Skip to Main Content


A Sunset Review of the South Carolina Forestry Commission
August 1998

SUMMARY (PDF)

The sunset law (§1-20-10 et seq. of the South Carolina Code of Laws, repealed 1998) requires the State Reorganization Commission to determine annually which agencies or agencies' programs are scheduled for termination. In June 1997, the reorganization commission selected the South Carolina Forestry Commission (SCFC) for sunset review in FY 97-98. Pursuant to the sunset law, the Legislative Audit Council reviewed the laws and operations of SCFC and evaluated its performance. We recommend continuation of SCFC as an independent agency and have made recommendations to improve its operations.

Overall, we found that the commission needs to improve certain aspects of its fire and forest management programs. Our review also revealed several possible conflicts of interest involving the agency head and members of the agency’s governing board. SCFC has resolved problems related to financial accountability which we found in our 1987 review of the commission.

Program Issues
As a part of its mission, SCFC is to protect the state from forest fires and to provide assistance to landowners. We reviewed operations related to fire and forest management and found the following.

  • As in our 1987 audit, SCFC has not allocated fire control resources (staff and equipment) based on historical data of fire occurrence. On average, the Coastal and Pee Dee Regions had fires that were more than three times larger than fires in the Piedmont Region. Also, these regions had more fires than the Piedmont Region. However, the number of fires responded to by staff in the three regions was comparable. This indicates that the state may benefit from reallocating staff from the Piedmont Region to the Coastal and Pee Dee Regions, which have been more prone to fires.
  • The commission has implemented a computer-aided dispatch system (CADS) which does not meet the state's needs. This system is to pinpoint the location of forest fires so that SCFC fire control staff can be dispatched to these locations. However, CADS has numerous software problems which have resulted in inaccurate and incomplete information concerning forest fires. Also, staff who work at the dispatch centers havee not received any formal training on how to use the system. Delays in fire response could result in the loss of lives and property. It is crucial that problems with CADS be resolved immediately.
  • The state forester administers the state's cost sharing program for reforestation, the forestry renewal program (FRP), as a state official and then participates in the program as a private landowner. This situation presents a possible conflict of interest. We also found evidence that FRP applications submitted by the state forester have not been processed in accordance with standard practices for the program.
  • As of March 1998, over $554,000 in state funds had been expended or committed for the construction and operation of a field trial facility located on SCFC property at Sand Hills State Forest. Private field trial clubs have almost exclusively used this facility. Over three years, we estimate that the facility has likely served less than 1,000 people participating in field trial events. The use of public funds when a public purpose is not promoted is questionable.

Property Management
SCFC is authorized to acquire or exchange property with federal agencies. We examined issues related to an exchange of land between SCFC and the federal government.

  • In May 1994, a land swap between SCFC and the U.S. Air Force involved the exchange of SCFC property in Sumter County for Air Force property in Horry County. We concluded that this exchange benefited the citizens of South Carolina and especially Sumter County. SCFC planned to sell the land it acquired in Horry County and purchase other property to replace the land lost in the swap. However, we found that problems occurred in transactions involving land replacement. In several instances, members of SCFC's governing board participated in decisions involving companies that they were affiliated with. For example, SCFC purchased land from a company which employs the chairman of its governing board. The commission paid $394,000 for this property. Commission minutes did not indicate that the chairman abstained from voting on this transaction.

Agency Structure
Our findings on areas related to the structure of the commission follow.

  • We reviewed whether the merger of SCFC with another state agency would be beneficial. Based on the importance of timber to the state's economy and SCFC’s mission to preserve and protect the state’s forests, we concluded that the commission should remain an independent agency.
  • We followed up on another area from our last review involving the authority of county forestry boards. By state law, the county boards are to consent to personnel decisions concerning county fire control staff and to review, revise, and adopt county fire plans. While the boards were created over 50 years ago to promote efficiency, they may, in fact, impede efficiency. Disagreements between the boards and SCFC have resulted in delays in hiring. Also, county board involvement with fire plans has been limited. In addition, the boards often lack a quorum at their meetings and cannot take action on issues.
  • We concluded that there is minimal duplication between SCFC and the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and between SCFC and the Department of Agriculture.
  • When public members are affiliated with the forestry industry, the public may not be adequately represented. All five of the public members on SCFC's governing board are affiliated with the forestry industry. Two of these members are registered foresters.

Administration
Our review of SCFC’s administrative operations indicated the following.

  • In our 1987 audit, we found major problems related to SCFC’s accountability for state and federal funds. The commission has resolved the problems we cited in our last review.