Analysis of Strategic Land Asset Management: Portfolio Optimization, Capital Allocation, and Value-Based Acquisition within the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
The institutionalization of the Strategic Land Asset Management (SLAM) framework represents a fundamental shift in the fiscal governance of Minnesota’s natural capital. This framework transitions the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) from a reactive, opportunistic land acquisition model to a proactive, data-centric portfolio optimization strategy. Managed with the rigor found in senior-level business finance, SLAM treats the state’s 5.6 million acres of managed land not as a static custodial holding, but as a dynamic asset portfolio that must produce measurable returns in ecological health, public utility, and economic stability. By applying sophisticated financial pro-forma modeling to environmental objectives, the DNR seeks to maximize the “bang for the buck,” ensuring that public expenditures from dedicated funds—such as the Outdoor Heritage Fund and the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund—are allocated to the highest-performing land parcels.
The Portfolio Landscape: A Structural Analysis of DNR Land Holdings
To understand the strategic management of Minnesota’s public lands, one must first analyze the composition of the portfolio. The DNR manages approximately 11% of the state’s total land area, a vast inventory that is segmented by various legal mandates, funding origins, and management objectives. From a financial perspective, these segments represent different asset classes, each with unique risk-return profiles and fiduciary constraints.
The largest single component of the portfolio is the School Trust Lands, encompassing roughly 2.5 million acres. These lands carry a constitutional mandate to generate revenue for the Permanent School Fund, primarily through timber sales and mineral leasing. Other major categories include Consolidated Conservation (ConCon) lands, which total approximately 1.55 million acres, and Acquired lands, totaling 1.58 million acres. This segmentation is critical because the source of the land determines the allowable management activities and the destination of any generated revenue.
Land Classification
Acreage (Approximate)
Primary Strategic Function
School Trust Lands
2.5 Million
Fiduciary revenue generation for K-12 education.
Consolidated Conservation
1.55 Million
Habitat protection and large-block forest management.
Acquired Lands
1.58 Million
Targeted conservation, recreation, and species protection.
Volstead Lands
33,200
Specialized conservation holdings.
University Trust Lands
25,800
Revenue generation for higher education.
Total DNR Managed
5.6+ Million
Comprehensive natural resource and asset management.
The financial oversight of this portfolio requires a multi-pronged approach that balances the high cost of acquisition with the long-term “tail” of management liabilities. In an environment of finite budgets, the DNR’s senior management utilizes SLAM to ensure that every new acquisition contributes to the overall health of the portfolio. Success is not measured solely by the addition of acreage, but by the strategic value that each parcel adds to the existing contiguous blocks of public land.
The Theoretical Foundations of SLAM: A Value-Based Model
The Strategic Land Asset Management framework is defined as an interdisciplinary program designed to upgrade the DNR’s land asset portfolio through a coordinated cycle of strategic acquisition, sales, reinvestment, and exchange. In the world of business finance, this is synonymous with “capital recycling”—divesting of non-core or underperforming assets to fund the purchase of high-priority acquisitions that offer superior long-term value.
The SLAM model is anchored by six primary goals that serve as the fundamental pillars for all transactional decision-making. These goals are not merely qualitative aspirations; they are integrated into a data-driven scoring system that evaluates the environmental, social, and economic potential of every potential land deal. The department has established a rigorous performance metric where 80% of all acquisitions must meet at least three of these six goals. This “multi-objective” requirement ensures that the state avoids “single-use” assets, which often have lower overall returns on investment compared to parcels that provide simultaneous benefits, such as habitat protection, water filtration, and public hunting access.
Goal 1: Expansion of Outdoor Recreation
The primary social driver of SLAM is the expansion of “close-to-home” outdoor recreation. From a financial status perspective, this goal focuses on increasing the “customer base” for the state’s natural resources. By acquiring parcels in counties where public land represents less than 5% of the total area, the DNR targets regions with high demand and low supply. These acquisitions are often prioritized if they directly expand hunting, fishing, camping, or biking opportunities, thereby driving local tourism and the sale of sporting licenses.
Goal 2: Protection of Significant Natural Resources
The protection of rare species and high-quality habitats represents the core “conservation value” of the portfolio. This involves safeguarding designated shallow lakes, calcareous fens, and wetlands identified in the National Wetlands Inventory. The financial logic here is one of cost avoidance; protecting these systems in their natural state is significantly less expensive than attempting to restore them once they have been degraded by development or agricultural runoff.
Goal 3: Restoration and Protection of Water Resources
Water resource management is a critical intersection of ecological and economic value. The SLAM framework uses GIS mapping to identify parcels within Wellhead Protection Areas (WPA) or drinking water supply management areas (DWSMA). By acquiring land that protects a public water supply, the DNR provides a direct ecosystem service to municipalities, potentially avoiding millions of dollars in future water treatment costs. Furthermore, prioritizing parcels within the “Lake of Phosphorus Sensitivity Significance” ranked as “highest” ensures that the state is targeting the most vulnerable aquatic assets.
Goal 4: Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
In the modern pro-forma, climate risk must be accounted for. SLAM prioritizes land that maintains or increases carbon storage and landscape resiliency. This includes the conservation of mature forests (older than 120 years) and acquisitions in high soil carbon areas. By focusing on climate-resilient areas identified by the The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Resilient Lands Mapping tool, the DNR is effectively “future-proofing” its portfolio against the volatility of shifting climate patterns.
Goal 5: Improving Access to Existing Land Holdings
Isolated “in-holdings” and landlocked parcels represent a significant operational inefficiency. SLAM uses fee title acquisitions and easements to expand the public’s ability to access existing lands and, equally importantly, to improve the DNR’s ability to manage its own holdings. Improving management access reduces the time and fuel costs for DNR staff, representing a direct operational savings.
Goal 6: Consolidation of Land Ownership
A highly fragmented portfolio is expensive to manage. Every mile of boundary between state and private land requires monitoring for trespass, fence maintenance, and complex surveying. SLAM’s goal of creating larger, contiguous blocks of land is a direct effort to improve management efficiencies and reduce the “per-acre” cost of oversight. Larger blocks also support more sustainable timber harvests and provide better interior habitat for sensitive wildlife species.
Analytics of the Acquisition Model: Pro-Forma Modeling for Conservation
The DNR’s “value-based” acquisition model is a sophisticated exercise in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). When a parcel is proposed for acquisition, it is not merely evaluated on its price per acre; it is subjected to a comprehensive GIS-based analysis that scores it against the SLAM goals. This data-driven approach is essential because the DNR must say “no” to the vast majority of landowners who offer to sell or donate land.
In 2025, the DNR declined 91% of inquiries from landowners in southern Minnesota, as these parcels did not meet enough strategic goals to justify the long-term management investment. This selectivity is a hallmark of senior financial status, where the focus is on quality over quantity. The acquisition process involves a rigorous sequence of steps to ensure transparency and fiscal responsibility :
Project Manager Assignment: Establishing clear accountability for the transaction.
Property Information Gathering: Assessing ecological, mineral, and timber value.
Appraisal: Hiring a certified appraiser to determine the fair market value.
Offer and Negotiation: Based on the appraised value, with no obligation for the landowner to accept.
Title Opinion and Site Assessment: Identifying any environmental liabilities or legal encumbrances.
Closing: Finalizing the transfer of fee title or easement interest.
Appraisal Thresholds
Requirement Detail
Value ≤ $20,000
No formal appraisal required; value must be documented.
Value > $20,000
Must be prepared by a Certified General Level 4 appraiser.
Value $500k – $1M
Technical review required to validate the valuation.
Value > $10 Million
Two independent appraisals and a DNR-written scope of work required.
This rigorous valuation process ensures that the state does not overpay for land and that the purchase price is defensible to taxpayers and oversight bodies like the Office of the Legislative Auditor.
Capital Sources and Financial Flows
The acquisition and management of these assets require diverse funding streams. The DNR does not rely solely on the state’s General Fund, which is primarily supported by income and sales taxes. Instead, it utilizes a mix of constitutionally dedicated funds, federal grants, and license fees.
The Outdoor Heritage Fund (OHF), established by the 2008 Legacy Amendment, is the primary engine for land protection in Minnesota. Receiving 33% of the proceeds from a statewide 3/8 of 1 percent sales tax, the OHF is dedicated to protecting, enhancing, and restoring habitat for fish, game, and wildlife. This fund has significantly expanded the role of partner organizations—such as The Conservation Fund (TCF) and Northern Waters Land Trust (NWLT)—who often lead the initial phases of large-scale acquisitions.
The Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund (ENRTF), funded by lottery proceeds, supports foundational data collection and specialized research projects. In 2025, the legislature approved 124 projects totaling over $103 million from this fund, targeting everything from aquatic invasive species control to the mapping of priority native rough fish. This data is the “intelligence” that feeds the SLAM GIS layers, allowing for more precise targeting of future acquisitions.
The Land Acquisition Account: A Revolving Fund
The Land Acquisition Account (LAA) acts as a specialized revolving fund for the DNR’s real estate operations. Credits to the account come from the sale of surplus lands, transaction costs paid by buyers, and the sale of standing timber on parcels being divested. These funds are then recycled to pay for the transactional costs of new acquisitions, such as appraisals, advertising, and legal fees.
In Fiscal Year 2025, the LAA recorded receipts of approximately $28,233 from sales in Aitkin, Becker, Itasca, and Cook counties. While this revenue is minimal relative to the overall budget, the account serves as a critical “liquidity pool” for handling transactions with unusual circumstances or those involving partnerships with organizations like the Trust for Public Land. The account’s primary function is to facilitate the “portfolio housekeeping” necessary to keep the land base efficient and strategically aligned.
Operational Efficiency and the “Management Gap”
A core responsibility of a senior finance manager is ensuring that an organization can afford the “tail” of any new acquisition. Every acre added to the DNR portfolio brings an ongoing management liability—costs for controlled burns, invasive species removal, trail maintenance, and property tax equivalency payments (PILOT) to local governments.
A significant challenge identified by the DNR is the persistent “management gap.” A ten-year budget analysis released in late 2010 found an $18.9 million annual funding deficit for managing wildlife management areas, state forests, and other conservation sites, plus an additional $6 million gap for state parks and trails. This total $24.9 million annual gap grows as new land is acquired, creating a tension between the strategic desire for a robust portfolio and the fiscal reality of management capacity.
Management Funding Analysis
Annual Budget Detail
Five Primary Land Types Gap
$18.9 Million per year.
Parks and Trails Gap
$6.0 Million per year.
Total Annual Funding Deficit
$24.9 Million per year.
Projected 10-Year Need
$22 Million additional per year for WMA goals.
This gap necessitates a highly selective acquisition strategy. The DNR cannot afford to be the “buyer of last resort” for marginal land; it must prioritize parcels where management costs can be minimized through consolidation or where ecological returns are so high that they justify the expenditure.
Transactional Friction: The 21-Month Closing Cycle
The efficiency of the SLAM program is also hindered by the length of the acquisition process. In recent years, the median DNR land acquisition has taken 21 months to close. From a financial status perspective, this 21-month cycle represents significant “transaction friction.” Long lead times can discourage “willing sellers” who may need a quicker exit, and they expose the state to the risk of shifting market valuations.
The OLA report noted that many DNR staff and partner organization representatives expressed concern about this timeline. To address this, the DNR has initiated a continuous improvement project to streamline the process, particularly for partner-led acquisitions. Reducing the closing cycle from 21 months to a more standard real estate timeframe would improve the state’s competitiveness in the land market and allow for more agile deployment of capital.
Revenue Generation and Fiduciary Mandates
Unlike typical conservation non-profits, the DNR must also function as a revenue-generating entity, particularly on School and University Trust Lands. These 2.5 million acres are not managed for “pure” conservation; they are managed as a productive forest and mineral asset.
In Fiscal Year 2024, qualifying revenue from state forest trust fund lands totaled $12.1 million. However, the cost of generating this revenue is high. Management, improvements, and road maintenance cost $9.3 million, with an additional $1.7 million in administrative overhead. The resulting net income of approximately $1.1 million represents a thin margin of roughly 9%.
Trust Fund Forestry Financials (FY2024)
School Trust
University Trust
Total
Total Revenue
$11.84M
$255.7k
$12.1M.
Mgmt, Imp, Roads
$9.19M
$104.0k
$9.3M.
Administration
$1.65M
$18.7k
$1.7M.
Net Income
$997.7k
$133.1k
$1.1M.
Timber Volume Sold
423.4k cords
7.1k cords
430.5k cords.
Avg. Sold Price/Cord
—
—
$29.46.
This thin margin highlights the importance of SLAM’s consolidation goal. By creating larger, more contiguous forest blocks, the DNR can reduce the per-cord cost of timber harvest planning and road construction, thereby increasing the net return to the Permanent School Fund. The forest products industry is a cornerstone of Minnesota’s economy, with a $25.6 billion total economic effect and over 72,000 jobs. State trust lands supply 12% to 14% of the fiber for this market, making the efficient management of these lands a matter of statewide economic importance.
Ecosystem Services: Quantifying the Unseen ROI
A sophisticated financial analysis of SLAM must also include the valuation of ecosystem services—the tangible economic benefits provided by natural systems. While these values do not always appear on the DNR’s year-end balance sheet, they represent a significant return on investment for the state’s citizens.
Using the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) modeling tool, researchers have quantified the ROI of public land acquisitions in Minnesota. This model uses “ecological production functions” to predict how changes in land use—such as converting a parcel from agricultural use to a protected prairie—influence the provision of services like carbon sequestration, water quality improvement, and recreation.
Research shows that ROI values for DNR acquisitions range from 0.21 to 5.28, depending on the assumed discount rate and future land-use scenarios. Carbon sequestration typically provides the greatest benefit, followed by water quality and recreation. For a senior business finance expert, this indicates that the “environmental bang for the buck” is highest when acquisitions target lands at risk of conversion to development or high-intensity agriculture, where the loss of ecosystem services would be most acute.
Ecosystem Service Valuation
Economic Mechanism
Financial Impact
Carbon Sequestration
Storage of atmospheric CO2 in forest/soil biomass.
Potential for future carbon credit revenue; climate mitigation.
Water Quality
Filtration of nutrients/sediments by wetlands and shorelines.
Avoided municipal water treatment costs.
Flood Mitigation
Absorption of storm runoff by natural landscapes.
Avoided infrastructure damage and emergency response costs.
Recreation
Value of public access for hunting, fishing, and hiking.
Direct license revenue and regional tourism spending.
Case Study: The 16,000-Acre Northern Forests Legacy Project
The most compelling recent application of the SLAM framework is the acquisition of nearly 16,000 acres of forest land in northern Minnesota. This transaction, completed in 2025, represents one of the largest land protection efforts in the state’s history and serves as a blueprint for modern conservation asset management.
The origin of this project was the 2020 purchase of 72,000 acres by The Conservation Fund (TCF) from PotlatchDeltic Corporation. TCF acted as an intermediary, holding the land to prevent fragmentation while the DNR, Northern Waters Land Trust, and county partners developed a long-term acquisition strategy.
This project was a “textbook” SLAM transaction because it addressed multiple strategic goals simultaneously:
Consolidation: It prevented the breakup of large forest blocks, maintaining contiguous habitat and sustainable timber harvest areas.
Access: It ensured permanent public access for hunting and recreation across ten counties.
Economic Impact: It supported the local forest products industry by keeping “working forests” intact and sustainably managed.
Ecological Value: It protected habitat for 198 Species in Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) identified in the Wildlife Action Plan.
The financial structure of the deal involved a joint proposal to the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council, which recommended $25.1 million in funding for Phase 2 of the project. This acquisition represents a rare and time-sensitive opportunity to conserve resilient, connected habitat before it is sold in smaller blocks on the private market. From a senior finance perspective, this was a “strategic buy” that utilized a non-profit partner to overcome the state’s 21-month transactional friction, ensuring that a critical asset was not lost to fragmentation.
Divestment Strategy: Portfolio Pruning and Capital Recycling
Active management of a land portfolio also requires the strategic sale of assets that no longer serve their intended purpose. The SLAM framework provides clear criteria for when the DNR should divest of land :
Loss of Purpose: The parcel no longer meets the conservation or recreation objectives for which it was originally acquired.
Value Arbitrage: Proceeds from the sale of a lower-quality parcel will fund the acquisition of a higher-quality one.
Operational Relief: The sale resolves a persistent land management issue, such as a boundary dispute or access conflict.
The DNR has a goal of selling 70% of the parcels it offers for sale. Since transitioning to an online land sale platform in 2022, the efficiency of the divestment program has improved dramatically, with the average percentage of offered parcels sold increasing from 73% to 90%. This high “sell-through rate” indicates that the DNR is successfully identifying parcels with market interest and is pricing them accurately to ensure capital can be quickly recycled into new conservation priorities.
However, divestment is often complicated by legal and administrative hurdles. Federal grant ties can make it difficult to sell land that was purchased with certain types of assistance, and the process of reviewing tax-forfeited land for its mineral potential adds another layer of complexity. Even when a parcel is identified as underperforming, the “friction” of divestment can be just as significant as the friction of acquisition.
Strategic Recommendations for Future Portfolio Management
To elevate the SLAM framework to a “Senior Status” in business finance, several strategic improvements should be considered. These recommendations focus on increasing transparency, improving transactional speed, and deepening the integration of financial outcome metrics.
1. Implementation of a Systematic Portfolio Health Check
Currently, SLAM focuses primarily on the evaluation of new acquisitions. A more robust model would include a regular, systematic review of the entire existing portfolio to identify candidates for sale or exchange. This “portfolio health check” would use P&L modeling to identify parcels where management costs are disproportionately high relative to their ecological or social returns. By adopting a “business lens,” the DNR could more aggressively prune non-core assets to free up capital and management capacity for high-priority areas.
2. Streamlining the Transactional Life-Cycle
The 21-month median closing time is a significant operational risk. The DNR should explore legislative or policy changes that allow for more agile acquisition, perhaps by creating a “pre-approved” list of priority parcels or by expanding the authority of the Land Acquisition Account to act as a more flexible bridge fund. Solution identified through the DNR’s continuous improvement project should be applied to all acquisitions, not just partner-led ones, to reduce market risk and improve the “customer experience” for willing sellers.
3. Integration of Outcome-Based Metrics
Success should be measured not just by acres acquired, but by the measurable impact of those acres. The SLAM framework should integrate “lag metrics” such as increases in visitor counts, growth in license revenue, and documented improvements in species population viability. For example, the success of a new Wildlife Management Area should be correlated with the persistence of SGCN species in that specific catchment. Developing a digital dashboard that houses this performance data in one place would improve departmental decision-making and provide greater transparency to stakeholders.
4. Monetizing Carbon and Other Ecosystem Services
As voluntary and compliance carbon markets continue to mature, the DNR should explore the feasibility of generating carbon credits from its managed forests and prairies. This could provide a new, non-tax revenue stream that helps close the $24.9 million annual management gap. Given the high soil carbon density in many Minnesota wetlands and peatlands, the state is uniquely positioned to lead in the monetization of “blue carbon” and other natural capital assets.
5. Strengthening County and Tribal Collaboration
The success of the 16,000-acre PotlatchDeltic acquisition was due to strong collaboration with county partners and the Northern Waters Land Trust. SLAM should continue to prioritize locally driven conservation strategies, ensuring that state land acquisitions are viewed as assets to the local economy rather than a loss of tax base. Providing clearer data on the PILOT payments and local economic impact of public land can help mitigate concerns from county boards about the expansion of state ownership.
Synthesis: The Future of Minnesota’s Natural Assets
The Strategic Land Asset Management framework is a vital tool for ensuring that Minnesota’s natural resources are managed with the same rigor and strategic foresight as a multi-billion dollar private investment portfolio. By applying value-based scoring to every acquisition and divestment, the DNR is maximizing the ecological “bang for the buck” and fulfilling its responsibility to the public.
While challenges remain—particularly regarding the management budget gap and transactional friction—the SLAM model provides a clear roadmap for the future. The transition to a more data-driven, outcome-oriented approach will allow the DNR to adapt to emerging threats like climate change while continuing to support the state’s outdoor economy and fiduciary obligations. As a “Senior Status” asset management strategy, SLAM ensures that Minnesota’s land portfolio remains resilient, productive, and valuable for generations to come.
Works cited
1. Department of Natural Resources Land Acquisition – Summary, https://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/2025/DNR-land-acquisition-sum.htm 2. type the document title here – LSOHC, https://www.lsohc.mn.gov/materials/17_Mtg/April_Item13_SLAM_Presentation.pdf 3. Land Acquisition Account Annual Report, https://www.lrl.mn.gov/docs/2025/mandated/251103.pdf 4. Strategic Land Asset Management (SLAM) | Minnesota DNR, https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/slam/index.html 5. 2025 Appropriations – Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources, https://www.lccmr.mn.gov/projects/2025/2025_appropriations_by_subdivision.html 6. Strategic Land Asset Management (SLAM) Overview, https://cms3.revize.com/revize/kandiyohimn/DNR SLAM Fact Sheet_revised_102119.pdf 7. Forest Management Cost Certification Report for Trust Fund Lands, FY2024 – MN.gov, https://mn.gov/school-trust-lands/assets/FY2024 Forest Mgmt Cost Certification Report for Trust Fund Lands_tcm1107-696031.pdf 8. Land Management Funding in Minnesota – MN.gov, https://mn.gov/mmb/assets/Financing-land-management-January-2011_tcm1059-127522.pdf 9. DNR Strategic Land Asset Management – MN.gov, https://mn.gov/frc/assets/MFRC_NE_Mtg10_Tomlinson_SLAM_2013-03-28_tcm1162-498097.pdf 10. Fish and Wildlife Advisory Committee 2025 Annual Report, https://www.lrl.mn.gov/docs/2025/mandated/251876.pdf 11. Current SLAM Acquisition Goals – files, https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/lands_minerals/slam/slam-goals.pdf 12. Habitat Team – FTP Directory Listing – MN DNR, ftp://ftp.dnr.state.mn.us/pub/fsh/SLICE/LCCMR_habitat_rec.pdf 13. Economic Impact of Metro Parks Tacoma Ecosystem Services, https://www.parkstacoma.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Economic-Impact-Study-Phase-II-2011.pdf 14. Minnesota Heritage Forest, https://www.lsohc.mn.gov/FY2025/Requests/FA01.pdf 15. Land acquisitions | Minnesota DNR, https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/lands_minerals/acquisitions.html 16. Lands and Minerals Acquisition Brochure – files, https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/lands_minerals/acquisitions/acquisition_brochure.pdf 17. Attachment E. Land Acquisition Reporting Procedures – Outdoor Heritage Fund Pass-Through Grant Appropriations – files, https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/lands_minerals/appraisal_mgmt/ohf_grant_attachment_e_land_acquisition_reporting_procedures.pdf 18. Land Acquisition Guidelines | Minnesota DNR, https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/grants/passthrough/lag.html 19. Attachment B: ENRTF/OHF Pass-Through Grant Agreement – files, https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/lands_minerals/appraisal_mgmt/enrtf_grant_attachment_e_land_acquisition_reporting_procedures.pdf 20. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources permanently protects nearly 16000 acres, the agency’s largest acquisition since 2010, https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/slam/16000-acquisition.html 21. FY 2025 Land Acquisition Account Annual Report – files, https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/reports/legislative/2025/fy2025-land-acquisition-report-accessible.pdf 22. Minnesota’s Wildlife Management Area Acquisition -The Next 50 Years- – files, https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/reports/strategic-documents/wma-acquisition50year.pdf 23. Minnesota’s Forest Products Industry at a Glance – files, https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/um/mn-forest-industry-fact-sheet.pdf 24. Minnesota’s Wildlife Action Plan 2015-2025 – files, https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/assistance/nrplanning/bigpicture/mnwap/appendix_c.pdf 25. Evaluating the Return in Ecosystem Services from Investment in Public Land Acquisitions, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3679083/ 26. Evaluating the Return in Ecosystem Services from Investment in Public Land Acquisitions – WRL Digital Asset Management, https://wrl.mnpals.net/_flysystem/fedora/2023-09/evaluating-the-return-in-ecosystem-services-from-investment-in-public-land-acquisitions.pdf 27. Proposal Report – Northern Forests Legacy Project – LSOHC, https://www.lsohc.mn.gov/FY2027/Requests/FA01.pdf 28. County tax-forfeited land sale review packet | Minnesota DNR, https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/lands_minerals/taxforfeit/reviewpacket.html 29. Minnesota’s Wildlife Action Plan 2015-2025 – files – MN DNR, https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/assistance/nrplanning/bigpicture/mnwap/appendix_e.pdf 30. DIGITAL MARKETING AUDIT, https://www.leg.mn.gov/docs/2018/other/180824.pdf 31. Legislative reports | Minnesota DNR, https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/reports/index.html