A special review by the Office of the Legislative Auditor released to the Legislative Audit Commission on Oct. 14, 2025, found the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) lacked up-to-date plans and clear, consistent guidance for timber harvesting decisions on Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs), and that those gaps contributed to federal scrutiny and staff dissatisfaction.

The report, presented by Deputy Legislative Auditor Catherine Tyson, concluded that DNR managed about 5,600,000 acres of land statewide with WMAs comprising roughly 1,300,000 acres; "Only 7 of Minnesota's over 1,500 WMAs currently have plans," Tyson said during the commission meeting. The Office of the Legislative Auditor (OLA) opened the special review after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service temporarily suspended federal grant payments to DNR in August 2023; the grant was later reinstated with conditions in December 2023.

Why it matters: WMAs are statutorily required to be managed "for the benefit of wildlife and related recreation," the auditors wrote, and DNR is authorized to harvest timber on WMAs only to "protect, perpetuate, or reestablish wildlife habitat." OLA found weaknesses in four areas—lack of plans, poor documentation of wildlife benefits from harvests, conflicting goals among DNR divisions, and unclear guidance on who has decision authority—each of which makes it difficult to show compliance with statutory purposes and federal grant conditions.

Key findings and figures
- Planning: The auditors reported that only seven WMAs had plans and many plans had not been updated for decades; the Bridal Lake WMA plan, for example, covered 1980–1989 and was not updated until February 2023. The report recommended the Legislature specify which WMAs require individual master plans, what those plans should include, and how often they must be updated.
- Documentation: OLA said documentation was often inadequate to show timber harvests produced wildlife benefits. In a staff survey focused on field employees involved in WMA timber decisions, Tyson reported, "we surveyed a total of 213 staff, and we received responses from a 181." The auditors said 70% of Fish and Wildlife and Ecological and Water Resources field staff (and 22% of Forestry Division respondents) indicated that proposed harvests were "sometimes or rarely or never" documented as providing wildlife benefits prior to approval.
- Decision clarity: Multiple DNR documents were intended to coordinate decisions across Forestry, Fish and Wildlife, and Ecological and Water Resources divisions, but OLA found those documents did not clearly prioritize the statutory wildlife purpose of WMAs. The report cited survey responses in which large majorities of field staff said roles and responsibilities were unclear.
- Staff morale: OLA's survey results showed substantial dissatisfaction among field staff with DNR’s habitat management on WMAs: 71% of Fish and Wildlife and Ecological and Water Resources respondents described themselves as "dissatisfied" or "very dissatisfied."

Federal review and audits
OLA traced the federal grant suspension in 2023 in part to concerns from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service about documentation of wildlife benefits and compliance with grant terms. Commissioner Sarah Stroman told the commission that USFWS Director Martha Williams wrote in March 2024 that "we now have a mutual understanding and agreement about DNR's procedures and our agency's grant process." Stroman also cited a July 2025 Office of Inspector General audit that found DNR was using grant funds and license revenue for allowable activities and complying with applicable laws and regulations.

DNR response and commitments
DNR Commissioner Sarah Stroman and Fish and Wildlife Division Director Kelly Straka responded at the meeting and said the department largely agreed with OLA's recommendations and was already working on improvements. Stroman said major-unit plans required by statute are complete for WMAs that have resident managers and that a systemwide planning effort for remaining WMAs and aquatic management areas will begin public engagement this calendar year and is scheduled for completion by Dec. 31, 2027.

Stroman provided specific implementation deadlines the department committed to during the hearing: a common directive from the three divisions on 11/21/2025; an updated procedure including a new habitat value form by 01/31/2026; and initial comprehensive training for staff by 03/31/2026. She said the DNR had already started a "continuous improvement action plan" in early 2023 after internal meetings highlighted differences between leader intent and staff experience.

Questions from legislators
Commission members pressed DNR and auditors on several points: how the survey sample was selected (auditors said they targeted the field staff who work on WMA timber issues and that leaders in each division identified those employees), how timber-sale revenues are used (Stroman said revenues from WMAs must be reinvested in wildlife management), and whether regional managers have discretion to decline a harvest if site conditions warrant (the commissioner said yes, site-level professional judgment can decline or change a harvest prescription).

What the auditors recommended
OLA urged the DNR and the Legislature to clarify which WMAs require individual master plans and plan contents; to improve documentation that timber harvests provide wildlife benefits; to amend internal policies so statutory wildlife purposes are prioritized; and to provide training and consistent communications so staff understand roles and responsibilities.

Follow-up and next steps
DNR and federal agencies have already exchanged letters and audits; DNR committed to the implementation dates above. OLA noted that some recommendations are partially resolved and others remain in progress. The commission hearing closed with members urging ongoing legislative oversight and public transparency as DNR proceeds to complete plans and update guidance.

Ending: The Legislative Audit Commission heard the report, asked questions of both auditors and the DNR leadership, and recorded DNR’s written responses and implementation timelines. OLA’s report and DNR’s response remain public record for future oversight and follow-up.