in a certain manner or for a specific program. We reviewed DNR’s management of some of these funds.

  • Compared to other southeastern states, DNR spent for its operations a larger proportion of state appropriations as opposed to earned revenues (boating fees, hunting and fishing licenses, commercial licenses, etc.). DNR also used nonrecurring state appropriations to supplement its budget, and spent these funds primarily for agency vehicles and law enforcement equipment. At the same time, the agency had about $5 million in carry-forward funds which could have been used in place of supplemental state appropriations.
  • Water recreation resources funds are required by law to be allocated to the individual counties and to be spent only upon approval of the county delegation. This requirement may be unconstitutional and should be reviewed by the General Assembly. Significant amounts of these funds are spent for the operations of the law enforcement division and result in piecemeal purchasing of major equipment.
  • DNR earns revenues through the sale of South Carolina duck prints and stamps and the marine recreational fisheries prints and stamps. However, the department has reserved for its own use the signed and numbered artist proofs, which are special editions of the prints. DNR has given these prints as gifts to selected individuals, including staff members. We determined that, since 1981, approximately $440,000 (assuming all prints were sold) could have been available for program revenues but were not due to this practice.
  • The department pays the insurance, repair, and maintenance costs for an airplane owned by one of its board members and leased to the department for $1 a year. During the time of this lease, the airplane has doubled in value.
  • We found no problems with DNR’s management of doe tag revenues or with the way DNR used a special state appropriation for law enforcement salary increases.

Management and Internal Controls
We examined the policies and procedures used by the department to ensure that cash, equipment, and other resources are used appropriately and effectively.

  • We found problems with DNR’s relationship with the Harry R.E. Hampton Memorial Wildlife Fund, Inc., a private foundation that raises money for conservation and resource management. This relationship lacks the proper checks and balances and could represent a conflict of interest. DNR staff are salaried employees of the Hampton Fund, and the Hampton Fund uses DNR staff and other resources for its fund-raising events without returning an equivalent amount of revenues to the department.
  • DNR has never properly implemented an internal audit function. The one auditor on staff does not report to the board and does not effectively provide assurances that agency resources are being used appropriately.
  • DNR has not received significant revenues from court-ordered fines resulting from fishing and hunting violations. As of March 1997, DNR had not received approximately $232,000 assessed on individual violators by state magistrates. According to DNR, some violators have pending bench warrants for arrest that have never been served.
  • In general, the DNR law enforcement division needs written policies and better controls to ensure operations are carried out effectively and efficiently. DNR lacks adequate internal controls and policies for the disbursement of the cash rewards and undercover money which are a part of the Operation Game Thief program. This creates the potential for cash to be mishandled. The law enforcement division should use a formula to effectively allocate law enforcement officers in the counties. Currently the division has no way to know whether the counties are under- or over-staffed. DNR’s method for disposing of firearms confiscated by law enforcement is dictated by law and does not provide for the most economical, efficient, and safe handling. In addition, the division may need to improve monitoring of travel costs incurred by officers.
  • DNR should develop policies that ensure adequate control over the $31 million in equipment assigned to employees throughout every county in the state. For example, 128 items totaling over $804,000 were still assigned to former employees — individuals who left DNR’s employ. During our audit DNR reported to us that all but 37 of these items were accounted for. DNR’s internal auditor does not physically verify any of the inventory self-reported by employees. Decisions on surplus property are left to field personnel and require no approval beyond that of the district captains. However, no written guidelines inform the captains of the typical conditions which render a boat, motor, or all terrain vehicle unfit for law enforcement needs.
  • DNR has permanently assigned law enforcement officers to the Governor’s executive protection team. In FY 95-96, this cost the department about $102,800.
  • The department lacks policies to ensure that when it donates game to nonprofit institutions such as orphanages, the meat has been properly handled and is free of disease).

Administrative Issues
Based on the concerns of audit requestors, we reviewed a variety of other areas, as follows.

  • DNR has increased its sales of wildlife products (shirts, calendars, etc.) and used product revenues to support the South Carolina Wildlife magazine, as directed by the appropriations act. State appropriations for the magazine have decreased correspondingly. Staff are in the process of developing a business plan for the magazine.
  • DNR has jurisdiction over approximately 200 tracts of land around the state. We reviewed land acquired from June 1994 through December 1996 and found that state procedures for procurement of property were followed. However, we found that maintenance and capital improvement needs are not prioritized and may not be adequately met. Also, we recommended that DNR provide greater public access to the Santee Coastal Reserve.
  • Generally, membership on DNR’s advisory committees has been allowed to become entrenched with members being reappointed over and over. DNR board members serve as chairpersons on advisory committees, with some members serving on more than one committee. The membership of the Migratory Waterfowl Committee may be unconstitutional.
  • We reviewed the process used by DNR to issue aquaculture permits, and found no restrictions to entry or evidence of board member involvement.