- -

OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

AUDIT

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Grants 

Awarded to the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania’s Game Commission, From 

July 1, 2016, Through June 30, 2018, 

Under the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration

Program

In recognition of Secretarial Order No. 3380, we are providing estimated costs 

associated with certain work products. Applying a formula involving prior salary and 

benefit expenses, we estimate the cost of preparing this report to be $149,000. 

Report No.: 2019-WR-005 December 2020

This is a revised version of the report prepared for public release.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Memorandum 

To: Aurelia Skipwith 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

From: Michael P. Colombo 

Regional Manager, Western Region 

Subject: Final Audit Report – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Grants Awarded to the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Game Commission, From July 1, 2016, 

Through June 30, 2018, Under the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program 

Report No. 2019-WR-005 

This final report presents the results of our audit of costs claimed by the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania’s Game Commission (Commission) under grants awarded by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS). The FWS provided the grants to the Commonwealth under the Wildlife 

and Sport Fish Restoration Program. The audit included claims totaling approximately 

$82.7 million on 17 grants that were open during the State fiscal years that ended June 30, 2017, 

and June 30, 2018 (see Appendix 1). The audit also covered the Commission’s compliance with 

applicable laws, regulations, and FWS guidelines, including those related to collecting and using 

hunting and fishing license revenues and reporting program income. 

We determined that the Commission claimed ineligible and unsupported costs to Program 

grants totaling $7,329,212 ($1,127,981 Federal share). These questioned costs related to 

equipment usage rates, other direct costs, subaward costs, in-kind contributions, payroll costs, 

and program income. 

We also determined that the Commission did not properly allocate credit card rebates 

among applicable grants, improperly classified subawards as contracts, did not adequately 

manage equipment, misused Program-funded real property, did not report barter transactions, 

and did not protect lands acquired or maintained with Program funds or license revenues against 

trespass and encroachment. 

We made 29 recommendations and 1 repeat recommendation, and we provided a draft of 

this report to the FWS. The FWS did not opine whether it concurred with our findings and 

recommendations, but it provided a list of corrective actions and will work with the Commission 

to implement them. In this report, we summarize the Commission’s and the FWS’ responses to 

our recommendations, as well as our comments on their responses. The full responses from the 

Commission and the FWS are included in Appendix 4. We list the status of the recommendations 

in Appendix 5. 

Office of Audits, Inspections, and Evaluations | Sacramento, CA 
 

Please provide us with a corrective action plan based on our recommendations by 

March 15, 2021. The plan should provide information on actions taken or planned to address 

each recommendation, as well as target dates and titles of the officials responsible for 

implementation. Please send your response to aie_reports@doioig.gov. 

If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at 916-978-6199. 

The legislation creating the Office of Inspector General requires that we report to 

Congress semiannually on all audit reports issued, actions taken to implement our 

recommendations, and recommendations that have not been implemented. 

cc: Wendi Weber, Regional Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2 
Table of Contents 

Introduction......................................................................................................................................1 

Background................................................................................................................................1 

Objectives ..................................................................................................................................1 

Scope..........................................................................................................................................1 

Methodology..............................................................................................................................2 

Prior Audit Coverage .................................................................................................................3 

Results of Audit ...............................................................................................................................4 

Audit Summary..........................................................................................................................4 

Findings and Recommendations................................................................................................5 

Appendix 1.....................................................................................................................................30 

Appendix 2.....................................................................................................................................31 

Appendix 3.....................................................................................................................................32 

Appendix 4.....................................................................................................................................40 

Appendix 5.....................................................................................................................................61 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction 

Background 

The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration 

Act1 established the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program. Under the Program, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) provides grants to States to restore, conserve, manage, and 

enhance their wildlife and sport fish resources. The Acts and Federal regulations contain 

provisions and principles on eligible costs and allow the FWS to reimburse States up to 

75 percent of the eligible costs incurred under the grants. The Acts also require that hunting and 

fishing license revenues be used only for the administration of the States’ fish and game 

agencies. Finally, Federal regulations and FWS guidance require States to account for any 

income they earn using grant funds. 

Objectives 

In June 2016, we entered into an intra-agency agreement with the FWS to conduct audits of State 

agencies receiving grant funds under the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program. These 

audits fulfill the FWS’ statutory responsibility to audit State agencies’ use of these grant funds. 

We conducted this audit to determine whether the Pennsylvania Game Commission 

(Commission): 

• Claimed the costs incurred under the Program grants in accordance with the Acts and 

related regulations, FWS guidelines, and grant agreements 

• Used Commonwealth hunting and fishing license revenues solely for fish and wildlife 

program activities 

• Reported and used program income in accordance with Federal regulations 

Scope 

Audit work included claims totaling approximately $82.7 million on 17 grants open during the 

State fiscal years (SFYs) that ended June 30, 2017, and June 30, 2018 (see Appendix 1). We 

expanded our scope to include grants that were closed prior to June 30, 2017, as they related to a 

finding regarding equipment usage rates (see Finding A.1). We performed our audit at the 

Commission’s headquarters in Harrisburg, PA, and visited 1 regional office, 12 wildlife 

management areas, 2 subrecipients, 1 tree nursery, and 1 pheasant farm (see Appendix 2). 

We performed this audit to supplement—not replace—the audits required by the Single Audit 

Act. 

1 16 U.S.C. §§ 669 and 777, as amended, respectively. 

1 
 

 

 

 

Methodology 

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis 

for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Our tests and procedures included: 

• Examining the evidence that supports selected expenditures charged to the grants by the 

Commission 

• Reviewing transactions related to purchases, direct costs, drawdowns of reimbursements, 

in-kind contributions, and program income 

• Interviewing Commission employees to ensure that personnel costs charged to the grants 

were supportable 

• Conducting site visits to inspect equipment and other property 

• Determining whether the Commission used hunting and fishing license revenues solely 

for the administration of fish and wildlife program activities 

• Determining whether the Commonwealth passed required legislation assenting to the 

provisions of the Acts 

We also identified the internal controls over transactions recorded in the labor and license-fee 

accounting systems and tested their operation and reliability. Based on the results of initial 

assessments, we assigned a level of risk to these systems and selected a judgmental sample of 

transactions for testing. We did not project the results of the tests to the total population of 

recorded transactions or evaluate the economy, efficiency, or effectiveness of the Commission’s 

operations. 

We relied on computer-generated data for other direct costs and personnel costs to the extent that 

we used these data to select Program costs for testing. Based on our test results, we either 

accepted the data or performed additional testing. For other direct costs, we took samples of 

costs and verified them against source documents such as purchase orders, invoices, receiving 

reports, and payment documentation. For personnel costs, we selected Commission employees 

who charged time to Program grants and verified their hours against timesheets and other 

supporting data. 

2 
 

 

 

 

Prior Audit Coverage 

On May 5, 2016, we issued U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration 

Program Grants Awarded to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Game Commission From 

July 1, 2011, Through June 30, 2013 (Report No. R-GR-FWS-0011-2014). 

We followed up on all 15 recommendations in the report and found that the U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Management and Budget, considered 

14 recommendations to be resolved and implemented and 1 recommendation to be resolved but 

not yet implemented. As discussed in the “Findings and Recommendations” section of this 

report, we are repeating the unimplemented recommendation, which deals with certification that 

grant-funded real property is being used for its intended purposes (see Finding E). 

We reviewed single audit reports for SFYs 2016 and 2017. Neither of these reports contained 

any findings that would directly affect the Program grants. 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Results of Audit 

Audit Summary 

We identified the following conditions and determined that the Commission claimed ineligible 

and unsupported costs to Program grants totaling $7,329,212. Due to overmatch on some grants, 

the Federal share of these costs is $1,127,981. 

A. Ineligible and Unsupported Costs—$7,329,212 (Federal Share $1,127,981). 

1. Ineligible Costs Related To Equipment Usage Rates—$4,418,675. We question 

costs for grant-funded expenditures, including equipment acquisition and 

maintenance costs, that were included in equipment usage rates charged to grants 

during our audit period. 

2. Ineligible Other Direct Costs—$1,905,811. The Commission did not obtain prior 

approval for construction, equipment purchases, and a major repair, as required by 

regulations. We also question costs related to four other ineligible expenditures. 

3. Ineligible and Unsupported Subaward Costs—$582,647. We question costs related 

to three subawards due to fixed-amount agreements and unsupported cost allocations. 

4. Ineligible In-Kind Contributions—$286,857. The Commission failed to properly 

document in-kind contributions and included some ineligible in-kind contributions in 

its documentation. 

5. Ineligible and Unsupported Payroll Costs—$125,355. We observed ineligible 

payroll charged to grants and unsigned timesheets. 

6. Unreported Program Income—$9,867. The Commission failed to account for all 

sources of program income. 

B. Unallocated Credit Card Rebates. The Commission had not allocated credit card 

rebates amongst applicable grants. 

C. Contract Agreements Not Properly Classified as Subawards. The Commission failed 

to properly classify some contracts with external partners as subawards. 

D. Inadequate Equipment Management. The Commission failed to follow Federal 

regulations and Commission policies for its asset management. 

E. Misuse of Program-Funded Real Property. The Commission operated a portion of a 

State Game Land for unauthorized purposes inconsistent with the purpose listed in the 

purchasing Program grant. 

4 
 

 

 

F. Failure To Report Barter. The Commission failed to properly value and report barter 

transactions. 

G. Failure To Protect Against Trespass and Encroachment. We observed multiple 

instances of encroachment or trespass on lands acquired or maintained with Program 

funds or license revenues. 

We provided a draft of this report to the FWS for review. The FWS did not opine whether it 

concurred with our findings and recommendations, but it provided a list of corrective actions and 

will work with the Commission to implement them. In this report, we summarize the 

Commission’s and the FWS’ responses to our recommendations, as well as our comments on 

their responses. 

Findings and Recommendations 

A. Questioned Costs—$7,329,212 (Federal Share $1,127,981) 

Figure 1 summarizes by issue the ineligible and unsupported costs detailed in the below findings. 

Figure 1: Summary of Ineligible and Unsupported Costs 

Ineligible Unsupported 

Issue Costs ($) Costs ($) Total ($) 

Equipment usage rates 4,418,675 – 4,418,675 

Other direct costs 1,905,811 – 1,905,811 

Subaward costs 238,032 344,615 582,647 

In-kind costs 286,857 – 286,857 

Payroll 75,447 49,908 125,355 

Program income 9,867 – 9,867 

Totals $6,934,689 $394,523 $7,329,212 

Source: OIG analysis of Commission data. 

1. Ineligible Costs Related To Equipment Usage Rates—$4,418,675 

During the audit period, the Commission charged equipment-related costs based on equipment 

usage rates. These rates estimate the costs incurred by the Commission to purchase, operate, and 

maintain the equipment. Usage rates include acquisition costs as well as costs of fuel, oil, and 

maintenance, and the rates were charged to the grants based on either a mileage or hourly basis. 

When analyzing the composition of the usage rates, we observed that costs used to calculate the 

rates were also charged to grants. For example, some of the equipment was purchased with prior 

and current Program grants, and the acquisition costs were included in the usage rates charged to 

current Program grants. This resulted in costs being double-charged to grants. If the Commission 

were to decide to no longer use equipment usage rates to charge grants for equipment activities, 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

these costs would otherwise be eligible as direct charges to grants.2 However, if the Commission 

continues to charge equipment usage rates to grants, it should ensure the rates do not include 

costs that have already been charged to Federal awards. 

We question acquisition costs and the costs of fuel, oil, and maintenance when these 

expenditures were charged to grants since the Commission was already accounting for those 

expenditures in the equipment usage rates. Some of the usage rates charged to grants during our 

audit scope included acquisition costs for equipment purchased on prior Program grants. 

Therefore, we expanded our issue scope to determine the value of equipment purchased on prior 

grants that was being charged to grants within our audit scope. Based on data provided by the 

Commission on equipment purchased using Program grant funds since July 1, 2013, we 

identified $4,418,675 in equipment purchases, fuel, oil, and maintenance that was charged to 

Program grants and also included in equipment usage rates. Of that $4,418,675, $2,892,212 is 

related to vehicle acquisition costs charged to grants prior to our audit scope and included in 

equipment usage rates charged to grants within our audit scope. 

Federal regulations at 2 C.F.R. § 200.403(a) state that to be allowable, costs must be necessary 

and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable to the award. 

Equipment-related expenditures cannot be charged to a Federal award if they are later allocated 

to the award or other award via the application of an equipment usage rate. 

Federal regulations at 2 C.F.R. § 200.436(c)(2) state that when computing depreciation, the 

acquisition cost must exclude any portion of the cost borne by the Federal Government. 

Furthermore, cost principles at 2 C.F.R. § 200.405(c) state that any cost allocable to a particular 

Federal award may not be charged to other Federal awards. 

Because the Commission included purchase costs in its equipment usage rates—costs that were 

charged to prior Program grants—we determined that Program grants were overcharged by 

$4,418,675. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the FWS: 

1. Resolve the Federal share of ineligible costs related to equipment usage rates 

charged to Program grants. 

2. Require the Commission to develop policies and procedures that ensure costs 

included in vehicle usage rate calculations are not also charged to Program 

grants. 

2 Other Federal regulations may restrict the Commission’s ability to charge grants for these costs, such as the requirement that 

grantees obtain the Federal entity’s prior written approval before charging grants for equipment acquisitions. 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commission Response 

The Commission concurred with our finding and stated it implemented policies and procedures 

to ensure costs that make up the usage rate are not also charged to grant accounts. See 

Appendix 4 for the Commission’s full response. 

FWS Response 

The FWS did not state whether it concurred with our finding, but stated that it is working with 

the Commission to resolve the Federal share of ineligible costs related to this issue and is 

reviewing the policies and procedures the Commission developed to address the issue. See 

Appendix 4 for the FWS’ full response. 

OIG Comment 

Based on the Commission’s and the FWS’ responses, we consider Recommendations 1 and 2 

resolved but not implemented. 

2. Ineligible Other Direct Costs—$1,905,811 

The Commission charged $1,887,319 in construction costs, equipment purchases, and a major 

equipment repair to grants during the audit period without prior FWS approval (these costs are 

not included in Finding A.1). Related grant applications did not contain language requesting 

approval for these expenditures. Furthermore, the grant approvals did not contain language 

mentioning the intended construction and equipment purchases. 

We also observed the following additional ineligible grant charges, totaling $18,492: 

• The Commission charged $5,453 to Grant No. F16AF00951 to purchase water control 

structures on State Game Land (SGL) 290. The Commission purchased the items on 

June 22, 2016, but the grant began on July 1, 2016, and pre-award costs were not 

authorized. 

• The Commission charged $5,960 to Grant No. F16AF01260 to purchase a monograph. 

The monograph was related to work performed under the grant, but the work was 

performed prior to the grant start date. According to the Commission, this expenditure 

should not have been charged to the grant. 

• The Commission charged $7,537 to Grant No. F16AF00920 to purchase 500 knives to 

award to outstanding hunter education instructors. The Commission awarded 110 of these 

knives. Therefore, we question the cost of 390 of the 500 knives purchased on this 1-year 

grant. The amount questioned is $5,879. 

• The Commission charged $1,200 to Grant No. F17AF00950 for legal fees related to the 

resolution of a prior audit issue. The Commission reported that this expenditure should 

not have been charged to the grant. 

Multiple Federal regulations apply to this issue. Regarding costs without prior FWS approval, 

Federal regulations at 2 C.F.R. § 200.439(b)(1) state that capital expenditures for general 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

purpose equipment, buildings, and land are unallowable as direct costs, except with the prior 

written approval of the Federal awarding agency. Federal regulations at 2 C.F.R. § 200.439(b)(3) 

state that capital expenditures for improvements to equipment that materially increase value or 

useful life are unallowable except with the prior written approval of the Federal awarding 

agency. 

Federal regulations at 2 C.F.R. § 200.403(a) state that to be allowable, costs must be necessary 

and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable to the award. Charges 

that should not have been charged to a grant per the Commission are not allocable to those 

grants. Charges for the extra 390 knives are questioned because they were not necessary for the 

award. 

Regarding pre-award costs, Federal regulations at 2 C.F.R. § 200.458 state that pre-award costs 

are allowable only with the written approval of the Federal awarding agency. We did not observe 

any evidence of prior written approval for pre-award costs. 

We therefore determined that Program grants were overcharged by $1,905,811. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the FWS: 

3. Resolve the Federal share of ineligible other direct costs charged to Program 

grants. 

4. Require the Commission to obtain FWS approval before incurring costs that 

require prior written approval from the Federal awarding agency. 

Commission Response 

The Commission concurred with our finding and stated it is finalizing policies to request FWS 

approval on all equipment purchases of $5,000 or greater. The Commission stated that although 

not all the knives purchased under the hunter education grant were used that year, they were used 

in subsequent years and that the bulk purchase was made to save money. The Commission also 

stated that it believes our inclusion of an equipment purchase under Grant No. F16AF00952 was 

in error, because the grant narrative contains approval for equipment purchases. See Appendix 4 

for the Commission’s full response. 

FWS Response 

The FWS did not state whether it concurred with our finding, but stated that it is working with 

the Commission to resolve the Federal share of ineligible costs related to this issue and that the 

Commission implemented policies and procedures on February 6, 2020, for requesting written 

approval prior to incurring costs that require prior written approval from the FWS. The FWS also 

stated that the policies and procedures are currently being implemented on active grant segments. 

See Appendix 4 for the FWS’ full response. 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OIG Comment 

Although the hunter education grant is a continuous program at the Commission, it is funded by 

standalone annual grants. Because each grant is technically its own Federal grant, costs that 

would be incurred on subsequent grants should not be incurred on a current grant, even if doing 

so would provide overall cost savings to the agency. 

We agree with the Commission’s assertion that the narrative for Grant No. F16AF000952 

contained approval for equipment purchases, but we did not include any equipment purchases 

made under that grant or its successor (Grant No. F17AF00958) in our finding. The questioned 

equipment purchases occurred on Grant Nos. F16AF00951 and F17AF00956, which did not 

contain similar approvals in their grant narratives. Based on the Commission’s and the FWS’ 

responses, we consider Recommendations 3 and 4 resolved but not implemented. 

3. Ineligible and Unsupported Subaward Costs—$582,647 

We identified that the Commission had made subawards, and we performed subaward site visits 

to assess the subrecipients’ compliance with applicable Federal regulations. During our site 

visits, we tested accounting controls and a sample of direct costs charged to the awards. Based on 

our testing, we question all costs related to the following subawards: 

• Subawards with the Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at 

Pennsylvania State University. The Commission issued two agreements under Grant 

No. F16AF00352 to the research unit. We observed that the research unit failed to 

properly separate costs between the two Commission agreements and a grant received 

from another entity, and as a result the costs claimed, totaling $344,615, were 

unsupported. The research unit did not have a policy to determine how to properly 

allocate or split expenditures between the Commission projects and the separate grant. 

Therefore, work being performed for the separate grant is sometimes paid for by the 

Commission using Program funds. 

• Subaward with the National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative (NBCI). The Commission 

entered into an agreement with the NBCI under Grant No. F14AF01303. This grant 

authorized 100 percent of the total grant funds ($208,032 over 3 years) to go to the NBCI. 

During our site visit, we observed that the NBCI had very similar agreements with other 

States and external partners. The NBCI did not have a policy to allocate expenditures 

across all benefiting parties. Therefore, expenditures were charged to the Commission 

agreement that should have been allocated or charged to other agreements. We also 

observed an instance where the NBCI attempted to refund to the Commission the 

remaining amount of funding at the close of the 3-year agreement. The Commission 

refused to accept the remaining amount of $22,334. Because the amount the Commission 

paid to the NBCI does not reflect the actual costs incurred, the agreement would 

constitute a fixed-amount subaward. Fixed-amount subawards are ineligible costs under 

Program grants. 

During our analysis of other direct costs, we observed a payment of $30,000 to the University of 

Georgia under Grant No. F13AF00975 for an assessment. Because the amount does not reflect 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

actual costs incurred by the University of Georgia in performance of the agreement, we consider 

this agreement a fixed-amount subaward. The costs of fixed-amount subawards are ineligible 

under Program grants. (Overall we determined that multiple agreements between the 

Commission and external partners were classified as contracts but should have been treated as 

subawards. We discuss this issue in Finding C.) 

Federal regulations at 2 C.F.R. § 200.405 state that to be allowable under a Federal award, costs 

must be allocable to the award. A cost is allocable to a particular award if the goods and services 

involved are chargeable and assignable to that Federal award in accordance with the benefits 

received. We observed charges related to research unit work and charges related to NBCI work 

that were not properly allocated amongst all benefiting parties. 

Fixed-amount awards are awards under which the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity 

provides a specific level of support without regard to the actual costs incurred under the Federal 

award. Federal regulations at 2 C.F.R. § 200.201(b)(2) state that fixed-amount awards cannot be 

used in programs that require mandatory cost-sharing or match. Program grants contain mandatory 

match requirements; therefore, fixed-amount awards are not allowable under these grants. 

Because the subrecipients failed to follow Federal regulations regarding allocability, and because 

the Commission improperly issued fixed-amount subawards, Program grants were improperly 

charged for ineligible expenditures. As a result, we identified $344,615 in unsupported costs 

under Grant No. F16AF00352, $208,302 in ineligible costs under Grant No. F14AF01303, and 

$30,000 in ineligible costs under Grant No. F13AF00975, for a total of $582,647. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the FWS: 

5. Resolve the Federal share of questioned costs related to ineligible and 

unsupported subaward costs claimed. 

6. Require the Commission to establish policies and procedures that ensure 

amounts charged to the Commission by subrecipients are allowable and 

allocable to Federal awards. 

7. Require the Commission to discontinue the use of fixed-amount awards under 

Program grants. 

Commission Response 

The Commission concurred with our finding regarding the NBCI and concurred with our 

determination that fixed-amount awards should not be issued under Program grants. However, 

the Commission did not concur with our finding of questioned costs on the other subawards. 

The Commission mainly disagreed with our finding because it does not deem these agreements 

subawards. The Commission stated that it relied on guidance provided by the FWS when 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

determining whether an agreement was a subaward or a contract. The Commission does not 

believe these agreements result in a third party carrying out the public purpose of the PittmanRobertson Wildlife Restoration Act, and it does not believe paying a third party based on actual 

costs should be a deciding factor when determining whether an agreement is a subaward. 

Furthermore, the Commission stated that it had reviewed invoices from the Pennsylvania 

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and determined that funding from other agencies to 

the unit was not mixed with Commission funding. See Appendix 4 for the Commission’s full 

response. 

FWS Response 

The FWS did not state whether it concurred with our finding, but stated that it is working with 

the Commission to resolve the Federal share of ineligible and unsupported subaward costs 

claimed for the Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and the University of 

Georgia. The FWS also stated that it is working with the Commission to establish policies and 

procedures to ensure amounts charged by subrecipients are allowable and allocable to Federal 

awards. See Appendix 4 for the FWS’ full response. 

OIG Comment 

The Commission’s main reason for not concurring with our finding related to the Pennsylvania 

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and the University of Georgia is that it does not 

believe these agreements are subawards. 

The Commission stated that these third parties are not carrying out a public purpose. We 

disagree. The contents of the agreements between the Commission and the third parties indicate 

levels of participation that exceed those of a typical contract for purchase of goods or services. 

Particularly, these agreements include advanced research and wildlife data collection provided 

by institutions of higher learning. In the case of the research unit, one of the major deliverables is 

a report analyzing its findings. In the case of the University of Georgia, the scope of work 

included potential visits to conduct surveys related to wildlife morbidity and mortality. 

Conducting research into wildlife mortality factors to inform restoration programs would be, in 

our opinion, a public purpose. 

Furthermore, we used source documents, interviews, and other audit evidence to support our 

finding that the research unit did not properly separate costs between the two Commission 

agreements and a grant received from another entity and did not have a policy to determine how 

to properly allocate or split expenditures between the Commission projects and the separate 

grant. 

Based on the Commission’s and the FWS’ responses, we consider Recommendations 5 – 7 

unresolved. 

4. Ineligible In-Kind Contributions—$286,857 

The Commission did not ensure that volunteer hours claimed as matching costs were sufficiently 

documented on two hunter education grants, Grant Nos. F16AF00920 and F17AF00954 (see 

11 
 

 

 

 

Figure 2 for a summary of ineligible costs by grant). During our review of in-kind 

documentation, we observed multiple issues with the supporting documentation for the volunteer 

hours charged to these grants. Specifically: 

• Classes occurred outside of the grant term. 

• Hours worked over multiple days were reported as a lump sum rather than by day. 

• Commission officials did not consistently sign volunteers’ timesheets to indicate 

approval. 

• Volunteers claimed an excessive 15 to 50 hours in a single day.3 

• Commission officials approved and signed timesheets prior to the class date. 

• Volunteers listed a date other than the class date. 

• Volunteer ID numbers were missing, which may indicate an unauthorized instructor. 

• Commission officials failed to review and approve timesheets in a timely manner. 

• A Commission official approved a timesheet listing their own hours as a volunteer. 

• An approving official prepopulated the hours amounts for all volunteers. 

We also observed instances where classes had an excessive number of volunteer instructors 

compared to what would reasonably be expected. We do not question hours related to this issue, 

but it could result in excessive volunteer in-kind hours. 

Federal regulations at 2 C.F.R. § 200.403(g) require costs to be adequately documented to be 

allowable under Federal awards. In addition, 2 C.F.R. § 200.306(b)(1) states that third-party inkind contributions satisfy a cost-sharing or matching requirement if they are verifiable from the 

records of grantees, among other requirements. Further guidance at 2 C.F.R. § 200.306(j) states 

that the value of goods and services must be documented and to the extent feasible supported by 

the same methods used internally by the non-Federal entity. 

In our prior audit, we recommended that the Commission establish policies and procedures to 

ensure that claimed in-kind contributions are adequately documented.4 Despite the 

Commission’s issuance of Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 10.40, “Hunter Education 

Volunteer Activity Reporting and Valuation,” these issues still occurred because the policy does 

not adequately address the types of issues we observed during this audit. 

3 We determined that a volunteer can reasonably donate a maximum of 14 hours per day. 

4 See Finding C in our prior audit report, OIG Report No. R-GR-FWS-0011-2014. The report also cited a lack of compliance with 

requirements for timely submittal of activity reports. 

12 
-

-

Figure 2: Ineligible Costs Related To In-Kind Hours Claimed 

Ineligible Ineligible 

Project Grant No. Hours Rate ($) Costs ($) 

Hunter Education F16AF00920 6,128 211,600 

Hunter Education F17AF00954 2,182 75,257 

Totals 8,310 $286,857 

Source: OIG analysis of Commission data. 

The Commission used ineligible in-kind costs to satisfy its matching requirement. We question 

$211,600 under Grant No. F16AF00920 and $75,257 under Grant No. F17AF00954, for a total 

of $286,857. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the FWS: 

8. Resolve the Federal share of questioned costs related to ineligible in-kind 

contributions. 

9. Require the Commission to develop and implement policies and procedures for 

all volunteer programs claiming in-kind match to (a) restrict the number of 

hours that volunteers can reasonably donate in a single day, (b) define 

allowable activities that count toward a volunteer’s total calculation of donated 

hours, (c) ensure that all timesheets are properly approved, and (d) require 

timely review of volunteer timesheets. 

10.Require the Commission to develop and implement policies and procedures for 

the hunter education program that recommend the number of instructors per 

course. 

Commission Response 

The Commission concurred with our finding and stated the steps it took to resolve this issue, 

including the implementation of policies and procedures and the revision of existing Commission 

policies. See Appendix 4 for the Commission’s full response. 

FWS Response 

The FWS did not state whether it concurred with our finding, but stated that it is working with 

the Commission to resolve the Federal share of questioned costs related to ineligible in-kind 

contributions. The FWS also stated it will require the Commission to develop and implement 

policies to resolve the issues we identified and to recommend the number of instructors per 

course. See Appendix 4 for the FWS’ full response. 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OIG Comment 

Based on the Commission’s and the FWS’ responses, we consider Recommendations 8 – 10 

resolved but not implemented. 

5. Ineligible and Unsupported Payroll Costs—$125,355 

We tested Commission timesheets and related documentation and question costs related to the 

following issues: 

• Sixteen employees commissioned as law enforcement officers charged time to an activity 

code titled “Inspection of Federal Aid Areas” (code M30001902400). This is an 

allowable activity for non-law enforcement employees, but law enforcement activities 

charged under this code should be excluded from the grant (ineligible). We reviewed a 

timesheet of a law enforcement officer and found that the duties charged under this code 

were law enforcement in nature. Having both non-law enforcement and law enforcement 

employees charge the same activity code for different activities may make tracking of 

eligible versus ineligible costs more difficult. Revising the description for this activity 

code could prevent employees from incorrectly using it for law enforcement activities. 

• Thirteen Cross Application Time Sheet (CATS) forms did not have required signatures 

(unsupported). 

• A law enforcement employee charged time to a grant activity code for accident 

investigations, a law enforcement activity (ineligible). 

• An employee charged time for a “timber sale meeting.” The associated grant narrative 

disallows such activities (ineligible). 

In addition to the issues related to questioned costs, we discovered an instance of leave charged 

to grants that was not properly allocated. Some Commission employees are default-coded to 

grants, meaning their timesheets are automatically populated and fully costed to grant codes. 

However, these employees sometimes work on nongrant activities, and employees who are not 

default-coded to grants may occasionally work on grant activities. When an employee who is not 

default-coded to grants takes leave, that leave is not charged to grant codes; conversely, when an 

employee who is default-coded to grants takes leave, the leave is automatically charged to grant 

codes. To properly allocate the value of leave an employee who is not default-coded to grant 

codes earns by time spent working on grant activities, the Commission calculates the annual 

leave and associated fringe benefits for final drawdowns. However, there does not appear to be a 

similar function in place to properly allocate leave for default-coded grant employees who spend 

time on nongrant activities. 

Furthermore, we observed that the time charged to Program grants for the Commission’s Federal 

aid coordinator is overstated by an estimated 10 percent for work performed on other FWS 

grants, namely State Wildlife Grant Program grants. The Commission should ensure it properly 

allocates the Federal aid coordinator’s time among the proper grants. 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Multiple Federal and Commission criteria apply to timesheet issues. Federal regulations at 

50 C.F.R. § 80.54 hold that law enforcement activities are ineligible for funding under the 

Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act. 

Regarding the charging of time to grant activities, Federal regulations at 2 C.F.R. 

§ 200.430(a)(1) state that these charges are allowable to the extent that they are reasonable and 

conform to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and cost principles at 

2 C.F.R. § 200.403(g) stipulate that costs must be adequately documented. In addition, the 

Commission’s SOP 10.27 requires that both the employee and the immediate supervisor sign 

CATS forms by ink or electronically. 

Federal regulations at 2 C.F.R. § 200.403 stipulate that costs must be consistent with policies and 

procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal 

entity. In addition, the narrative of the grant for habitat management for wildlife (Grant 

No. F17AF00958) states that timber management activities conducted by Commission forestry 

staff performing commercial cuts are excluded from the grant. 

Regarding employee leave coding, Federal regulations at 2 C.F.R. § 200.405(a) state that a cost 

is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the services involved are 

chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative 

benefits received. Leave earned from nongrant work is not allocable to a grant because it does 

not stem from the benefits the grant received. 

Lastly, concerning time allocation for the Federal aid coordinator, criteria in the FWS Manual at 

520 FW 1.9 state that the FWS may approve the use of funding from grants for a coordination 

project only if the State fish and wildlife agency prorates the coordinator’s time and expenses as 

appropriate between Wildlife Restoration Program grants and State Wildlife Grant Program 

grants. 

Because the Commission did not ensure payroll records were properly signed, and because the 

Commission did not ensure unallowable activities were not charged to Program grants, we are 

questioning $97,412 in ineligible and unsupported charges under eight grants. In addition, since 

the Commission charges the FWS indirect costs based on the amount of payroll charges, we also 

question the associated indirect costs of $27,943. We are not questioning costs related to leave 

coding or Federal aid coordinator time coding, but the Commission should ensure that it 

implements controls that resolve the identified issues. 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the FWS: 

11.Resolve the Federal share of ineligible and unsupported payroll charges 

claimed on grants. 

12.Work with the Commission to revise the description of the grant activity code 

titled “Inspection of Federal Aid Areas” (M30001902400) to ensure that law 

enforcement activities are not charged to grants. 

13.Work with the Commission to develop policies and procedures that ensure that 

leave charged by employees who are default-coded to grants is properly 

allocated based on actual work performed. 

14.Work with the Commission to develop policies and procedures that ensure the 

Federal aid coordinator’s time is appropriately prorated between the 

corresponding FWS program grants. 

Commission Response 

The Commission concurred with our finding. The Commission stated it revised the activity code 

description to exclude the words “surveillance” and “patrol,” and that its Federal aid coordinator 

is now properly allocating time amongst the appropriate grant programs and other funding 

sources. The Commission also detailed plans to implement policies and procedures to address the 

other aspects of our finding. See Appendix 4 for the Commission’s full response. 

FWS Response 

The FWS did not state whether it concurred with our finding, but stated that it is working with 

the Commission to resolve the Federal share of ineligible and unsupported payroll charges 

claimed on grants. The FWS also stated that it will work with the Commission to develop 

policies and procedures that ensure leave charged by employees who are default-coded to grants 

is properly allocated based on actual work performed and the Federal aid coordinator’s time is 

appropriately prorated. See Appendix 4 for the FWS’ full response. 

OIG Comment 

Based on the Commission’s and the FWS’ responses, we consider Recommendations 11 and 13 

resolved but not implemented and Recommendations 12 and 14 resolved and implemented. 

6. Unreported Program Income—$9,867 

Although the Commission claimed program income of $8,175 on Grant No. F16AF00951 and 

$8,054 on Grant No. F17AF00956 (both titled “Operation and Maintenance for Wildlife and 

Hunter Access”), we determined that each grant had additional unreported program income, 

namely $3,780 and $6,087, respectively, generated from the Middle Creek Visitor’s Center at 

SGL 046. 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In addition, the Commission was unable to provide a detailed report summarizing all revenue 

from the visitor’s center from SAP, the Commonwealth’s official accounting system. 

Furthermore, the Commission generated separate reports for mineral royalty program income 

that were not connected to SAP. 

Federal regulations at 2 C.F.R. § 200.80 define program income as gross income a grantee 

receives that is directly generated by a grant-supported activity or earned only as a result of the 

grant agreement during the grant period. The narratives for Grant Nos. F16AF00951 and 

F17AF00956 both include costs associated with contracting out maintenance/repair projects at 

the Middle Creek Visitor’s Center; we therefore concluded that any revenues generated from the 

visitor’s center should be treated as program income. 

The Commission’s SOP 60.31 stipulates that the Federal aid coordinator is responsible for 

determining all grant-related expenditures through SAP and determining program income based 

on information from the appropriate reports and submissions from bureaus, divisions, and 

sections with the agency. 

In addition, regulations at 2 C.F.R. § 200.302 require that State financial management systems 

(a) be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by general and program-specific 

terms and conditions, and (b) provide effective control over and accountability for all funds, 

property, and other assets. Furthermore, regulations at 50 C.F.R. § 80.121 require States to 

account for income received from grant activities in the project records and dispose of it 

according to the terms of the grant. 

Because Commission employees did not consider income generated at Middle Creek Visitor’s 

Center to be program income, the Commission did not properly credit the two grants for program 

income totaling $9,867. The amount of claimed costs that this program income would offset is 

considered ineligible. In addition, because some sources of program income are not integrated 

into SAP, revenues that qualify as program income are not being adequately tracked or reported. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the FWS: 

15.Resolve the Federal share related to unreported program income of $9,867. 

16.Work with the Commission to implement controls that ensure program income 

is properly accounted and reported. 

Commission Response 

The Commission concurred with our finding and stated it was unaware that program income was 

being generated from the visitor’s center. The Commission stated that it would create a guidance 

document to address the issue. See Appendix 4 for the Commission’s full response. 

17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FWS Response 

The FWS did not state whether it concurred with our finding, but stated that it is working with 

the Commission to resolve the Federal share related to unreported program income and that it 

will work with the Commission to implement controls to ensure program income is properly 

accounted and reported. See Appendix 4 for the FWS’ full response. 

OIG Comment 

Based on the Commission’s and the FWS’ responses, we consider Recommendations 15 and 16 

resolved but not implemented. 

B. Unallocated Credit Card Rebates 

During our testing of other direct costs transactions, we observed that the Commission received a 

credit card rebate of $25,459 during SFY 2017. This amount was credited to the Commission’s 

license revenue fund. Employees told us that the Commission receives credit card rebates from 

both the general purchase card and the corporate travel card. These rebates are provided by the 

card issuers and are based on the volume of transactions and the timeliness of payments. Some 

grant expenditures are charged to these cards; therefore, a portion of the rebate calculation is 

based on the grant expenditures. 

Federal regulations at 2 C.F.R. § 200.406 state that credits received by the non-Federal entity 

must be credited to the Federal award—either as a cost reduction or cash refund—to the extent 

that such credits relate to allowable costs. 

Because the Commission has been receiving credit card rebates related to federally funded 

purchases, the Program grants have been overcharged. Because this issue was systemic, we 

expanded our testing to identify all credit card rebates. We identified $295,233 in credit card 

rebates received by the Commission during the audit period. We could not determine the amount 

of credit card rebates that should have been applied to individual grants; therefore, we cannot 

determine the excess reimbursements related to this issue. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the FWS: 

17.Work with the Commission to resolve the Federal share of questioned costs 

related to $295,233 in credit card rebates. 

Commission Response 

The Commission concurred with our finding and outlined a procedure it will use to allocate 

portions of credit card rebates to grants. It stated that it will begin this procedure for drawdowns 

for SFY 2020 and forward. See Appendix 4 for the Commission’s full response. 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FWS Response 

The FWS did not state whether it concurred with our finding, but stated that it will work with the 

Commission to resolve the Federal share of questioned costs related to credit card rebates. See 

Appendix 4 for the FWS’ full response. 

OIG Comment 

Based on the Commission’s and the FWS’ responses, we consider Recommendation 17 resolved 

but not implemented. 

C. Contract Agreements Not Properly Classified as Subawards 

We reviewed multiple agreements between the Commission and external partners that the 

Commission classified as contracts. Upon review, we determined that these agreements were 

subawards because the funded activities served the public purpose of the Pittman-Robertson 

Wildlife Restoration Act. 

We based our determination on the following criteria: 

• A subaward typically contains work that is highly specialized from nonprofit 501(c)(3) 

conservation organizations or public institutions of higher learning. A contract is more 

typical when the contractor operates in a competitive environment and provides goods or 

services similar to those of many different vendors and for the benefit of the pass-through 

entity. 

• In the Commission agreements, the subrecipients used the Federal funds to carry out a 

program for a public purpose specified in authorizing statute, as opposed to providing 

goods or services for the benefit of the Commission. 

• The Commission agreements indicated that the subrecipients were responsible for 

adherence to applicable Federal program requirements specified in the Federal award. 

• Most of the agreements waived indirect costs to be used by the Commission as matching 

funds on the associated grant. 

Federal regulations at 2 C.F.R. § 200.93 define a subrecipient as a non-Federal entity that 

receives a subaward from a pass-through entity to carry out part of a Federal program. Federal 

regulations at 2 C.F.R. § 200.330(a)(5) state that the characteristics that support the classification 

of a non-Federal entity as a subrecipient include when the non-Federal entity, in accordance with 

its agreement, uses the Federal funds to carry out a program for a public purpose specified in 

authorizing statue, as opposed to providing goods or services for the benefit of the pass-through 

entity. Furthermore, 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.330(b)(3) and 200.330(b)(5) state that a contractor is an 

entity that normally operates in a competitive environment, and a contractor is not typically 

subject to compliance requirements of the Federal program as a result of the agreement. 

In addition, prime awardees on a Federal grant greater than or equal to $25,000 are subject to 

subaward reporting requirements in the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(FFATA). The prime awardee is required to file a FFATA subaward report by the end of the 

month that follows the month the subaward was made. 

Federal regulations at 2 C.F.R. § 200.331(b) also require that the Commission, as the passthrough entity, must evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, 

regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the 

appropriate subrecipient monitoring. 

Because the Commission did not properly classify some of its agreements as subawards, it failed 

to comply with Federal requirements for reporting, risk assessment, and monitoring. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the FWS: 

18.Work with the Commission to develop and implement more specific guidance 

for determining whether Program funds pass through as subawards or 

contracts. 

19.Work with the Commission to develop and implement procedures to ensure 

compliance, where applicable, with 2 C.F.R. § 200.331 and FFATA 

requirements for the proper administration and reporting of subawards. 

Commission Response 

The Commission concurred that the agreement with the NBCI should have been classified as a 

subaward. However, the Commission did not concur with our finding that several other contracts 

were subawards. The Commission stated its reasons for disagreeing with our determination in its 

response to Finding A.3. The Commission stated it is currently developing subaward processes 

to comply with Federal regulations and FFATA requirements. See Appendix 4 for the 

Commission’s full response. 

FWS Response 

The FWS did not state whether it concurred with our finding, but stated that it is working with 

the Commission to develop and implement more specific guidance for determining whether 

Program funds pass through as subawards or contracts. The FWS also stated it is working with 

the Commission to implement procedures to ensure compliance with Federal regulations and 

FFATA requirements. See Appendix 4 for the FWS’ full response. 

OIG Comment 

In its response to Finding A.3, the Commission gave specific reasons as to why it believed the 

agreements with the Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and the 

University of Georgia were contracts and not subawards. We address those comments in that 

section. 

20 
 

 

 

 

In this finding, we have outlined some of the reasons agreements that the Commission 

considered to be contracts are subawards. During our audit, we observed other agreements—in 

addition to those listed in Finding A.3—that should have been classified as subawards. The 

purpose of reporting this finding is to highlight the Commission’s ineffective classification 

process and to recommend that it work with the FWS to review and improve the process. 

Based on the Commission’s and the FWS’ responses, we consider Recommendation 18 

unresolved and Recommendation 19 resolved but not implemented. 

D. Inadequate Equipment Management 

We noted the following equipment management deficiencies when we tested equipment items 

from an inventory list provided by the Commission during our visits to various Commission 

properties: 

• Items observed on site were not listed on the Commission’s inventory. 

• Items marked as funded by the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act were not 

listed on the Commission’s inventory. 

• Items that should have both a Pittman-Robertson funding marker and asset identification 

number were missing one or the other. 

• Items listed on the inventory as Commission-funded lacked asset identification tags. 

• Items with a Pittman-Robertson funding marker were listed as Commission-funded in the 

inventory. 

In addition, during site visits, Commission employees noted that since they were informed of our 

visit, they had manually applied property tags and markers to equipment where identification 

numbers were missing. 

Our review also identified issues with the Commission’s inventory tracking system: 

• The Commission’s inventory list did not indicate a Federal Award Identification Number 

for each item. 

• The Commission’s inventory list had more than 2,000 items marked as purchased on 

January 1, 1900. This is contrary to item descriptions. 

• A review of transactions made by the Commission during the audit period revealed some 

equipment purchased using Pittman-Robertson funding was listed as purchased with 

Commission funds on the Commission’s inventory list. 

Our prior OIG audit (Report No. R-GR-FWS-0011-2014) highlighted inadequate equipment 

management by the Commission. 

21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Federal regulations at 50 C.F.R. § 80.90(f) require each State fish and wildlife agency to be 

responsible for the control of all assets acquired under Program grants to ensure that they serve 

the purpose for which acquired throughout their useful life. 

Regulations at 2 C.F.R. § 200.313(b) require a State to use, manage, and dispose of equipment 

acquired under a Federal award by the State in accordance with State laws and procedures. The 

Commission’s SOP 10.1 requires equipment purchased with Pittman-Robertson funding to be 

identified with an asset identification number and an identifiable funding program sticker, logo, 

or marker. Furthermore, SOP 10.1 specifies that for automotive assets, an asset identification 

number and a Pittman-Robertson sticker (if applicable) must be placed on the frame in the door 

jamb area near the VIN and serial number. 

Regulations at 50 C.F.R. § 80.20(b) state that license revenue includes equipment acquired with 

license revenue. This follows 50 C.F.R. § 80.11(c), which specifies that a State becomes 

ineligible to receive the benefits of the Acts if it diverts hunting license revenue from the control 

of the State agency or purposes other than the agency’s administration. 

Regulations at 2 C.F.R. § 200.313(d)(1) require that property records be maintained and include 

the source of funding for the property (including the Federal Award Identification Number). 

Because the Commission failed to properly manage its equipment, the equipment is at risk of 

loss and misuse. The FWS has no assurance that Program-funded equipment is used for its 

originally intended purpose. Commission-funded equipment is vulnerable to diversion. 

Furthermore, marking grant-funded equipment as Commission-funded in the inventory system 

could cause errors when calculating applicable equipment usage rates. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the FWS: 

20.Work with the Commission to ensure it follows Federal regulations and 

Commission policies for its asset management. 

21.Work with the Commission to strengthen its asset management system and 

inventory policies, including developing written policies for tagging nonfederally-funded equipment. 

Commission Response 

The Commission concurred with our finding and listed multiple actions it took to resolve the 

issues we identified and to improve its asset management program. See Appendix 4 for the 

Commission’s full response. 

22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FWS Response 

The FWS did not state whether it concurred with our finding, but stated that it is working with 

the Commission to strengthen its asset management system and inventory policies to ensure it 

follows Federal regulations and Commission policies. See Appendix 4 for the FWS’ full 

response. 

OIG Comment 

Based on the Commission’s and the FWS’ responses, we consider Recommendations 20 and 21 

resolved and implemented. 

E. Misuse of Program-Funded Real Property 

State Game Land (SGL) 290 was purchased under a Program grant (Project No. W-68-L-1) 

approved September 5, 1978. The grant narrative cited a need for acreage for hunting, described 

the proposed land purchase as “potentially prime small game and waterfowl habitat,” and noted 

that the purchase would protect the “environmentally fragile real estate” from further 

degradation. The narrative also contained documentation stating that a summer cottage and 

storage buildings would be removed. During site visits, we observed a portion of SGL 290 

containing a summer cottage and storage buildings. The area near the cottage contained a dog 

agility course and low grass mowing. Commission personnel told us the cottage is used for 

Commission headquarters executive meetings and that the headquarters grounds staff are 

responsible for mowing the area surrounding the cottage and dog agility course. These uses are 

for purposes not supported by the original purchasing grant. 

Federal regulations at 50 C.F.R. § 80.134 require State fish and wildlife agencies to use grantfunded land parcels for only the purposes authorized in the grant. When an agency allows use of 

real property that interferes with its authorized purpose under a grant, regulations at 50 C.F.R. 

§ 80.125 require the agency to restore the real property to its authorized purpose. If the agency 

cannot restore the property to its authorized purpose, it must replace the real property using nonFederal funds. The agency is allowed up to 3 years from the date of notification to restore the 

real property to its authorized use or acquire replacement property, or the agency may be 

declared ineligible to receive new grant funding. 

Because the Commission is using a portion of SGL 290 for executive meetings and dog training, 

we believe the primary purpose for purchasing the property has been compromised. Potentially 

prime small game and waterfowl habitat may have been infringed upon, and the Commission has 

failed to remove buildings as stated in its grant narrative. 

23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the FWS: 

22.Work with the Commission to resolve the improper use of land that conflicts 

with the original purpose for which the land was purchased with grant funds. 

23.Work with the Commission to remove the dog agility course from Programfunded property. 

24.Work with the Commission to implement policies and procedures to ensure the 

Commission does not use Program-funded properties for purposes other than 

those contained in FWS-approved grant narratives. 

Commission Response 

The Commission concurred with our finding that the buildings located on SGL 290 need to be 

removed from the site. The Commission stated that it has agreed with the FWS to remove the 

structures within 3 years because it needs the additional office space until it can potentially 

construct an addition to its headquarters building in Harrisburg, PA. The Commission also stated 

that it has already removed the dog agility course from the property. 

The Commission stated it plans to develop processes that ensure operations on Program-funded 

properties are consistent with the intended purposes. See Appendix 4 for the Commission’s full 

response. 

FWS Response 

The FWS did not state whether it concurred with our finding, but stated that it will work with the 

Commission to ensure the cottage is removed within 3 years of the final audit report issuance. 

The FWS also stated it is working with the Commission to implement policies and procedures to 

resolve the issues we identified. See Appendix 4 for the FWS’ full response. 

OIG Comment 

We do not find a need for office space is a compelling justification for 3 years of continued 

misuse of land purchased and maintained with Program funds. Based on the Commission’s and 

the FWS’ responses, we consider Recommendation 22 unresolved, Recommendation 23 resolved 

and implemented, and Recommendation 24 resolved but not implemented. 

Repeat Recommendation: Certification of Use of Program-Funded Real Property 

In our prior audit (Report No. R-GR-FWS-0011-2014), we noted that the Commission had not 

reconciled its Program-funded, real property records with those of the FWS. We recommended 

that the FWS require the Commission to certify that grant-funded real property is being used for 

its intended purposes. 

24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Federal regulations at 50 C.F.R. § 80.90(f) require that the Commission maintain control of all 

assets acquired under Program grants to ensure that they serve the acquired purpose throughout 

their useful life. 

At the time of our current audit, that recommendation had not yet been implemented. 

We observed the same condition and are therefore repeating Recommendation 15 from that 

report. 

Repeat Recommendation 

We recommend that the FWS: 

• Require the Commission to certify that grant-funded real property is being 

used for its intended purposes. 

Commission Response 

The Commission concurred with our finding and stated that it will discuss and develop a 

certification process. See Appendix 4 for the Commission’s full response. 

FWS Response 

The FWS did not state whether it concurred with our finding, but stated that it will require the 

Commission to certify that grant-funded real property is being used for its intended purposes. 

See Appendix 4 for the FWS’ full response. 

OIG Comment 

Based on the Commission’s and the FWS’ responses, we consider this recommendation resolved 

but not implemented. 

F. Failure To Report Barter 

We observed the Commission engaged in barter transactions through its Hunter Access Program 

and through the use of sharecropping agreements. 

The Commission administers a Hunter Access Program in which private landowners allow the 

general public to hunt and trap on more than 2.5 million acres of land. The program is described 

in the narratives for Grant Nos. F16AF00901 and F17AF00951. In exchange for hunting rights, 

the Commission provides a variety of services and benefits to the private landowners: 

• Technical assistance related to habitat improvements and enhancements 

• Free nesting structures and bird boxes built at Howard Nursery 

• Free seedlings 

25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Free subscription to the Commission’s Game News magazine 

• Increased law enforcement protection 

• In some cases, labor and equipment to help develop wildlife habitat 

Enrollment in the Hunter Access Program also provides the private landowner with liability 

protection in the case of injury to persons using the private property for hunting. Some of these 

benefits are paid with Program funds (nesting structures and seedlings are produced at the 

Howard Nursery and costed to Grant Nos. F16AF00952 and F17AF00958). Grant No. 

F17AF00951 estimated labor costs related to the program totaling $354,914.44, but these costs 

were not estimated at this cost level for the SFY 2017 version of the grant, Grant No. 

F16AF00901. 

The Commission also uses sharecropping in performance of its grants for habitat management, 

Grant Nos. F16AF00952 and F17AF00958. 

Federal regulations at 50 C.F.R. § 80.98 detail how an agency must report barter transactions. 

Depending on the value of goods and services received compared to the goods and services 

relinquished, the barter transaction may need to be reported as either an expense or program 

income. 

Because the Commission did not report barter transactions in the “Remarks” sections of the SF425s on Grant Nos. F16AF00901, F16AF00952, F17AF00951, and F17AF00958, it did not 

comply with Federal regulations detailing how an agency must report barter transactions. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the FWS: 

25.Work with the Commission to develop a reasonable methodology to value the 

goods and services received from the Commission’s Hunter Access Program. 

26.Work with the Commission to determine whether program income or an 

expense related to barter transactions is reportable. If it is determined that 

the Commission incurred program income as a result of the barter transactions 

during the audit period, resolve any excess reimbursement received as a 

result of the program income. 

27.Work with the Commission to develop policies and procedures to accurately 

report barter transactions on Program grants. 

Commission Response 

The Commission did not concur with our finding that the Hunter Access Program is a reportable 

barter transaction. The Commission stated that it does not agree that the Hunter Access Program 

26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

constitutes a barter transaction because it does not believe a sale or exchange of goods and 

services has occurred. The Commission also described potential negative consequences of 

deeming this a barter transaction. See Appendix 4 for the Commission’s full response. 

FWS Response 

The FWS did not state whether it concurred with our finding, but stated that it is communicating 

with the Commission regarding this issue. See Appendix 4 for the FWS’ full response. 

OIG Comment 

The Commission stated in its response that it has a statutory duty to serve sportsmen and ensure 

adequate opportunities to hunt and trap. One way the Commission provides for hunting and 

trapping opportunities is by allowing hunting and trapping on State Game Lands. Some of these 

lands are maintained with Program funds. The Commission also uses Program funds to acquire 

lands to expand its offering of hunting and trapping opportunities. When private landowners 

coordinate with the Commission to make their lands available for public hunting, they are 

assisting the Commission in performing its statutory duty and thereby providing something of 

value to the Commission. In return, the Commission provides a variety of services and benefits 

to these landowners. Because private landowners are providing something of value to the 

Commission and receiving something of value in return, we concluded that this is a barter 

transaction. 

Based on the Commission’s and the FWS’ responses, we consider Recommendations 25 – 27 

unresolved. 

G. Failure To Protect Against Trespass and Encroachment 

During our site visits to Pennsylvania State Game Lands, we observed multiple instances of 

encroachment or trespass on lands acquired or maintained with Program funds or license 

revenues. Of the 12 State Game Lands we visited, 4 showed evidence of encroachment, 

described below. Appendix 3 provides photos that illustrate the encroachment and trespass issues 

we found. 

At SGL 242, we observed “Private Property” signs posted on the property near a private 

residence. The private residence is located near the game land boundary, but the signs were on 

the game land property. SGL 242 does not have a fenced boundary. This issue causes a loss of 

potential use because the public may be confused about the boundary of the game land. 

At SGL 214, we observed that a mobile home neighborhood bordered the property near a body 

of water. Areas of game land property between the neighborhood and the body of water were 

being used for personal uses and had some personal buildings, such as storage sheds, on game 

land property. Domesticated livestock (chickens and ducks) were damaging the property at this 

location because they were not kept in pens. Furthermore, we observed a burn pit at this location. 

(See Photos 1 and 2 in Appendix 3.) 

At SGL 095, we observed a basketball goal, building, electrified horse pasture, boat storage, 

dumping, and personal mowing on the property. The land manager told us he was aware of the 

27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

situation and that a local game warden was currently working on the issue. (See Photos 3 and 4 

in Appendix 3.) 

At SGL 042, a neighborhood borders part of the game land. There is significant encroachment at 

this border, including a building on a foundation crossing over the boundary. Other observed 

issues included mowing, dumping, and stacks of wood for personal use on the game land side of 

the boundary. (See Photos 5, 6, 7, and 8 in Appendix 3.) 

Federal regulations at 50 C.F.R. § 80.18(c) require States to maintain accountability and control 

of all assets to assure they serve the purpose for which they were acquired throughout their 

useful life. Furthermore, given that lands purchased with license revenues are considered to be 

license revenues for the purposes of the Acts, 50 C.F.R. § 80.4 states that revenues from license 

fees paid by hunters and fishermen shall not be diverted to purposes other than administration of 

the State fish and wildlife agency. Part (c) states that if a diversion of license revenues occurs, 

the State becomes ineligible to participate under the Acts from the date the diversion is declared 

by the FWS Director until restoration occurs. 

The public is trespassing on Commission land because the game land boundaries are unclear. 

Because the Commission does not use border fencing, it faces challenges enforcing hard 

boundaries near neighborhood areas. In addition, the Commission does not have policies that 

clearly mark and monitor boundaries at higher risk of encroachment, specifically those 

boundaries near neighborhoods. Due to these issues, lands acquired or maintained with Program 

funds or license revenues are being misused and supplanted for personal use. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the FWS: 

28.Work with the Commission to resolve the encroachment and trespass issues. 

29.Work with the Commission to develop policies and procedures to ensure the 

Commission clearly marks and delineates boundaries in areas where State 

Game Lands border neighborhoods. 

Commission Response 

The Commission concurred with our finding and stated that this is an ongoing issue. The 

Commission stated that it resolved some of the reported issues and is working on resolving 

others. The Commission also stated it is in the process of rewriting its boundary line procedure to 

address concerns regarding borders in areas most at risk of encroachment. See Appendix 4 for 

the Commission’s full response. 

FWS Response 

The FWS did not state whether it concurred with our finding, but stated that it will work with the 

Commission to resolve the identified issues and to develop policies and procedures regarding 

boundary issues. See Appendix 4 for the FWS’ full response. 

28 
 

OIG Comment 

Based on the Commission’s and the FWS’ responses, we consider Recommendations 28 and 29 

resolved but not implemented. 

29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 1 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

Game Commission 

Grants Open During the Audit Period 

July 1, 2016, Through June 30, 2018 

Questioned Costs 

FBMS Grant Claimed Ineligible Unsupported Federal 

Grant No. Amount Costs ($) Costs ($) Costs ($) Share ($)* 

F13AF00975 5,794,363 6,893,514 53,786 2,167 0 

F14AF01010 517,896 467,475 8,000 56 6,042 

F14AF01303 208,032 208,032 208,032 – 156,000 

F16AF00352 2,242,147 2,066,334 14,134 355,426 178,761 

F16AF00899 748,996 748,996 55,881 – 12,072 

F16AF00901 882,000 882,000 7,420 – 5,565 

F16AF00920 2,760,000 2,490,726 217,611 – 163,208 

F16AF00951 11,059,600 16,049,120 1,008,682 – 0 

F16AF00952 15,450,000 15,565,211 550,686 – 441,817 

F16AF01260 6,027,123 6,090,061 23,708 36,874 0 

F17AF00950 775,000 612,700 19,272 – 14,454 

F17AF00951 882,667 639,290 6,020 – 4,515 

F17AF00954 2,531,000 2,681,921 136,336 – 0 

F17AF00956 11,059,600 12,403,510 981,499 – 0 

F17AF00958 15,450,000 14,803,171 751,339 – 145,547 

F17AF01019 125,000 132,375 0 – 0 

F18AF00060 1,094,722 72,303 71 – 0 

Subtotals $77,608,146 $82,806,739 $4,042,477 $394,523 $1,127,981 

Other grants† 2,892,212 ** 

Totals $77,608,146 $82,806,739 $6,934,689 $394,523 $1,127,981 

* Reported grant overmatch was considered in the calculation of the Federal share of 

questioned costs. 

† In Finding A.1, we question costs related to vehicle acquisitions included in equipment 

usage rates. These grants occurred outside our audit scope and incurred the acquisition costs 

for equipment with usage rates charged to grants within our audit scope. 

** We did not determine the Federal share of questioned costs (effect on reimbursement) on 

grants that were closed prior to our scope, as resolution of Finding A.1 would affect the 

amounts. 

30 
Appendix 2 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

Game Commission 

Sites Visited 

Headquarters 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 

Regional Office 

Southwest Regional Office 

Wildlife Management Areas 

State Game Land 42 

State Game Land 46 

State Game Land 95 

State Game Land 108 

State Game Land 109 

State Game Land 176 

State Game Land 203 

State Game Land 214 

State Game Land 218 

State Game Land 242 

State Game Land 290 

State Game Land 311 

Subrecipients 

National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative 

Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit 

Other 

Howard Nursery 

Southwest Pheasant Farm 

31 
 

 

 

Appendix 3 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

Game Commission 

Photos Related To Finding H 

Photo 1: State Game Land (SGL) 214 livestock encroachment. 

The white stake on the left-hand side of the picture marks the game land 

boundary line, which runs almost straight up the picture from the stake. 

32 
 

 

 

 

 

Photo 2: SGL 214 encroachment. Note the white stake marking the 

boundary at the bottom of the picture. A red line has been drawn to 

approximate the game land boundary (the other end of the line is the 

white stake shown in Photo 1). Observable in this picture are the storage 

sheds and burn pit on game land property. 

33 
 

 

 

Photo 3: SGL 095. The boundary roughly goes from point-of-view in line with the front 

end of the boat trailer back through the woods. The storage items on the left-hand side 

of the photo are positioned on game land property. 

34 
 

 

 

Photo 4: SGL 095. A red line is drawn that approximates the game land 

boundary. Note the trash and dumping visible on game land property (right 

side of the red line). This area was also mowed. 

35 
 

 

 

Photo 5: SGL 042. The red sign (see Photo 6 for a close-up) 

denotes the game land boundary. The part of the building behind 

the sign is on the game land. 

36 
 

 

Photo 6: Close-up of the boundary line sign on SGL 042 

near the building on a foundation. 

37 
Photo 7: Dumping on SGL 042.

38 
Photo 8: Mowing and wood stacked on SGL 042.

39 
 

 

Appendix 4 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

Game Commission 

Responses to Draft Report 

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Game Commission’s response to our draft report follows 

on page 41. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s response to our draft report follows on page 46. 

40 
 

 

 

 

TAKE PRIDE®l:f::, ~ 

INAMERICA ~ 

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

300 Westgate Center Drive

Hadley, MA 01035-9589

September 3, 2020

In Reply Refer To:

FWS/WSFR – North Atlantic - Appalachian Region 

Michael P. Colombo, Regional Manager, Western Region

U.S. Department of the Interior

Office of Inspector General

Dear Mr. Colombo:

Attached is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s, Pennsylvania Game Commission’s

(Commission), response to the Office of Inspector General’s Draft Audit Report No. 2019-WR005. The Service has confirmed with the State these are the only comments they have on this

Draft Report.

The Service has reviewed the auditor’s recommendations and acknowledges the State’s response. 

The Service will work closely with the Commission staff in developing and implementing a

corrective action plan that will resolve all of the findings and recommendations (see details on 

each recommendation attached). 

Sincerely

Colleen E. Sculley

 Chief, Division of Wildlife

 and Sport Fish Restoration 

Attachments:

Pennsylvania Game Commissions Response

Details on Each Recommendation

41
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Details on Each Recommendation:

A.

1. Ineligible Costs Related to Equipment Usage Rates

The Service is working with the Commission to resolve the federal share of ineligible

costs related to equipment usage rates charged to Program Grants. The official

responsible for implementing these actions is Ronald S. Gensil, Federal Aid Coordinator,

for the Commission. The target date for implementation is June 30, 2021.

The Commission has developed policies and procedures that ensure costs included in the

vehicle usage rate calculations are not also charged to program grants. These policies and

procedures and updated usage are being reviewed by Service staff. The official

responsible for implementing these actions is Ronald S. Gensil, Federal Aid Coordinator,

for the Commission. The target date for implementation is June 30, 2021.

2. Ineligible Other Direct Costs

The Service is working with the Commission to resolve the Federal share of the ineligible

other direct costs charge to Program Grants. The official responsible for implementing

these actions is Ronald S. Gensil, Federal Aid Coordinator, for the Commission. The

target date for implementation is June 30, 2021.

The Service will require the Commission to obtain approval before incurring costs that

require prior written approval from the Federal awarding agency. The Commission has

developed a Purchasing Guidance Document (Appendix 2) which describes a process for

requesting prior written approval prior to incurring costs. This guidance document was

distributed to staff and implemented on February 6, 2020 and is currently being

implemented on active grant segments.

3. Ineligible and Unsupported Subaward Costs

The Service is working with the Commission to resolve the Federal share of the

questioned costs related to ineligible and unsupported subaward costs claimed for

Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and University of Georgia.

The official responsible for implementing these actions is Ronald S. Gensil, Federal Aid

Coordinator, for the Commission. The target date for implementation is June 30, 2021.

The Service will be responsible for working with the National Bobwhite Conservation

Initiative on a resolution. The individual responsible for the resolution will be Paul

Rauch.

The Service is working with the Commission to establish policies and procedures that

ensure amounts charged to the Commission by subrecipients are allowable and allocable

to Federal awards. The official responsible for implementing these actions is Ronald S.

Gensil, Federal Aid Coordinator, for the Commission. The target date for implementation

is June 30, 2021.

42
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Ineligible In-Kind Contributions

The Service is working with the Commission to resolve the Federal share of questioned

costs related to ineligible in-kind contributions. The official responsible for implementing

these actions is Ronald S. Gensil, Federal Aid Coordinator, for the Commission. The

target date for implementation is June 30, 2021.

The Service will require the Commission to develop and implement policies and

procedures for all volunteer programs claiming in-kind match to (a) restrict the number of

hours that volunteers can reasonably donate in a single day, (b) define allowable activities

that count toward a volunteer’s total calculation of donated hours, (c) ensure that all

timesheets are properly approved, and (d) require timely review of volunteer timesheets.

The official responsible for implementing these actions is Ronald S. Gensil, Federal Aid

Coordinator, for the Commission. The target date for implementation is June 30, 2021.

The Service will require the Commission to develop and implement policies and

procedures for the hunter education program that recommend the number of instructors

per course. The official responsible for implementing these actions is Ronald S. Gensil,

Federal Aid Coordinator, for the Commission. The target date for implementation is June

30, 2021.

5. Ineligible and Unsupported Payroll Costs.

The Service is working with the Commission to resolve the Federal share of ineligible

and unsupported payroll charges claimed on grants. The official responsible for

implementing these actions is Ronald S. Gensil, Federal Aid Coordinator, for the

Commission. The target date for implementation is June 30, 2021.

The Commission has revised the description of the grant activity code titled “Inspection

of Federal Aid Areas” (M30001902400) to ensure that law enforcement activities are not

charged to grants (see the Commissions response). The official responsible for

implementing these actions is Ronald S. Gensil, Federal Aid Coordinator, for the

Commission.

The Service will work with the Commission to develop policies and procedures that

ensure that leave charged by employees who are default-coded to grants is properly

allocated based on actual work performed. The official responsible for implementing

these actions is Ronald S. Gensil, Federal Aid Coordinator, for the Commission. The

Target date for implementation is June 30, 2021.

The Service will work with the Commission to develop policies and procedures that

ensure that the Federal Aid coordinators time is appropriately prorated between

corresponding FWS grant programs. The official responsible for implementing these

actions is Ronald S. Gensil, Federal Aid Coordinator, for the Commission. The Target

date for implementation is June 30, 2021.

6. Unreported Program Income

43
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Service is working with the Commission to resolve the Federal share related to

unreported program income. The official responsible for implementing these actions is

Ronald S. Gensil, Federal Aid Coordinator, for the Commission. The Target date for

implementation is June 30, 2021.

The Service is working with the Commission to implement controls to ensure program

income is properly accounted and reported. The official responsible for implementing

these actions is Ronald S. Gensil, Federal Aid Coordinator, for the Commission. The

Target date for implementation is June 30, 2021.

B. Unallocated Credit Card Rebates

The Service will work with the Commission to resolve the Federal share of questioned costs

related to credit card rebates. The official responsible for implementing these actions is

Ronald S. Gensil, Federal Aid Coordinator, for the Commission. The target date for

implementation is June 30, 2021.

C. Contract Agreements Not Properly Classified as Subawards

The Service is working with the Commission to develop and implement more specific

guidance for determining whether Program funds pass through as subawards or contracts.

The official responsible for implementing these actions is Ronald S. Gensil, Federal Aid

Coordinator, for the Commission. The target date for implementation is June 30, 2021.

The Service is working with the Commission to develop and implement procedures to ensure

compliance, where applicable, with 2 C.F.R. § 200.331 and FFATA requirements for the

proper administration and reporting of subawards. The official responsible for implementing

these actions is Ronald S. Gensil, Federal Aid Coordinator, for the Commission. The target

date for implementation is June 30, 2021.

D. Inadequate Equipment Management

The Service is working with the Commission to ensure it follows Federal regulations and

Commission policies for its asset management. The official responsible for implementing

these actions is Ronald S. Gensil, Federal Aid Coordinator, for the Commission. The target

date for implementation is June 30, 2021.

The Service is working with the Commission to strengthen its asset management system and

inventory policies, including developing written policies for tagging non-federally-funded

equipment. The official responsible for implementing these actions is Ronald S. Gensil,

Federal Aid Coordinator, for the Commission. The target date for implementation is June 30,

2021.

E. Misuse of Program-Funded Real Property

The Service will work with the Commission to ensure that the Cottage on Haldeman Island is

removed within three years of the final audit report. The official responsible for

implementing these actions is Ronald S. Gensil, Federal Aid Coordinator, for the

Commission.

The Commission has removed the dog agility course from Program-funded property.

44
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Service is working with the Commission to implement policies and procedures to ensure

the Commission does not use Program-funded properties for purposes other than those

contained in FWS-approved grant narratives. The official responsible for implementing these

actions is Ronald S. Gensil, Federal Aid Coordinator, for the Commission. The target date

for implementation is January 1, 2021.

The Service will require the Commission to certify that grant-funded real property is being

used for its intended purposes. The official responsible for implementing these actions is

Ronald S. Gensil, Federal Aid Coordinator, for the Commission. The target date for

implementation is three years from the date of the final audit report.

F. Failure to Report Barter

The Service is communicating with the Commission regarding this issue. No responsible

party has been identified at this time.

G. Failure to Protect Against Trespass and Encroachment

The Service will work with the Commission to resolve the encroachment and trespass issues.

The official responsible for implementing these actions is Ronald S. Gensil, Federal Aid

Coordinator, for the Commission. The target date for implementation cannot be determined

at this time as resolutions may involve legal actions.

The Service will work with the Commission to develop policies and procedures to ensure the

Commission clearly marks and delineates boundaries in areas where State Game Lands

border neighborhoods. The official responsible for implementing these actions is Ronald S.

Gensil, Federal Aid Coordinator, for the Commission. The target date for implementation is

June 30, 2021.

45
 

 

 

Pennsylvania Game Commission Responses to 

Department of Interior – Office of Inspector General 

Federal Audit 2019-WR-005 

Findings and Recommendations 

A. Questioned Costs—$7,329,212 (Federal Share $1,127,981)

1. Ineligible Costs Related To Equipment Usage Rates—$4,418,675

PGC has determined the Federal share of ineligible costs related to equipment usage rates charged to 

Program Grants and we have included an analysis as to overmatch provided for each grant that 

should be considered in determining Federal share of ineligible costs [in a separate attachment]. 

The Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) does not disagree with the finding that ineligible costs 

related to equipment usage rates occurred. The Game Commission has implemented guidance to 

ensure costs included in the vehicle usage rate calculations are not also charged to Program Costs. 

Please see the attached document: Coding Guidance for Equipment and Maintenance Cost 

Allocation. Further Guidance is being developed to address several similar-type findings and this 

information will be provided upon completion. 

We have also investigated and resolved any future issues relative to equipment usage rate 

calculations. We have been in discussions with WSFR staff reviewing current equipment usage rate 

calculation methodology. We eliminated several charges that could possibly be construed as 

impacting Indirect Rate information as it was not positively determined, following fairly extensive 

discussions with outside agency staff, what two of these charges from outside agencies were 

addressing. PGC then recalculated equipment usage rates for Fiscal Years 2013 to 2019 with PR 

purchased equipment removed from those revised rate calculations. Documentation is currently under 

review by WSFR staff in Hadley, MA. 

2. Ineligible Other Direct Costs—$1,905,811

The PGC cannot disagree with the findings that multiple expenditures of construction costs, 

equipment purchases, and a major equipment repair was charged to grants during the audit period 

without prior FWS approval. PGC cannot disagree that multiple charges occurred outside of grant 

start dates without pre-award costs authorization. PGC cannot disagree that a bulk purchase of items 

occurred in a given fiscal year and not all of the items were utilized in that grant period of one year 

without FWS approval. However, the Hunter Education Grant has been a continuous grant with 

annual segments for the past 20 years with one segment extended to two-years to address contracted 

program development issues. The knives purchased and not utilized in the year they were purchased 

have continued to be presented annually. The large purchase was made to save money by bulk 

purchasing and no diversion of funds has occurred. 

PGC also cannot disagree that charges have occurred to grants that should not have occurred. 

1 

46
 

 

 

 

  

PGC has found instances in the supporting information for draft audit findings that some of the items 

selected as issues under this finding were not accurate. The FY 2016 grant W-75-D- 16, Award 

#F16AF00952, identified a debris blower/leaf blower attachment for a small CAT 299 utilized for 

firebreak clearing of leaf litter and such. The grant information stated, “Purchases of fixed assets may 

occur for this project segment in the form of farm equipment.” While the specific piece of equipment 

was not identified, a general statement was listed in the grant. The grant approval special Conditions 

also made note of equipment being purchased under Special Conditions and Provisions, (4) 

“Equipment purchased with grant funds must be used to meet grant objectives during and after the 

grant period...The current status of the equipment and anticipated use or disposition of the equipment 

during its expected useful life must be described in the final performance report.” 

The final performance report for this grant specifically listed the blower unit purchased on Page 5, 

under Prescribed Fire Treatments and discussion: “Pittman-Robertson Funds continue to be 

instrumental in building the agency’s prescribed fire program. This year, P-R funds were used to 

purchase radios and fire communications equipment... and a hydraulic blower for clearing fire lines.” 

While this piece of equipment was only $5,245.00 purchased new, its value midway through the year 

was less than $5,000.00 dollars but was operational and useful throughout the year and is still 

functional. 

The PGC is reviewing documentation and file information and is working toward resolving the 

Federal share of ineligible other direct costs charged to Program grants. We have also developed 

guidance documents relative to the purchase of fixed assets equipment and services which would be 

considered capital expenditures. PGC is currently requesting USFWS approval on all equipment 

purchases of $5,000.00 or greater and is finalizing guidance on such. Upon final approval by PGC 

Executive Office staff of all suitable documents and procedures, region staff will be appropriately 

trained regarding such information and implementation. Presently all requests for grant funding of 

equipment acquisition are routed through the Federal Aid Coordinator for e-mail submission to 

USFWS for approval before being sent to the Division Chief of Purchasing and Procurement. 

3. Ineligible and Unsupported Subaward Costs—$582,647 

The PGC does not disagree that fixed amount awards occurred under Program grants. PGC made the 

determination that several of the above listed grant funded agreements were contracts and therefore 

not subject to the grant subrecipient requirements under 2 CFR 200. 

However, PGC also does not agree that all research projects funded by Program grant funds serve the 

public purpose of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (ACT) simply because they are 

research. Many projects provide specific information that the PGC requires and requests from third 

parties in order to make its own decisions on wildlife and habitat management, which serve the public 

purpose of the Act. These services are provided, under contract, for the benefit of the PGC in order to 

make better decisions in wildlife (White-tailed Deer population management for example) 

management which is the public purpose specified in authorizing statute. 

16 U.S. Code 669a. Definitions (9) states the term “wildlife conservation and restoration program” 

means a program developed by a State fish and wildlife department and approved by the Secretary 

under section 669c(d) [1] of this title, the projects that constitute such a program, which may be 

implemented in whole or part through grants and contracts by a State to other State, Federal, or local 

2 

47
 

 

 

agencies (including those that gather, evaluate, and disseminate information on wildlife and their 

habitats), wildlife conservation organizations, and outdoor recreation and conservation education 

entities from funds apportioned under this chapter,[1] and maintenance of such projects;” 

The statute specifies project activities include acquisition and improvement of wildlife habitat, 

introduction of wildlife into suitable habitat, research into wildlife problems, surveys and inventories 

of wildlife problems, acquisition and development of access facilities for public use, and hunter 

education programs, including construction and operation of public target ranges. See the discussion 

below from PGC Chief Counsel. 

“The auditors identified subawards questioned costs in Section A. pages 8 through 10, as well as 

raised the issue that contract agreements were determined to actually be subawards in Section C, 

pages 16-17. These two issues cannot be discretely analyzed in this manner, as the ineligibility of 

costs depends in part or in whole on the classification of the contract. This writing will discuss both 

issues. 

For Section A, ineligible costs, the auditors recommended Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) resolve 

the federal share of questioned costs, require the PGC to establish policies and procedures that ensure 

amounts charged to the Commission by subrecipients are allowable and allocable to federal awards, 

and require the PGC to discontinue the use of fixed amount awards under Program grants. 

For Section C, improper classification, the auditor recommended that FWS work with the PGC to 

develop and implement more specific guidance for determining whether program funds pass through 

as subawards or contracts, and to work with the PGC to develop and implement procedures to ensure 

compliance, where applicable, with 2 CFR Section 200.331 and FFATA requirements for the proper 

administration and reporting of subawards. 

IN ESSENCE, the recommendations involve three areas: 

1. The development of procedures and guidance to identify subawards, and ensure compliance

with federal regulations; and

2. Resolve questioned costs; and

3. Discontinue use of fixed amount subawards.

The PGC does not disagree that standards, procedures and guidance should be more fully developed. 

This will be set out in Section 1, below. 

The PGC does not disagree with some questioned costs, but does not agree with others, as set out in 

Section 2, below. 

The PGC does not disagree with the statement the fixed amount subawards should be discontinued, 

but disagrees with the application of this statement, as will be set out in Section 3, below. 

During the audit period, the PGC’s preference was to not have subawards, but to have contracts. This 

is for various reasons, not the least of which was so as not to lose management control or program 

control of federal aid projects. For this reason, all agreements were drawn with identifiable goals and 

deliverables at identified costs. Despite this preference and the work of the PGC to maintain 

management and program control, the auditors determined that several agreements were subawards. 

3 

48
 

 

 

The PGC submits it is not the title of a given agreement that controls, but the substance of that 

agreement. 

During the audit period, the guidance for determining subawards was remarkably similar to that in 

the attachment, 2020 WSFR 001. This document identifies that September 2019 guidance was 

unclear, meaning that during the audit period two years prior, guidance was also unclear. However, 

the PGC has always considered the guidance finally issued in 2020 as at least close to what was being 

followed. 

This WSFR guidance defines the following terms: 

Contract means a legal instrument by which a recipient purchases property or services needed to 

carry out a project or program under a Federal award (see also 2 CFR [section]200.22). A recipient 

awards a contract for the purpose of obtaining goods and services for their own use and establishes a 

procurement relationship with the contractor (see also 2 CFR [section]200- 330). 

Subaward means an award provided by a pass-through entity to a subrecipient for the subrecipient to 

carry out part of a Federal award received by the pass-through entity. It does not include payments to 

a contractor or payments to an individual that is a beneficiary of a Federal program. (see 2 CFR 

200.92) A subaward may be provided through any form of legal agreement, including an agreement 

that the pass-through entity calls a contract. Just because a State enters into an agreement that it calls 

a contract, does not make the third-party a contractor. 

2020 WSFR 001 further provides a list of questions to help agencies determine if a relationship is a 

contract or subaward. First is whether the third party is carrying out, in whole or in part, one or more 

of the authorized or identified public purposes of the Act. The second is the extent to which the third 

party is developing the project statement or scope of work or, whether the third party is solely 

providing goods and services to the recipient. The third question is the method of payment. If the 

recipient is only being reimbursed for actual costs, the guidance indicates the relationship is a 

subaward. HOWEVER, the guidance further states if the recipient will pay a fixed price, the third 

party is a contractor. The fourth question is whether the third party must report on actual costs. The 

fifth question is whether the third party is providing cost sharing or matching funds. These questions 

are not a checklist where if one condition is met, the contract is a subaward. These questions are to 

help agencies identify the substance of agreements. 

Of note, the auditors based their findings in Section C on similar, although not identical, criteria. 

SECTION 1 - The development of procedures and guidance to identify subawards, and ensure 

compliance with federal regulations, 

The PGC does not disagree with this finding and is actively seeking to implement the finding. 

During the audit period, guidance was at best confusing. The Federal Aid Coordinator, as well as the 

Chief Counsel, would review agreements to be paid using federal funds and would try to make a 

determination based on the definitions above whether a contractor was providing a good or service, 

or carrying out a program for a public purpose specified in the authorizing statute. For the specific 

agreements questioned, the PGC will discuss these in Section 2. But for this recommendation (or set 

of recommendations), the PGC finds this process to be inadequate. 

4 

49
 

 

 

 

 

The newly issued 2020 guidance gives the PGC a chance to reinvent its process to a more formalized 

process. 

SECTION 2 - Resolve questioned costs. 

The PGC does not agree with all questioned costs. Specifically, the PGC does not agree with the 

categorization of two of the three agreements as subawards. 

There are three agreements identified. First is with the Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Unit at Pennsylvania State University (the “COOP”). The second is an agreement with the 

National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative (NBCI)., the third is with the University of Georgia for 

necropsies. 

The COOP: 

Two project agreements were issued under Grant No. F16AF00352 to the COOP. A copy of the grant 

narrative for these projects is attached. This is Grant Narrative W-81-R-5 White Tailed Deer 

Research (the Narrative). The purpose of this Project is to collect the data necessary to strengthen 

understanding and acceptance of current deer management measures. The objectives of this project 

are divided into two jobs, one focusing on deer-forest relationships, the other on fawn survival and 

mortality. 

These are important. 

The Narrative goes on to state responsibility for the two jobs. For Job 1, the deer-forest relationships, 

the bulk of the work is to be conducted by PGC personnel, see pages 3 and 4. Discretely, the COOP 

was to be contracted to, and includes support for, a Ph. D. graduate student coordinating the project, 

primary responsibility for data analysis, purchasing of GPS collars and satellite fees to retrieve deer 

locations and modify location intervals, and conducting DNA analyses. All of these items are either 

goods or services. The services of a Ph.D. student to coordinate, the services of the COOP to analyze 

data, the purchase of collars and satellite fees, and the purchase of DNA analysis. The COOP offers 

these services to other entities. 

Job 1 

In no case in Job 1 does the COOP actually perform the public purpose of the grant, which is to 

collect the data, or to determine deer-forest relationships. This alone should make the agreement a 

contract as opposed to a subaward. 

However, there are other questions under the 2020 guidance to be looked at. For instance, the second 

question is the extent to which the contractor is developing the project statement or scope of work or, 

whether the third party is solely providing goods and services to the recipient. We submit it is the 

PGC that drove the desire for the project, the project statement and the scope of work. The PGC does 

not have the ability to analyze DNA without a third party. The PGC does not have the capability to 

independently analyze data once collected. However, that analysis is driven by a deer management 

team (set out on page 8 of the Narrative) almost wholly comprised of PGC personnel, including 

administration and oversight by PGC personnel. Many of these people are foremost leaders in the 

field of research and deer management across the country. The contributions of one member of the 

5 

50
 

 

 

team from the COOP does not change the fact the project is proposed, driven and managed by the 

PGC. 

The third question is the method of payment. If the recipient is only being reimbursed for actual 

costs, the guidance indicates the relationship is a subaward. HOWEVER, the guidance further states 

if the recipient will pay a fixed price, the third party is a contractor. This is a self-licking ice cream 

cone. Under no circumstances does the PGC desire to pay for work it does not receive. Therefore, it 

is highly unlikely there would be fixed price contracts for data analysis or any of the other goods and 

services. To do so, would mean there would be no way of ensuring the services were actually being 

received. While it is true this is a question to ask, the desire to only pay for those services received 

should not, in any way, be the deciding factor of whether something is a contract or subaward. 

The fourth question is whether the third party must report on actual costs. Once again, that is a 

bootstrap method of determining status of a contract. To use an example, if the PGC required services 

to clean a building at $10.00 per hour, it would also require proof of the actual costs, i.e. number of 

hours, before paying. That does not change the nature of the relationship. 

The fifth question is whether the third party is providing cost sharing or matching funds. It is unclear 

to me, but it seems that the COOP was providing waived indirect costs. It was our understanding that 

this was allowable, and to the extent contractors may not supply this match, these costs may have 

been inappropriate under this contract. Far from changing the nature of the contract, this was a 

problem of the guidance under which the PGC operated and its understanding of that guidance. FWS 

did not bring this up when it approved the project and the PGC was unaware this was an issue. 

Job 2 

In no case in Job 2 does the COOP actually perform the public purpose of the grant which is to 

collect the data, or to determine fawn survival and mortality, or have primary responsibility for 

communication. This alone should make the agreement a contract as opposed to a subaward. The 

narrative does not specifically list what activities the COOP will perform for Job 2, but does 

specifically show PGC personnel performing the bulk of work and determinations, with only DNA 

analysis pursuant to a process laid out in Kilgo et al (2012) as presumably within the scope of the 

COOP work. Again, this alone should make the agreement a contract. 

Analysis of the remaining questions is remarkably similar to that for Job 1. 

The PGC would like to point out that when making these contracts, it has been FWS that REQUIRES 

a budget table and the showing that payment is for “actual costs,” not for some other purpose. The 

PGC has argued strenuously that these contracts should be allowed to be fixed amounts for 

deliverables, and FWS has insisted those are not approvable. In essence, they insist the payment 

method and reporting on actual costs be done in a certain manner over objection and now the PGC is 

being penalized because FWS tried to drive the PGC project in a certain manner which was not 

contemplated by the PGC. 

Upon a complete fiscal analysis of invoices and payments along with a breakdown of actual costs 

from PSU Accounting for the COOP, all payments match costs totals provided for all invoices and 

there is no indication additional funding from DCNR provided to the COOP for similar project 

activities was mixed with PGC funding and COOP requests for payment of invoices. 

6 

51
 

 

 

 

 

 

NBCI: 

The PGC does not disagree that the NBCI contract should be classified as a subaward. Under the 

guidance as it existed, the PGC believes it erred when classifying this agreement as a contract. The 

Commission entered into an agreement with the National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative (NBCI) 

under Grant No. F14AF01303. This grant authorized grant funds of ($156,000.00 over 3 years) to be 

paid to the NBCI. NBCI was paid 75% of the total grant amount of $208,032.00 or $156,000.00 and 

that amount is the Federal Share. PGC assumed the recipient share of $52,032.00. This project was 

funded, and decision-making authority was delegated to NBCI with the understanding wild quail 

would be available to PGC for restocking efforts at a later date on properties, provided suitable 

habitat existed and was managed under a plan developed/approved through NBCI. 

University of Georgia: 

The PGC does not agree with the determination that this agreement is a subaward. 

The agreement was entered pursuant to Grant No. F13AF00975, a copy of the grant narrative for 

these projects is attached. This is Grant Narrative W-81-R-2 Wildlife Health Program II (the 

Narrative). The purpose of this Project is broad ranging and includes determining the causes of 

morbidity for various wildlife. However, the role of the University of Georgia is specifically in the 

field of animal disease research, surveillance, and diagnostics. For all intents and purposes, the 

University of Georgia is analyzing samples for CWD, as is evident by the revised grant narrative. 

The problem as identified by this contract is that the University of Georgia offers these diagnostic 

services through the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study and College of Veterinary 

Medicine (SCWDS). The PGC does not have the ability to conduct CWD tests on its own. SCWDS is 

a membership type organization. It offers services such as CWD testing to its members, but the 

number and amount of tests is dependent on the number submitted. The only way to take advantage 

of this testing is by being a member. Essentially, there is a “profit” built into the contract. 

With respect to the public purpose, it is clear the University of Georgia and SCWDS does not 

perform the public function of the grant itself. Personnel listed on page 12 of the narrative do not 

even name any persons from SCWDS, and the tasks identified as being those for SCWDS are all 

diagnostic in terms of testing samples. 

For this reason alone, this should be a contract for a service. 

Again, there are more questions. The development of the grant proposal or scope of work appears to 

be wholly independent of SCWDS or the University, as the four “jobs” listed in the grant narrative 

are all performed by the PGC, with the exception of diagnostics which can go multiple places, 

ostensibly based on convenience of the PGC. 

The method of payment is by lump sum for all work to be done. This is the identified problem by the 

auditors. BECAUSE it was lump sum, the auditors determined it was a subaward, and therefore 

illegal. Conversely, the PGC posits that there are multiple places to get these diagnostic tests and that 

this is the method by which SCWDS is paid. It is a contract, just with a lump sum, and not a 

subaward, and therefore not an illegal fixed price subaward. In fact, one of the characteristics of a 

contract vs. subaward is that contracts are not based on costs. This contract clearly is not. 

7 

52
 

 

 

 

 

 

The next question illustrates this perfectly. The (fourth) question is whether actual costs are used for 

billing, which would indicate a subaward. Actual costs are not used (indicating a contract). 

The last question involves cost sharing or match. A review of the SCWDS contract reveals there is no 

cost sharing or match coming from the University of Georgia or SCWDS. (The audit report notes that 

the Commission agreements indicated that the “subrecipients” were responsible for adherence to 

applicable Federal program requirements specified in the Federal award. To the contrary, the contract 

only generally required adherence to law, and attached the boilerplate Exhibits requiring 

nondiscrimination, no lobbying, etc. applicable to all contracts that utilize any federal monies. The 

University of Georgia or SCWDS was NOT required to adhere to requirements in the federal award, 

but generally required federal laws, which are attached to EVERY contract utilizing federal funds, 

whether stone for road maintenance, laptops for Hunter Education, or services for CWD detection. 

The auditors simply decided if the PGC contracted appropriately it was evidence that the PGC made 

subawards. 

Based on the totality of the circumstances, the PGC disagrees with the costs questioned and the 

finding and positively states this was a contract for services. While the backup indicated how the 

contractor chose to value its services, they did not change the nature of the relationship. The PGC got 

the services contracted for, namely CWD sample testing. 

CONCLUSION: 

Essentially, the auditors evaluated whether work to be done under these research projects benefitted 

the PGC in meeting the public purposes stated in the project goals. If they did, then the auditors 

determined these were subawards. The PGC understands this differently. If the PGC is being 

benefitted, the agreement is a contract. It is only in the case where the contractor is actually 

performing the project and benefitting the public purpose that there is a subaward. So, for instance, in 

the case of NBCI, NBCI did most of the work associated with the project and the money was passed 

through to NBCI as the recipient (or more precisely subrecipient. 

The PGC agrees that a more robust process to identify these instances should be developed, 

especially in light of the 2020 guidance which can now be used. However, using a rear-view mirror is 

unfair. The PGC was specifically told the COOP unit would not be considered a subrecipient. (We 

offer this could have been earlier determined by the FWS that since the COOP was partially a federal 

organization as it is funded by USGS, Federal Program grant funds cannot be provided to other 

federal agencies.) The PGC was specifically given guidance that contracted services on a lump sum 

basis would indicate a contract instead of a subrecipient relationship. The PGC was specifically 

REQUIRED to include certain budget items in some contracts, when the PGC did not feel they were 

necessary or appropriate. Then, in hindsight, the PGC is penalized for that inclusion. 

While the PGC agrees that under the rules in place the NBCI contract should have been deemed a 

subaward and is taking steps to correct that issue, the PGC does not agree that the COOP Unit work 

or the University of Georgia would be a subaward, either under the rules in place in the audit period, 

or pursuant to the guidance issued in 2020. To do so would turn every contract for goods or services 

where contractors were required to follow the law and only to be paid for services rendered a 

subaward. That is a result that is neither warranted nor appropriate. 

8 

53
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. _Ineligible In-Kind Contributions—$286,857

The Pennsylvania Game Commission does not disagree with the auditor’s findings and will address 

the Federal Share of questioned costs. We have taken several steps to rectify some of the items of 

concern noted by the auditor including: 

• Additional directions printed directly on the Instructor Activity Report (IAR) Form regarding

types of reportable activities, limits on activity hours, limits on daily hours, who may approve

hours listed, and limits on form submission timeframes.

• A new format to the IAR Form to encourage hourly reporting of each type of activity and on

the date the activity occurs, rather than a lump sum of all types of activity hours being

reported on a single date.

• Development of changes to the Instructor Guidebooks and Hunter Education Policies to

reflect the changes made to the IAR Form. These have not been finalized but are in the final

stages of development.

• The PGC will rewrite the existing SOP 10.40 to specifically address the concerns and audit

findings relative to the match program and other internal operating policies of the PGC for the

Hunter Education Program grants.

The Pennsylvania Game Commission is determining the federal share of questioned costs related to 

ineligible in-kind contributions. 

5. Ineligible and Unsupported Payroll Costs—$125,355

The Pennsylvania Game Commission does not disagree with the auditor findings. PGC has and will 

continue to take steps to rectify the items of concern noted by the auditor including: 

The PGC is currently reviewing records and files to determine the Federal share of ineligible and 

unsupported payroll charges claimed on grants. 

The grant activity code titled Inspection of Federal Aid Areas (M30001902400) is being revised. The 

description in WR-1-C-17 was “Inspection of Federal Aid Areas includes all costs for surveillance, 

inspection and patrol of all areas either purchased or developed with Federal Aid funds to assure that 

the lands are being used for approved project purposes and to protect the capital investment for 

wildlife purposes.” 

The new description in Grant WR-1-C-20 is: 

“Inspection of Federal Aid Areas includes all costs for inspections and field reviews of all areas 

either purchased or developed with Federal Aid funds to assure that the lands are being used for 

approved project purposes and to protect the capital investment for wildlife purposes.” 

The terms surveillance and patrol were removed from the description. 

In addition, the grant narrative has been revised to explain this grant activity further: 

9 

54
 

 

 

 

 

“The project will cover the costs for field reviews and inspection of all areas either purchased or 

developed with Federal Aid funds to assure that the lands are being used for approved project 

purposes by distinguishing signs of any activity that is contrary to normal use of the game lands and 

to protect the capital investment for wildlife purposes. These non-law enforcement activities, such as 

walking State Game Lands boundary lines to check for encroachment, garbage dumping, cutting of 

trees, gates being vandalized and/or open, tire tracks in fields from non-Game Commission activities 

and performing visual inspections of the area for those activities which are not permitted to occur on 

game lands managed by PGC, are conducted by Habitat Management Crews and Land Managers. For 

example, if staff is driving a tractor to a remote location of the game lands and they observe evidence 

of activity that should not be happening there, they will investigate to ascertain what has occurred and 

report it to their supervisor. If they see a neighbor is conducting activities on SGL property, they will 

stop at the residence and inform them to cease that activity. 

A frequent example is when horseback riders or cyclists are utilizing the SGL illegally by riding in 

restricted areas or on trails closed to them. Sometimes people will cut firewood on SGLs and while 

this is rarely permitted, it occurs illegally. The supervisor is informed who is responsible for 

addressing the problem from that point forward. When the term “boundary surveys” is used in this 

grant, it refers to visual inspections of boundary areas on SGLs. This is no different than a person 

taking a ride into the SGL on roads open to public travel and looking around to see that everything is 

as it should be. This may involve walking a distance along SGL perimeters such as done when 

painting boundary line markers and looking for encroachments while performing another duty. There 

is no field disturbance occurring, it is simply visual inspection of the area for activities that are not 

permitted. Note that all Land Managers are trained law enforcement officers. However, most of their 

time is spent performing their wildlife habitat management duties and no law enforcement time is 

charged to the grant. Further, per PGC Standard Operating Procedure, no driving time by Land 

Managers is charged to the grant. Inspections for timber trespass and other illegal activities will 

insure the protection of these valuable wildlife assets under our control and management. Any 

incidents discovered will be investigated by law enforcement staff and coded to non-grant funded 

activity codes.” 

• Coding time to an incorrect activity code either by way of clerical error or other cause is an

ongoing concern. PGC is continuously conducting timesheet and coding training for

employees completing timesheets as well as supervisors reviewing and approving timesheets.

We will modify an SOP 10.27accordingly regarding such and the importance of any timesheet

containing a hard or digital signature prior to advancing such document to region office

timekeepers for entry into the SAP system in order to maximize accuracy. PGC will begin an

internal sampling protocol of timesheets already entered into SAP for conformance to proper

coding and the supervisor signature requirement. If a region shows an issue exists, the

timekeeper and responsible supervisor as well as offending staff will be required to retrain

through central office either digitally (during COVID-19 shutdown) or possibly with a trip to

Harrisburg for such training. Multiple staff from different Bureaus and Divisions will be

involved in such activities regarding selection of the “training staff” for these specific

instances.

• PGC is reviewing and revising the procedure of allocating employee leave time for employees

who are default coded to grants but allocate time to non-grant activity. The PGC plans to

implement a similar function to the procedure for calculating leave costs for non-grant coded

employees and allocating leave to specific grants based upon hourly earning rates.

10 

55
 

 

 

 

 

 

• The Commission’s Federal Aid Coordinator is now coding non-grant time to non-grant codes

to address any overstatement and properly allocate time among the proper grants programs

such as SWG and other grant funding sources.

6. Unreported Program Income—$9,867

The Pennsylvania Game Commission does not disagree with the findings as the Federal Aid 

Coordinator and Region Office was unaware that certain unidentified income was being generated 

from Middle Creek based on a lack of reporting such by local facility staff. We will create an 

appropriate guidance document regarding reporting any income collected or generated at PGC public 

facilities such as the Middle Creek Visitor’s Center other than license revenue and provide such to 

facility managers. 

B. Unallocated Credit Card Rebates

The Pennsylvania Game Commission does not disagree that the Federal share of credit card rebates 

should be treated as a cost reduction or cash refund. As such, going forward, Game Commission will 

run a report in SAP (Commonwealth's accounting software system) that depicts the credit card 

rebates for that year, along with another report in SAP that shows the total credit card spend detail. 

Game Commission will categorize the spend by Grant and non- Grant. The Grant credit card spend 

will be further defined by each Grant. An allocation of the credit card rebate will be prorated by 

Grant and shown as a cost reduction for the Grant drawdown or program income under the additive 

method if so desired by FWS. This corrective action is planned for the drawdowns for the 2020 fiscal 

year and forward. The SAP reports are included as worksheets within the excel template attached at 

the end of this report. 

In regard to the Federal share of the audit adjustment, PGC has sufficient overmatch for the grants 

highlighted in the excel workbook for each of the audit years to offset the Federal share adjustment. 

Game Commission did not pursue any adjustment under $1k for state overmatch. If need be, Game 

Commission will pursue and report accordingly. 

C. Contract Agreements Not Properly Classified as Subawards

The Pennsylvania Game Commission does not disagree that one contract written with third parties 

should have been considered a subrecipient agreement. However, we strongly disagree with 

determinations made by the auditor that several of our contracts should have been written as 

subrecipient agreements for the reasons stated previously in the PGC response to issue A.3. 

The PGC is currently developing its subrecipient/subaward processes to comply with applicable 

federal regulations and applying the information provided by the auditor to this process. Realizing 

that PGC should be treating certain services agreements as subrecipient/grant subawards, we have 

been developing such programmatic processes and information analysis in conformity with 2 CFR 

200.331 and FFATA requirements. 

D. Inadequate Equipment Management

The Pennsylvania Game Commission does not disagree with the findings. In order to rectify the 

deficiencies listed above, the PGC has taken several actions. We have added a new position 

11 

56
 

 

 

 

 

 

dedicating a portion of their time to help internally audit and monitor equipment listed in our asset 

management system. We have revised SOP 10.1 Asset Management System on 2/6/20 to ensure that 

all federally funded purchases notate the Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN) within the 

Asset Management System. Also, the PGC has revised the purchase amount minimum limit to 

$5,000.00 and listed this in the SOP such that inventoried items match Pennsylvania’s state and 

federal requirements of $5,000 or greater unless required by management such as is the case for 

firearms and electronic equipment. To alleviate the multiple issues listed by the auditors, we are also 

providing separate guidance to have all items valued at $5,000 or greater include photos of the items, 

photos of the serial numbers or vehicle identification numbers, and a photo of the identifiable 

markings for PR purchased items located in the asset management system. 

In regard to the more than 2000 items marked as purchased on January 1, 1900, these items were 

from a prior inventory system that did not have a date of purchase associated with them so it was 

determined to give those items the 01/01/1900 date to identify them as inventoried from an older 

system. 

E. Misuse of Program-Funded Real Property

The Pennsylvania Game Commission does not disagree with this finding. A review of file 

information concurs with the findings and we agree that the building needs removed from this site. A 

prior discussion with FWS staff indicates they will work with us and we have 3 years to remove the 

structure. We are currently utilizing the cottage building for statewide region office and Harrisburg 

office staff meetings as we are short on office space in Harrisburg. Plans have already been submitted 

to Pennsylvania Department of General Services to enlarge the Harrisburg Office with a rear addition 

and this will occur over the next several years. Please provide PGC with a removal deadline for the 

cottage building so as to clarify any misunderstanding on our part. 

The dog agility course was removed from the premises following the auditor’s visit to SGL 290. 

With increases in GIS capabilities throughout the agency, parcels are more easily identifiable as PR 

purchased. This allows field staff and Harrisburg level staff to better understand the implication of 

any activity that is performed and brings about an awareness that coordination with the USFWS must 

occur prior to any activity occurring on those properties that may be in conflict with the USFWS or 

any grant acquisition documents. 

PGC staff in Harrisburg and the regions will further discuss and develop a certification process that 

shows operational consistency with property usage and its original intended purpose. This may take 

the form of a Land Manager and Region Director signed certification to the Executive Director that 

the SGL has been field reviewed for consistency with the intended purposes of acquisition for 

management of wildlife populations and hunting access and no other uses are present that conflict 

with that purpose. 

F. Failure To Report Barter

The Pennsylvania Game Commission strongly does not agree with the auditor determination that the 

Commission’s Hunter Access Program is a barter program. 

12 

57
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The term “barter” is not defined in 50 CFR. The dictionary defines “barter” to mean, “[t]o trade by 

exchanging one commodity for another: to trade goods or services in exchange for other goods or 

services.” Merriam Webster Dictionary. 

In the case of the Hunter Access Program, there is no barter. Creating and maintaining a list of 

persons who would ostensibly permit persons to hunt on their property is the fulfillment of the 

Commission’s statutory duty to serve sportsmen and ensure adequate opportunity to hunt and trap. 

See, 34 Pa. C. S. §322 (c)(13). Enrolled landowners retain the right to lawfully exclude hunters, 

trappers, and anyone else from their land. The Hunter Access program is not a business transaction, 

much less a “barter:” there is neither the sale nor exchange of things of value. 

As a “Commonwealth,” Pennsylvania has a longstanding culture and tradition that game and wildlife 

belong to all the people. Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the Environmental 

Rights Amendment, states: 

“The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, 

scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania's public natural 

resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to 

come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain 

them for the benefit of all the people.” 

There is judicial recognition that the Game Commission is a trustee of Pennsylvania’s natural 

resources under the state Constitution. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Game Commission v. 

Department of Environmental Resources, 521 Pa. 121, 555 A. 2d 812 (1988). Consistent with trust 

principles, the public-at-large is the beneficiary. Id. 

Historically, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has treated hunting and furtaking as a privilege --

not a “right.” This longstanding cultural precept has its legal roots in the adoption of the Constitution 

in 1790. In its application, the Courts and General Assembly consistently treat recreational hunting 

and fishing as privileges that must be carefully regulated under the Public Trust Doctrine. The 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court held, “[t]he right to hunt game is but a privilege given by the 

Legislature, not an inherent right in the residents of the state.” Commonwealth v. Patsone, 231 Pa. 46, 

48. Similarly, in Pennsylvania Game Commission v. Marich and Pennsylvania Game Commission v.

Engleka, 666 A. 2d 253 (Pa. 1995) the Supreme Court pointed out that: “[t]he recreational sport of

hunting has not been recognized as a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest by state or

federal law.” Id. at 255.

The General Assembly has also consistently treated hunting as a privilege – not a “right.” For 

example, Game and Wildlife Code Sections 929, 930, 2310, 2312, 2522, and 2741 all refer to hunting 

as a “privilege.” See, 34 Pa. C. S. §§ 929, 930, 2310, 2312, 2522 and 2741. Indeed, throughout the 

Game and Wildlife Code, hunting is never referred to as a right. 

It follows then that the “grant” of “hunting and fishing rights” referenced in the hunter access 

agreement is not a grant to the Commission of a commodity, a good, or a service. One may only hunt 

or trap in Pennsylvania as allowed by law, or as allowed by license or permit from the Pennsylvania 

Game Commission. This is so because the Commission already holds hunting and furtaking rights as 

trustee for the public. The landowner has no hunting rights to give. 

13 

58
 

Nor can the “grant” of “hunting and furtaking rights” be considered a grant of access. The landowner 

retains the access rights to determine who can hunt what species and when. The Commission can 

neither own or dispose of such rights, nor can it agree to accept any such rights to “access.” 

The agreements at issue call for the Commission to “give” Game News, or seedlings, or enforcement 

presence. As a general matter, each of those items is subject to availability of funds, availability of 

seedlings, and the general workload of law enforcement. Indeed, every caller to Game Commission 

law enforcement, whether an enrolled landowner or not, can expect a response. Significantly, the 

liability protection referenced in the Agreement is available to any landowner that allows public 

recreation, whether or not she is enrolled in the Hunter Access program. The Recreational Use of 

Land and Water Act (RULWA) was aimed at encouraging landowners to make their lands available 

to the public for recreational use without charge. 68 P.S. § 477-1. This public policy is also in 

furtherance of the longstanding cultural traditions that hunting and furtaking are a privilege. 

At its core, the Hunter Access Program is a list of [some] persons who support the public policy of 

allowing hunting and furtaking on private land, in accordance with the law and any license and 

permit privileges granted. 

Just as landowners may sign up, they may quickly and unconditionally cancel at any time. Absent 

from this relationship is any express or implied authority to seek recourse under the terms of the 

“agreement” in equity or at law. The only “remedy” for failing to follow the principles laid out, is to 

remove the property from the list of “supporters.” In short, the Hunter Access Program and 

Agreement evidence support of Commonwealth policy and allow the Commission to concomitantly 

support the landowners. It fulfills a statutory mandate, furthers public policy, and directs the public to 

places where wildlife habitat work would have the most impact. However, it barters or trades nothing 

of commercial or economic value. 

There are negative consequences of deeming these agreements Barter Agreements. The General 

Assembly, in the enactment of RUWLA, furthered Commonwealth public policy towards open lands 

and public access. In some states, leasing land for hunting and furtaking is the norm, and there is a 

value associated with those leases. Those leases allow Lessees to exclude others from hunting or 

furtaking, and Lessees pay for that privilege. The access rights of the landowner are transferred to the 

Lessee. The Commonwealth chose to enact a statute that encourages landowners to open land to 

recreation at no charge, i.e., NOT leasing, is Commonwealth policy. The placement of “value” upon 

these Agreements turns public support for longstanding tradition into an exchange of commodities, 

contrary to Commonwealth statute and public policy. 

In addition, the list of supporters acreage under agreement is approximately 2.2 million acres. Valued 

at a modest $10.00 per acre, this amounts to $22 million dollars. The whole allocation of Pitman 

Robertson dollars to Pennsylvania was $29.7 million. If treated as Program Income, it would 

effectively gut the ability to use restoration funds. It would also destroy a program begun in 

Pennsylvania in the 1930’s to provide a connection to wildlife and an appreciation for the land that 

supports it by hunters and non-consumptive wildlife recreationists. 

This action would also have negative consequences for those Hunter Access Program cooperators as 

they may lose RUWLA protection on their land as a result of receiving “Payments” in the form of 

barter in whatever amount was determined, not to mention instantly become responsible to the federal 

government for income tax liability. This alone would cause practically every landowner enrolled in 

14 

59
 

the program to end their association with the Pennsylvania Game Commission as well as close most 

of those lands to public hunting. This action would end a longstanding tradition and “institution” in 

Pennsylvania and make it more likely that fewer hunters would participate in the sport as their 

favorite hunting areas became posted or removed from areas open to hunting and identified as such. 

G. Failure To Protect Against Trespass and Encroachment

The Pennsylvania Game Commission does not disagree that multiple encroachments have occurred 

on State Game Lands by neighboring property owners. This is an ongoing issue and we continue to 

address these occurrences as we become aware of them. The issues listed above from field reviews 

have already been partially resolved. The Encroachment on SGL 242 is resolved. The encroachment 

on SGL 214 is in the process of being resolved. The encroachments on SGL 095 are resolved. The 

encroachments on SGL 042 are mostly resolved. Follow-up has been occurring relative to the shed 

located on the SGL 042 property. 

The commission is currently in the process of re-writing the boundary line SOP 60.23 and also 

adding GIS capabilities to boundary line applications and reporting. The new SOP calls for reducing 

boundary line tag distances between markers in areas most at risk of encroachment and also for 

providing a better workflow to be able to identify those areas and transfer information to our survey 

section for review and resolution. The new boundary line GIS application identifies areas at greater 

risk of encroachment, as well as an intuitive workflow application for all involved in its subsequent 

resolution. 

* It should be noted that encroachment issues and resolution happen regularly and are dealt with

when staff become aware of the issue. The level of effort varies in intensity, depending on the

circumstance and adjacent landowners willingness to comply.

The Pennsylvania Game Commission is also currently resolving the land reconciliation issues dealing 

with State Game lands 240. Appraisers are under contract and currently moving forward on providing 

the necessary information for PGC to submit to USFWS regarding valuation of the tracts of land 

involved in that land exchange. We have been working with USFWS diligently and continuously 

through the Covid-19 pandemic. 

15 

60
Appendix 5 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

Game Commission 

Status of Audit Recommendations 

Recommendation Status Action Required 

12, 

23 

14, 20, 21, and We consider the 

recommendations 

and implemented. 

resolved No further action is required. 

1 – 4, 8 – 11, 13, 

15 – 17, 19, 24, 28, 

29, and Repeat 

Recommendation 

(Finding E) 

We consider the 

recommendations resolved 

but not implemented. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) regional 

officials stated they will 

work with the Pennsylvania 

Game Commission to 

develop and implement a 

corrective action plan. 

Complete a corrective action plan that 

includes information on actions taken 

or planned to address the 

recommendations, target dates and 

titles of the officials responsible for 

implementation, and verification that 

FWS headquarters officials reviewed 

and approved the actions the State 

has taken or planned. 

We will refer the recommendations 

not implemented at the end of 

90 days (after March 15, 2021) to 

the Assistant Secretary for Policy, 

Management and Budget to track 

implementation. 

5 – 7, 18, 

25 – 27 

22, and We consider the 

recommendations 

unresolved. 

 

 

We will refer the recommendations 

not implemented at the end of 90 

days (after March 15, 2021) to the 

Assistant Secretary for Policy, 

Management and Budget for 

resolution

61 
Report Fraud, Waste,

and Mismanagement

Fraud, waste, and mismanagement in

Government concern everyone: Office 

of Inspector General staff, departmental 

employees, and the general public. We 

actively solicit allegations of any 

inefficient and wasteful practices, fraud, 

and mismanagement related to 

departmental or Insular Area programs 

and operations. You can report 

allegations to us in several ways.

 By Internet: www.doioig.gov

 By Phone: 24-Hour Toll Free: 800-424-5081

Washington Metro Area: 202-208-5300

 By Fax: 703-487-5402

 By Mail: U.S. Department of the Interior

Office of Inspector General

Mail Stop 4428 MIB

1849 C Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20240