State Policy Leadership To Conserve Nature

In the face of accelerating climate and biodiversity crises, state and territorial¹ lawmakers, agencies, and governors across the country are stepping up action to conserve remaining natural areas and ensure that access to nature’s benefits can be shared by all. These conservation efforts vary, with policy approaches tailored to match the needs of different geographies and constituencies, but they also share a common throughline: They reflect a deeply shared interest in stewarding the rich woods, waters, deserts, grasslands, and local green spaces that have so much to offer current and future generations.

This report reviews the primary land conservation policy models that have been adopted at the state level—from the tried and true to the new innovations—offering recent examples of each. While this report cannot fully showcase the leadership playing out in all corners of the country, it is intended to serve as a resource for decision-makers and involved stakeholders, at all levels, who are exploring the tools available for state-level progress or looking for models that could be scaled up from the “test kitchens” of the states.

The following policy models are profiled in the report:

• Targets and statewide conservation plans. These include recent actions to establish statewide land conservation targets, as well as accompanying or complementary strategies and action plans.
• Conservation funds. These include funding for land conservation and related projects from dedicated revenue streams—such as real estate or sporting goods taxes—or from bonds and other one-time investments, as well as state action to authorize and encourage county and municipal funding measures.
• Outdoor equity funds, including programs targeting barriers to nature access for underserved families, such as transportation, representation, and inclusive programming, as well as park-land acquisition.
• Tax incentives for conservation. These include state income tax credits for conserved land donations and reduced property taxes for open space preservation.
• Natural carbon sequestration. Targeted programs include funds or incentives for conservation and restoration measures that result in enhanced carbon storage, such as in forests or marshes.
• New state parks and conservation lands. These include creation or expansion of state parks, forests, wildlife management areas, or state-managed conservation lands through acquisition or management change.
• State trust lands management. Management options for state lands held in trust for education and other public institutions—which are predominantly in Western states—include conservation leasing or ecosystem service leasing, transfer of ecologically valuable land, enhanced safeguards, and other sustainable management approaches.
• Tribal land return and co-management. This includes direct return of state lands or funding for the return of other lands to Tribal nations, co-managing lands with Tribes, and other methods of honoring sovereignty, Tribal rights and cultures, and a legacy of land stewardship stretching back millennia.
• Wildlife corridors and habitat connectivity, including protection and restoration of intact wildlife migration corridors, habitat connectivity planning, and investments in connectivity projects.
• Avoiding and mitigating nature loss. Policies include required development buffers, compensatory mitigation for habitat loss, protections for vulnerable wetlands and waters, and landscape-scale wildlife habitat mitigation and planning.
• Other relevant policies and practices. These include “Outstanding Natural Resource Waters” designations under the Clean Water Act, state endangered species and habitat requirements, land use regulations and planning, coastal access laws and programs, and regional conservation collaboration.

Moving forward, states and territories—in partnership with federal, Tribal, and local leaders—will need to scale up available solutions and continue to innovate. Despite many recent successes, more investment and rapid progress are needed to address the alarming levels of nature loss, wildlife population decline, and climate change. The diversity of solutions and experiences profiled in this report represents a strength for the country, and it also suggests an opportunity ahead to more effectively share lessons across state lines and build on what works.

Today, alarming levels of biodiversity loss, climate change impacts, and inequitable and inadequate outdoor access demand accelerated conservation progress. A 2019 CAP report found that the United States lost about a football field’s worth of natural area every 30 seconds from 2001 to 2017, with private lands accounting for more than three-quarters of those losses to development.² As a result of this large-scale habitat loss, the compounding impacts of climate change, and related threats, scientists estimated in 2023 that more than one-third of species were at risk of extinction in the United States.³

President Joe Biden has taken historic steps to conserve public lands and invest in Tribal and community-led conservation,⁴ including by establishing the nation’s first conservation goal.⁵ But national leadership alone will not stem the nature crisis. State-level leadership to conserve nature is critical to meeting today’s challenges, together with federal support for states and territories willing to act.

States have long traditions of land and wildlife conservation,⁶ with creation of the earliest state parks occurring around the same time as the first U.S. national parks.⁷ In fact, the state of California assumed management of the Yosemite Valley and Mariposa Grove for preservation purposes in 1864, eight years before the world’s first national park was established at Yellowstone.⁸ States have been called “test kitchens,” where innovative measures can be piloted and adopted in other states, at the federal level, and even internationally.⁹ Supported by their constituents, state and territorial leaders across the country have successfully launched a range of policies to conserve natural areas, but accelerated progress will be needed in the years ahead.

This section examines the major state-level policy tools being utilized to conserve lands to support biodiversity, outdoor recreation access, and other benefits of nature. In particular, it focuses on models that could be replicated in other states or territories and briefly explores some recent examples of policy leadership in action.

About this policy model

A number of state governments recently adopted statewide land conservation targets and are using those new goals to establish inventories, transparent progress reports, and comprehensive action plans. Establishing these targets and plans is just a launching point: To have an impact, action plans must be followed by the adoption of new measures, including new funding and other policies discussed below.

Most of the recently adopted targets have mirrored the U.S. and international targets of conserving 30 percent of lands and waters by 2030, with some states also adopting out-year goals beyond 2030. (see text box) Hawaii adopted more narrowly focused targets, with a terrestrial goal of protecting 30 percent of priority forest watersheds by 2030.¹⁰ In Wisconsin, Gov. Tony Evers (D) set a goal in 2021 of conserving 125,000 acres of forestland by 2030, with accompanying targets for urban and rural tree planting.¹¹ And in North Carolina, Gov. Roy Cooper (D) issued an executive order in February 2024 that establishes new conservation goals aiming, by 2040, to: 1) conserve 1 million acres of the state’s natural lands; 2) restore or reforest 1 million acres of forests and wetlands; and 3) plant 1 million trees in state urban regions.¹²

Rather than starting with numeric targets, Gov. Jared Polis (D-CO) launched a collaborative process in 2023 to develop “Colorado’s Outdoors Strategy,”¹³ which aims to develop goals and metrics and establish an overarching vision and strategy for conservation, outdoor recreation, and bolstering climate resilience. This statewide effort is complemented by an Outdoor Regional Partnerships Initiative, launched in 2020, that funds regional coalitions—covering more than half the state, as of late 2023—to identify and elevate regional priorities and strategies for conservation and recreation.¹⁴

Preceding state conservation goals by more than a decade, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the territory of Guam first established marine and terrestrial conservation targets in 2006, as part of the Micronesia Challenge with the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.²³

Target setting and planning can be effective tools to advance conservation progress. As seen at the national level,²⁴ adoption of an ambitious conservation goal can focus political attention on nature and biodiversity loss and motivate action that accelerates the pace and scope of land protection. A formal target also typically requires transparent reporting and gives constituents a hook to hold officials accountable for progress. Most importantly, a statewide target can provide a vehicle to build an inclusive planning process for the full range of stakeholders who should play an active part in conservation work, including farmers and private landowners, scientists, outdoor recreation groups, conservation groups and land trusts, and historically marginalized and underrepresented groups, as well as decision-making authorities such as Tribal and local governments. On the flip side, broad targets can be vulnerable to skepticism and opportunistic attack,²⁵ which reinforces the importance of building an inclusive process that builds trust and buy-in from all stakeholders.

While some states are adopting statewide plans for the first time to achieve newly established conservation targets, others have existing conservation plans that may guide investment of conservation funding. For example, Vermont’s newly passed conservation targets will dovetail with an existing framework that maps the highest-priority lands for ecological integrity.²⁶

Relatedly, some states have focused on developing different or complementary conservation plans, such as statewide biodiversity plans,²⁷outdoor equity strategies,²⁸ or wildlife corridor plans.²⁹ In addition, states and territories must revise their State Wildlife Action Plans by 2025 in order to qualify for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service state and Tribal wildlife grants.³⁰ Those plan revisions could be an opportunity to incorporate or develop new habitat conservation strategies.

Examples of recent leadership

About this policy model

Taking different forms across the country, statewide conservation funds play a key role in enabling the voluntary conservation of private lands and supporting recreation, climate resilience, restoration, equitable nature access, and other projects. Statewide funds can help incentivize additional local investment and unlock federal funding sources that require grantees to provide a funding match. For example, the Land and Water Conservation Fund—the most significant federal conservation fund—provides state, local, and Tribal governments with grants to create and expand parks and recreation opportunities but requires nonfederal matching funds to cover at least 50 percent of project costs.⁴²

Conservation funding remains popular at the ballot box too, with nearly $8.7 billion directly approved by voters in 2022 alone.⁴³ Yet despite this widespread popularity, funding levels vary dramatically across states, consistent and reliable funding remains elusive in many places, and the need for funding continues to outpace available resources.⁴⁴

Some states rely on their legislatures to replenish state conservation funds through a process known as appropriations. A string of recent statehouse successes includes passage of four-year ($10 million per year) funding for the Land for Maine’s Future program in 2021,⁴⁵ establishment of a new Louisiana Outdoors Forever program in 2022 with a one-year appropriation of $10 million,⁴⁶ and Idaho’s appropriation of $95 million for parks in 2023.⁴⁷ Voter-approved bond measures have also been used effectively to provide a surge of money for land acquisition and other capital investments and to give voters a direct opportunity to demonstrate support for conservation spending—for example, the New York and Texas bond measures profiled below, as well as Rhode Island’s 2016, 2018, 2021, and 2022 green bond programs.⁴⁸

However, reliance on state legislative action or short-term bond measures for funding requires substantial resources devoted regularly to public education and limits the effectiveness of state conservation programs. Previously surveyed state agency officials reported that uncertainty over future funding levels limits a state’s ability to plan and make reliable commitments to nonprofit partners and landowners, resulting in priority areas being lost to development, fewer large-scale conservation initiatives, and difficulty retaining qualified staff to run state programs.⁴⁹

Dedicated revenue streams—particularly those protected from diversion—provide a more dependable source of conservation funding. According to the Trust for Public Land, most U.S. states have some source of dedicated funding for land conservation, although funding levels vary considerably.⁵⁰ Ten states—Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, and Oregon⁵¹—have conservation funding dedicated by state constitutions, which should provide the most durable source of funding.

The following are examples of revenue streams tapped by states for conservation funding:

• Real estate transfer taxes or fees. At least 15 states utilize real estate transfer taxes (Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Vermont) or deed recording fees (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and West Virginia) to support conservation funds.⁵⁶ For example, Florida imposes a documentary stamp tax on real estate deeds—essentially, a 0.7 percent tax for real estate transfers, one-third of which is dedicated to the Florida Forever conservation program by constitutional amendment, adopted in 2014. In what was then considered the largest-ever conservation funding measure approved by U.S. voters,⁵⁷ 75 percent of Florida voters supported this dedicated funding stream, which is projected to generate $22 billion over 20 years.⁵⁸
• Lottery. As one notable example, Colorado’s state lottery has netted more than $3.7 billion for conservation and recreation since 1983,⁵⁹ with the bulk of profits now split between Great Outdoors Colorado (50 percent), which is an independent grantmaking organization; the state’s Conservation Trust Fund (40 percent), which provides formula-based funding for local parks and recreation projects; and the Colorado Parks and Wildlife agency (10 percent). Arizona, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Oregon also tap into state lottery revenue to support conservation.⁶⁰
• Sporting goods sales taxes. As described below, Georgia recently earmarked a substantial portion of sales taxes collected by sporting goods stores for a dedicated conservation fund. This concept of recreational users financially supporting conservation projects builds on a long-standing tradition of hunters and anglers funding state wildlife conservation through excise taxes on equipment, hunting and fishing license fees, and habitat stamps.⁶¹
• Marijuana taxes. After recreational cannabis sales became legal in Montana in January 2021, the state raised more than $90 million in 22 months through a 20 percent tax on adult-use sales and a 4 percent tax on medical-use sales.⁶² Currently, 20 percent of this tax revenue is directed to wildlife habitat conservation, 4 percent is directed to state parks, 4 percent is directed to trails and recreational facilities, and 4 percent is directed to nongame wildlife programs.⁶³ However, an ongoing political and legal debate over future allocation of this revenue remained unresolved after the close of the 2023 legislative session.⁶⁴
• General sales tax. Other states have dedicated portions of existing state sales tax (New Jersey) or increased their sales tax (Arkansas, Minnesota, and Missouri) to fund conservation.⁶⁵ Some states also allow county-level sales taxes to support conservation. For instance, South Carolina passed enabling legislation in 2022, with Beaufort County becoming the first county in the state to adopt a green space sales tax soon after.⁶⁶
• Carbon markets. Washington’s economywide greenhouse gas emissions “cap and invest” program, which brought in more than $900 million in state revenue through its first three auctions in 2023,⁶⁷ directs auction revenue to a variety of accounts subject to appropriation by the legislature. A natural climate solutions account supports habitat protection, forest conservation, and climate resilience projects. In 2023, the state legislature appropriated $83 million from this account to support forest conservation and management, including permanent protection of 2,000 acres of older, carbon-rich forests.⁶⁸ Another example, from New Jersey, is described in the “Natural carbon sequestration” section below.
• Mineral revenues. Alabama’s Forever Wild program is funded through interest earned on offshore natural gas royalties deposited in a trust fund,⁶⁹ and Michigan generates about $30 million per year in dedicated funding from oil and gas leases, royalties, and other fees.⁷⁰ Michigan voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment in 2020 to lift a previous cap for this trust fund and direct more revenue to land acquisition and state park needs.⁷¹ In Pennsylvania, substantial funding has been generated by county-level natural gas impact fees, which the state authorized in 2012.⁷²
• Permanent funds. Relatedly, some states have funneled oil and gas revenues, budget surpluses, and other appropriations into permanent funds that enable conservation projects through regular investment earnings or interest. A recent example from New Mexico is highlighted below.
• License plates and vehicle registration. Many states offer conservation-themed specialty license plates whose fees support wildlife and habitat conservation. The state of California also recently rolled out professional sports team-branded specialty plates to fund its Outdoors for All initiative.⁷³ And in 2023, Colorado launched a new effort to generate funding for state parks and related recreation and wildlife programs by including a $29 add-on state parks pass with each motor vehicle registration unless drivers choose to opt out.⁷⁴ This “Keep Colorado Wild Pass” generated more than $41 million in its first year.⁷⁵ State park pass fees are also included with vehicle registration in Michigan, Montana, and Washington.⁷⁶
• State income tax form check-off. Most states also offer taxpayers an easy way to voluntarily support nongame wildlife and/or endangered species conservation efforts, including habitat protection, through a simple check-off box on their state income tax forms. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 36 states had these check-off programs for wildlife conservation in 2023.⁷⁷
• Other revenue streams. Additional revenue streams tapped for conservation funding include corporate business taxes (New Jersey), waste disposal/tipping fees (Pennsylvania), cigarette taxes (Pennsylvania), and revenue from environmental damage lawsuits (New Jersey).⁷⁸
• While not a direct source of revenue, government-issued bonds are also frequently used to fund land acquisition and related capital investments. These bonds may be serviced by general government revenue or specially earmarked revenue streams.⁷⁹

In addition to dedicated funding, land conservation experts have identified other best practices for effective state programs.⁸⁰ Some highlights include: 1) leveraging state funding to encourage additional local matching investment and to incentivize land use planning; 2) connecting investments to a coherent statewide plan or framework; 3) making funding available to local governments and nonprofits, in addition to state agencies; 4) providing flexibility to fund communities with fewer resources and to achieve other priorities; 5) allotting money for land stewardship and program implementation; 6) encouraging partnerships and collaborative projects; and 7) insulating funding from political interference.

State action may also help unlock opportunities for municipal and county-level funding for conservation, which already plays a substantial role in nationwide investments. Of the close to $30 billion in successful state and local bond and other conservation funding ballot measures tracked by the Trust for Public Land over the past 10 years,⁸¹ municipal-, special district-, and county-level measures account for more than 40 percent, or more than $12 billion. But to catalyze local government action, some states may need to pass legislation enabling municipal and county governments to generate revenue through local bond measures or other methods. For example, Massachusetts passed the Community Preservation Act in 2000, which enabled municipalities to adopt, by referendum, a property tax levy to preserve open space and historic properties, provide affordable housing, and support outdoor recreation.⁸² More than half of Massachusetts’ cities and towns have since adopted this model, raising more than $3.4 billion.⁸³

Examples of recent leadership

About this policy model

Outdoor equity funds—also known as outdoor opportunity, outdoor recreation, and education programs, among other names—are an environmental justice tool aimed at increasing meaningful access to nature for underserved youth and their families.⁹⁹ By providing funding for programming, administrative costs, transportation, gear, and more to community organizations, schools, local governments, Tribal nations, and state agencies, these programs aim to reduce the barriers that limit participation in nature’s ecological, health, economic, and career-building benefits.

State policies to establish outdoor equity programs have gained momentum in recent years, being adopted in California, Colorado, Maine,¹⁰⁰ Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Washington.¹⁰¹ Total annual funding for these state programs ranges from $1.5 million to $57 million, with individual grant amounts ranging from $4,000 to $700,000. So far, collectively, the impact has been profound, with hundreds of thousands of participants served and more than $63 million in grants offered.¹⁰²

Additionally, some states are actively focusing land acquisition funds to address inequitable gaps in nature access. In Maryland, for example, the Greenspace Equity Program passed in 2023 enables land trusts, local governments, and other community partners to create, expand, and maintain green spaces in “overburdened communities and underserved communities,” with $5 million directed to the program in 2025, growing to $10 million each year starting in 2027.¹⁰³

A 2023 report by the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators identified some best practices that can help establish and maintain successful outdoor equity programs:¹⁰⁴

• Improving advisory board and grantee selection processes. Programs should create criteria that ensure advisory boards for grant selection include rural and urban representation, industry/work experience, youth, term limits, and geographical diversity. Stipends for board members can also reduce barriers to participation.¹⁰⁵
• Reducing barriers to grantee application. To ensure an equitable grantmaking process, state programs can directly include affected communities through participatory grantmaking, offer technical assistance, allow for video applications and applications in languages other than English, provide grant tours for small communities of other awarded grants, give feedback to grantees who are not selected, and connect grantees to other funding sources.¹⁰⁶
• Simplifying monitoring and evaluation. Several outdoor equity programs have developed a list of metrics by which to evaluate the work of grant recipients. These metrics may include the total number of young people participating in the program, their demographic information, and how many jobs were created through a particular program’s inception. Some states have also begun implementing innovative tactics to reduce inequities for grantees, such as limiting written reporting; allowing for storytelling; and offering multiple options for organizations to demonstrate success at individual, programmatic, area, and system levels.¹⁰⁷
• Developing public-private partnerships. States can substantially expand overall program impact by enabling and encouraging public-private partnerships that pair additional private philanthropic dollars with state funding.

State outdoor equity fund efforts may soon prove to be federally scalable. The Outdoor F.U.T.U.R.E coalition is seeking to build momentum for a national outdoor equity fund.¹⁰⁸ Launched in 2021 by a racially and ethnically diverse group of leaders and supported by Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM), this initiative aims to build on successful models such as New Mexico’s and California’s outdoor equity programs.

Examples of recent leadership

About this policy model

In addition to directly funding land conservation, many states use tax incentives to help local landowners voluntarily conserve their own land and keep natural or working lands undeveloped. Frequently deployed incentives include state income tax credits for the donation of land or easement rights and reduced property taxes for open space or conserved land.

In addition to a federal tax incentive made permanent in 2015, 14 states and territories offer tax credits for donating land or conservation easements, mostly through income tax credits.¹¹³ A primary tool for conserving private lands in perpetuity, conservation easements are voluntary agreements made between landowners and a land trust or government agency. Under an easement, a landowner retains property ownership but makes a legally binding agreement limiting certain land uses in order to protect conservation values.

The amount and structure of tax credits for donated properties or easements varies by state. Many states provide transferable tax credits, which can be sold and immediately benefit landowners even if they owe less in taxes.¹¹⁴

Additionally, many states allow landowners to claim property tax reductions, or exemptions, for lands that provide conservation and open space value.¹¹⁵ Incentive levels and criteria for qualification vary substantially across states. While some states offer broad eligibility, others have tried to target conservation benefits by requiring certain outcomes or land uses, minimum lot sizes, or alignment with local government plans or conservation priorities.¹¹⁶ Targeting these incentives for maximum impact can help balance the inherent trade-off of reducing the local tax base.

Examples of recent leadership

About this policy model

Natural climate solutions tap into nature’s ability to store additional carbon or reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Examples include tree planting, forest management strategies to store more carbon, better agricultural soil management, and restoration of carbon-storing wetlands.¹²⁶ Researchers have estimated that more than 20 percent of net annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions could be offset by natural climate solutions, while also providing additional ecosystem services.¹²⁷

To take advantage of this opportunity, some states have adopted policies directly targeting the natural carbon-storing benefits of conservation and restoration. These include programs aimed at directly funding or incentivizing natural climate solution projects. California, Washington, and 11 eastern states participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative are also providing market-based incentives for reforestation, improved forest management, and avoided forest conversion by enabling projects to earn credits for carbon offsets in state-run greenhouse gas cap-and-trade/invest systems.¹²⁸ However, accurately assessing the carbon storage benefits of offset projects can be challenging.¹²⁹

Examples of recent leadership

About this policy model

Like their national counterparts, state parks, forests, and wildlife management areas, as well as other state-managed lands, are some of the most publicly visible elements of a state’s or territory’s conservation work. In 2018, state park systems covered 18.6 million acres and supported $1.39 billion in revenue, more than 50,000 jobs, and more than 800 million visits—more than twice as many visits as national parks logged that same year.¹³⁴

In recent years, states and territories have added to their systems of conserved lands with the creation or expansion of conservation areas, providing protected places for wildlife to flourish and people to engage with the natural world. These new conservation lands can be designated on existing state-owned land or on purchased or donated land with support from statewide conservation funds and private sector partners.

In addition to the examples highlighted below, New Mexico created the largest wildlife management area in the state in 2022 by adding more than 54,000 acres to the existing Marquez Wildlife Management Area, which also restored access to important cultural places for Tribes.¹³⁵ Additionally, Colorado obtained its newest state park—the 19,200-acre Fishers Peak State Park—in 2020 and continues to look for opportunities to expand its state park system by accepting nominations for new state parks, which are assessed using future state parks criteria developed in 2019.¹³⁶

Examples of recent leadership

About this policy model

Beginning in 1785, state trust lands were granted to each new state to be held in trust for the benefit of public schools and other public institutions. Western states, having entered the union after Congress tightened limitations on selling off these lands, own the vast majority of current state trust lands.¹⁵³ Approximately 40 million acres of trust lands are managed today by 11 Western states, representing 1 in every 20 acres in the West.¹⁵⁴ States are obligated to manage trust lands to generate revenue in perpetuity on behalf of public schools and other public beneficiaries. In practice, states retain most trust lands, and any sale proceeds must generate revenue for beneficiaries through a permanent fund.¹⁵⁵

State trust lands historically have been managed to maximize revenue through nonrenewable or renewable resource leasing, with little consideration for the conservation and public benefits of healthy ecosystems or outdoor recreation potential. In mineral-rich states, oil, gas, and other minerals leasing typically provides the bulk of state trust land revenue; timber generates substantial revenue in other forested states; and, while not bringing in nearly as much revenue, grazing predominates across the majority of Western trust land acreage.¹⁵⁶ Increasingly, state trust land managers are generating revenue through solar, wind, and geothermal leasing as well.¹⁵⁷ And some states provide public access to state trust lands for a small fee. For example, Montana offers a residential “conservation license” for $8, which enables access to most state lands.¹⁵⁸

Despite the limitations of the requirement that trust lands generate revenue, states still have tools to steward the natural resources of these lands and enable conservation of the most ecologically, culturally, and recreationally significant lands:

• Land sales or easements. Consistent with their trust responsibilities, states can allow for the outright purchase of land or the purchase of easements for conservation or recreation purposes. Some states support or subsidize these transfers or easements, such as Arizona, through its Preserve Initiative.¹⁵⁹ However, existing state laws can create unnecessary barriers to outright sale or easements,¹⁶⁰ and even where requirements are streamlined, the availability of public or philanthropic funding remains a limitation.
• Transfers. State land boards can also prioritize transfers of lands with high conservation value to federal agencies or other state agencies in exchange for lands with greater development value. One example is Washington’s Trust Land Transfer program,¹⁶¹ which is managed by the state’s Department of Natural Resources. Transfers to the U.S. Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management, commonly pursued for parcels surrounded by federal lands, can be done administratively or through legislation.¹⁶²
• Leasing. Several states allow or encourage revenue-generating leases for conservation or recreation purposes as alternatives to extractive leasing. Idaho and Colorado, for example, have active conservation leasing programs, with 23 conservation and recreation leases in Idaho currently¹⁶³ and 15 ecosystem services leases in Colorado as of early 2023.¹⁶⁴ Unfortunately, in other states, outdated laws or rules present unnecessary barriers to leasing for conservation purposes, including “use-it-or-lose-it” lease requirements designed for extractive land uses.¹⁶⁵ In a disappointing reversal, Montana’s legislature voted in 2019 to eliminate a conservation leasing option for state trust lands in order to favor timber projects, regardless of the unfavorable revenue implications of this narrower approach.¹⁶⁶

• Conservation management designations and safeguards. While limited by the requirement that trust lands generate revenue, some states have identified specific trust lands as conservation priorities to be managed in ways that preserve their outstanding ecological or cultural values.¹⁶⁷ As with the Colorado and New Mexico examples highlighted below, state land boards have also instituted requirements to protect high-value ecological and cultural resources on trust lands, such as targeted restrictions on mineral extraction and protective standards that must be met for any development.
• Open-space preservation on large parcels. In areas where large parcels of state trust land are being used for residential or commercial development, smart master planning can enable states to conserve high-value trust lands consistent with their mandate to prioritize revenue generation.¹⁶⁸ In those places, which include fast-growing areas in Arizona,¹⁶⁹ states have been able to demonstrate that leaving land undeveloped for its open space, recreation, and related values generates higher economic returns from the developed areas, increasing revenue overall. This approach, which leverages the value of conservation and recreation to increase the overall value of state trust lands, is sometimes called portfolio asset management.¹⁷⁰

Examples of recent leadership

About this policy model

Given historic and ongoing harms inflicted on Tribal nations by state and federal governments’ participation in genocide, extermination, and exploitation campaigns, Tribal-state relationships need substantial repairing, healing, and building.¹⁷⁸ Tribes are sovereign nations in government-to-government relationships with the U.S. federal government. Generally, Tribes may choose to work with states, but these are agreements, not obligations. Conversely, states are obligated to work with Tribes and Tribal authorities under federal and treaty law.¹⁷⁹ When appropriate and mutually beneficial, strong Tribal-state relations can help advance shared goals, including supporting Tribally led land conservation, stewardship, access, and management.

As one example, a number of governmental partners have initiated efforts to return land back to Tribal nations, the enduring stewards of what is now called the United States. The LandBack movement, as it is commonly known, has been ongoing for generations.¹⁸⁰ The action of returning public and private lands to Tribal nations restores them to a special, perpetual trust, increasing access and restoring decision-making powers to Tribal governments. This policy option is one of many that can help states repair harm and elevate Tribal sovereignty, and returning land to its enduring stewards can also be an important step toward long-term conservation of the land and its natural resources.

In addition to returning land or funding the return of land to Tribal nations, some states are pursuing other policies in conjunction with Tribes to elevate their sovereignty and access to natural places. For example, states have established new agreements where Tribal governments and states cooperate, collaborate, and/or share authority for management decisions over a resource such as land, water, or wildlife. In recent years, the federal government has also substantially accelerated its progress on centering Indigenous leadership and knowledge in decision-making, with the departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce establishing 200 co-stewardship agreements in 2023 alone.¹⁸¹ States are well-positioned to match federal investment in improving relations and pursuing reparations with Tribal nations.

Other relevant state policies adopted recently include waiving, for Tribal citizens, state park fees that previously infringed on treaty rights (Minnesota);¹⁸² incorporating Indigenous knowledge and enhancing Tribal consultation (various);¹⁸³ and respecting Tribal court jurisdiction (Washington).¹⁸⁴

Examples of recent leadership

About this policy model

Large connected landscapes are essential for ecosystem resilience, wildlife health, and public safety. States are pursuing a variety of policy mechanisms for keeping large landscapes intact and for promoting wildlife crossings, a type of physical infrastructure critical to reducing the risk of wildlife-vehicle collisions, which cost the United States up to $8 billion annually.¹⁹³

To date, 19 states have passed legislation—a majority of which is bipartisan—aimed at supporting habitat connectivity or wildlife corridor projects.¹⁹⁴ State action picked up momentum in 2022 and 2023 following the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which included a $350 million Wildlife Crossings Pilot Program.¹⁹⁵ A variety of approaches have been tried and tested, including legislation to provide funding for wildlife crossing projects;¹⁹⁶ to strengthen interagency coordination and authorities to better address habitat connectivity;¹⁹⁷ and, as described below for Virginia, to create long-term wildlife corridor action plans. A 2016 Vermont law also requires municipalities and regional planning bodies to identify important forest blocks and habitat connectors and to plan development to minimize fragmentation in those areas.¹⁹⁸

Importantly, consistent funding has allowed states to provide reliable matches for federal infrastructure grants, more certainty in wildlife crossing planning and construction, and flexibility to practice adaptive management in changing landscapes amid the climate crisis.¹⁹⁹

Examples of recent leadership

About this policy model

States, in partnership with local governments, have a variety of tools to avoid and offset nature loss caused by expanding industrial, commercial, and residential development. These include requirements and programs to help project developers avoid or minimize impacts to natural areas, to invest in proactive conservation projects that offset impacts, to protect vulnerable wetlands, and to consider mitigation at a landscape scale.

Collectively, these programs can help preserve critical habitat and ecosystem functions, substantially reduce water pollution, and support large landscape conservation.

Development buffers

While many states have delegated the relevant authorities to local governments, others have passed statewide requirements mandating the preservation or establishment of vegetated buffer zones around riparian, coastal, lake, and wetland areas. For example, North Carolina has riparian buffer requirements covering certain watersheds, which require undisturbed forest buffers around streams, lakes, and other waters.²¹⁴ Other examples include Maryland’s 100-foot buffer requirements for tidal waters, wetlands, and tributaries of the Chesapeake and Coastal bays²¹⁵and Minnesota’s Buffer Law, which requires a 50-foot vegetation buffer along lakes, rivers, and streams.²¹⁶ Similarly, states may also adopt setback requirements that limit building construction within minimum distances from water bodies, sometimes combined with vegetation requirements.²¹⁷

Some states also offer financial incentives to encourage the restoration of natural buffers. For example, Maryland launched its Conservation Buffer Initiative in 2021, which pays farmers and landowners to plant forest and grass buffers and to establish grazing control areas.²¹⁸ Delaware similarly offers incentives for agricultural and urban landowners in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to install forest buffers.²¹⁹ Research has shown that vegetation buffers, particularly forested lands, are extremely effective at reducing pollution,²²⁰ making them a cost-effective way to maintain and restore clean water.

Compensatory mitigation for habitat and wetlands loss

“Compensatory mitigation” refers to actions taken to compensate for a project’s unavoidable impacts to natural resources, such as wetlands, other aquatic ecosystems, or critical wildlife habitat. For example, a large-scale solar energy project developer that cannot completely avoid affecting desert tortoise habitat could support a project to restore and protect degraded habitat off-site. Mitigation projects can result in the restoration, creation, enhancement, or preservation of natural resources. While mitigation projects may be conducted by the permittee or through a direct contractor, large-scale projects are most commonly conducted by a third party that pools funding through a mitigation or conservation “bank,” which generates mitigation credits or is funded by an in-lieu fee program.²²¹

Although this concept is commonly associated with federal laws that require mitigation, such as the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, or the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, states can play a significant role in establishing and leveraging mitigation requirements for maximum conservation benefit. Many states have their own clean water or endangered species laws, which can impose independent mitigation requirements for project developers. Additionally, some states have statutes that require major projects to undergo environmental review similar to the National Environmental Policy Act, and at least California and Washington require project mitigation under those state laws.²²² Well-designed state and federal mitigation requirements can help guide development to the most appropriate areas and ensure that compensatory mitigation investments deliver additional, verifiable, and durable conservation gains.

State agencies may also manage programs that leverage and coordinate compensatory mitigation to deliver greater habitat and ecosystem benefits in their state. In fact, state transportation departments were early leaders in sponsoring wetlands mitigation banks to support large transportation projects.²²³ Today, many state agencies manage programs that work with federal agencies to certify mitigation or conservation banks²²⁴ or run in-lieu fee programs that provide grants for restoration and conservation programs.²²⁵

Wetlands protections

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency to substantially limit the scope of the Clean Water Act’s protections—including for dredging and filling wetlands—some states are revisiting state-level protections for rivers, streams, and wetlands.²²⁶ A 2022 Environmental Law Institute review found that only about half of states regulate waters and nontidal wetlands beyond federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction, while 24 states rely entirely on the federal law’s protections.²²⁷

In one recent example, the February 2024 executive order from North Carolina Gov. Cooper—which established statewide conservation targets, as noted above—included specific direction for state agencies to prioritize conservation of vulnerable wetlands.²²⁸ The order establishes a “no-net loss” policy for forests and wetlands, requiring state agencies to avoid, minimize, and offset impacts to wetlands, forests, and riparian areas.²²⁹ It also sets a long-term goal of achieving a net gain of wetlands through conservation and restoration.²³⁰

Landscape-scale mitigation planning

Building on decades of state experience with mitigation programs, states have recently found success with landscape-scale mitigation efforts. By focusing on larger regions where multiple development projects are occurring, states can tap into the three stages of mitigation—avoid, minimize, and compensate—to encourage development in areas that avoid impacting sensitive resources, manage for priority ecosystem services across a region, and coordinate compensatory mitigation spending for maximum benefit, while making permitting more efficient for large projects such as solar, wind, or energy transmission.

For example, under California’s Regional Conservation Investment Strategies Program, launched in 2017, public agencies and Tribes can develop regional plans that identify conservation priority areas. Those plans help inform infrastructure siting and state-recognized mitigation credit agreements, which encourage high-value conservation projects within that landscape.²³¹ In a related effort, California is currently updating guidance for mitigation crediting in order to better incentivize projects that improve habitat connectivity for threatened wildlife species.²³²

Examples of recent leadership

In addition to the land conservation policies profiled above, other policy tools can enable states to conserve important wildlife habitat and other natural lands and waters. Some examples are outlined below.

Outstanding Natural Resource Waters designation

Some states have acted to protect rivers, lakes, and other waters by designating them for special clean water protection, which also benefits lands within those watersheds. Under the Clean Water Act, states can designate “Outstanding National Resource Waters” to preserve exceptional water quality, recreational resources, or ecological conditions.²⁴² Once designated, waters receive enhanced protection; in particular, with limited exceptions, activities that would degrade water quality are not allowed, including land use activities.²⁴³ In 2022, responding to a community-led proposal, Colorado designated 520 miles of 25 streams as “Outstanding Waters.”²⁴⁴ That same year, New Mexico designated more than 300 miles of river and 43 acres of wetlands, including in the Upper Pecos River watershed, which was threatened by proposed gold, copper, and zinc mining.²⁴⁵ And in December 2023, Washington designated its first-ever “Outstanding Resource Waters” on more than 225 miles of the Cascade, Green, and Napeequa rivers.²⁴⁶

Endangered species requirements and critical habitat designations

While they vary substantially in coverage and requirements, laws exist in 48 states to protect endangered species.²⁴⁷ Requirements under these laws most frequently apply to state funding or state authorizations such as permitting. Although generally narrower than federal law, state endangered species requirements can help encourage the protection of important habitat, and officials in 12 states can specifically designate areas as “critical habitat” that is deemed most important for species survival.²⁴⁸ Strong state action can also help prevent federal listings and supplemental efforts to protect federally listed species. A recent nationwide review identified several important ways states can strengthen state endangered species laws, including through consistent updates to a state’s list of threatened and endangered species, a strong “take” definition that includes habitat destruction, and incentives for private landowners to aid in species recovery.²⁴⁹

Land use regulations and planning

Land use regulations, such as zoning, and planning can help communities preserve open space and conserve nature. While local municipalities traditionally drive land use planning and regulations, states have taken a range of approaches to support, incentivize, or require municipalities to conserve open space. For example, in 1974, Oregon became the first state to establish a statewide growth management plan with strong urban growth boundaries.²⁵⁰Other states, such as Vermont, have adopted incentive-driven approaches that make certain grants or other benefits available to municipalities that have comprehensive plans meeting specified criteria.²⁵¹

Coastal access

State policies can also address inequitable coastal access.²⁵² Robust laws that safeguard equitable coastal access only protect 10 percent of the nation’s coasts, according to a 2022 analysis from the Center for American Progress and the Hispanic Access Foundation.²⁵³ Remedying this inequity is a way to provide greater access to nature for disadvantaged communities.²⁵⁴ For example, Texas grants public access to beaches via “rolling easements” that can move with gradual changes to the coastline; Oregon ensures public coastal access; and California has legislation preventing development from infringing upon existing coastal access.²⁵⁵ States can also set parameters for funding, such as necessitating that public funding support beach restoration projects that provide public access. Such stipulations are in place in Connecticut, New Jersey, North Carolina, and California.²⁵⁶

Landscape collaboration

Some state governments are directly supporting landscape-level collaboratives that bring together public and private stakeholders across specific regions to develop and implement a shared conservation vision. For example, Pennsylvania’s Conservation Landscape Program, which started in 2004, supports collaboration in eight landscapes, anchored around blocks of state-owned parks and forests.²⁵⁷ With dedicated staff resources, mini grants, and other state support, the collaboratives have created community-anchored visions for their region and partnered on crosscutting projects, such as long-distance trails, conservation data sharing, coordinated infrastructure investments, and regional tourism promotion.²⁵⁸

Regional (interstate) collaboration

Ecologically connected lands and waters do not fit neatly within state boundaries; neighboring states face interconnected challenges and opportunities; and migrating wildlife certainly do not respect state lines. Yet deep collaboration among states on shared conservation goals remains rare. One notable collaborative effort, known as the Southeast Conservation Adaptation Strategy, brings together state and federal agencies covering 15 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, along with Tribes, nonprofit organizations, universities, and other entities, to develop a shared vision for conservation in the Southeast.²⁵⁹ Launched in 2011, this collaborative effort primarily has focused on developing and refining the “Southeast Conservation Blueprint,”²⁶⁰ a spatial plan that identifies priority areas for conservation, based on a common set of monitored indicators for natural and cultural resources, to secure a connected set of lands and waters across the southeast United States and Caribbean.

States and territories are harnessing a wide array of policy tools for land conservation, from acquisition funds and land use planning to regulatory requirements and returning lands back to Tribal nation stewardship. Meanwhile, conservation actions enjoy substantial bipartisan support, with statewide and local ballot measures typically passing with overwhelming majorities. These trends provide reason for hope.

At the same time, nature loss and species extinctions are occurring at an alarming pace,²⁶¹ and the climate crisis is dramatically altering wildlife habitat and escalating pressure on species and ecosystems to adapt. In the face of these crises, the United States needs to accelerate conservation action at all levels.

State policy innovation can help surface and test models that could be replicated in other parts of the country and even nationally. Scaling up impact, though, will require even more committed leadership and deeper investment from governors and legislators, as well as effective support from Congress and federal agencies. Collaboration opportunities across states also remain underutilized, despite wildlife populations, watersheds, and plant communities that stretch across multistate regions.

Finally, expanding opportunities to share lessons learned among state officials could help those leaders, and nongovernmental partners, run with proven solutions. Hopefully, the policies and examples profiled in this report can offer a starting place for dialogue around replicating effective models, scaling up investment, and encouraging a race to the top among states to save nature.

The authors would like to thank their colleagues Grant Gliniecki, Logan Christian, Dylan McDowell, Emma Lofgren, Nate Fowler, Angelo Villagomez, Nicole Gentile, Mark Haggerty, Steve Bonitatibus, Bill Rapp, and Chester Hawkins, Meghan Miller, and Cindy Murphy-Tofig. They would also like to thank external partners who shared their expertise, including Andrew du Moulin and Will Abberger of the Trust for Public Lands; Brian Rae, Andy Tuck, Kellyn Garrison, and Isis Stark of The Nature Conservancy; Zack Wurtzebach of the Center for Large Landscape Conservation; Cassy Rose of the U.S. Climate Alliance; Greg Zimmerman of the Protection Campaign; Sara Brodnax of the National Audubon Society; Jeremy Vesbach of Western Resource Advocates; Sarah Cobler of Western Conservation Foundation; Travis Brammer of the Property and Environment Research Center; Erin Sito of the Wildlands Network; Greg Masten of the National Congress of American Indians, and Jeanette Ziegler of Native Americans in Philanthropy, as well as the current and former state officials who shared their experiences.