Administration of Conservation Programs (NAICS 924120): An Investor's Primer

NAICS = North American Industry Classification System, the standard U.S. government code for industries.

1. Overview

NAICS 924120 — "Administration of Conservation Programs" — is a government function, not a conventional commercial industry. It is the public-sector machinery that manages America's land, forests, water, fish, wildlife, geology, and weather programs: setting land-use rules, running national forests and wildlife refuges, enforcing the Endangered Species Act, paying farmers to idle sensitive acres, and moving the excise-tax and royalty dollars that fund state conservation agencies [1]. Almost every establishment in the code is a federal, state, or local government office [1].

Why should an investor care about a line on the government's organizational chart? Because the decisions and dollars flowing through these agencies drive real cash flows for private businesses. Federal and state conservation budgets fund a multibillion-dollar contracting market for engineering, environmental, and restoration firms; the regulations these agencies write create markets for wetland and endangered-species "credits" that private capital now supplies; and the land they open or close shapes timber, energy, mining, ranching, water, and recreation economics across the West and beyond.

There is no way to "buy" a conservation agency, so exposure is indirect:

• Public markets: diversified environmental, engineering, infrastructure, and government-services companies (e.g., Tetra Tech, ICF International, Jacobs, AECOM, Stantec, WSP, Montrose) and, more loosely, timber landowners that monetize conservation [24][26][27][28][29][30][31].

• Private markets: environmental consultancies, engineering and program-management firms, ecological-restoration and mitigation-banking platforms, conservation easements, and environmental-credit funds [32][33][34][35][36][37][38].

The through-line: durable public need but indirect exposure. Government budgets create the demand; specialized labor, contract execution, and policy direction decide who earns the fees. This primer treats the agency function as the demand engine and the private firms around it as the investable surface.

2. What it is and how it's structured

Scope. NAICS defines 924120 as government establishments that administer, regulate, supervise, or control conservation and land-use programs: land use and recreational areas; conservation and preservation of natural resources; erosion control; geological-survey programs; weather-program administration; protection of public and private forest land; and management of game, fish, and wildlife populations, including wildlife management areas and field stations [1].

Who's in it. At the federal level the core players are the four big land agencies — the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS, housed in the Department of Agriculture), the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National Park Service (NPS) — plus the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the Farm Service Agency's conservation programs, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service [5][14]. At the state and local level: state departments of natural resources, state fish-and-wildlife agencies, state parks, state forestry divisions, and the roughly 3,000 local soil-and-water conservation districts.

Ownership mix. Effectively 100% government. There is no private-ownership tier inside the code; the private economy sits adjacent to it as vendors, permittees, and grantees. Because the code is defined around government administration, there is no clean public/private "market-size" split.

What it excludes (name the neighbors). This code is narrower than "everything environmental." The private firms that do outsourced conservation work are classified in engineering, consulting, surveying, or construction codes — not here [1]:

The practical takeaway: most publicly traded and private-market exposure lives in these adjacent codes, not in 924120 itself.

3. How big it is

A caveat first, because it matters here more than in almost any other industry. Standard federal business statistics — the Census Bureau's County Business Patterns, the Economic Census, and the Statistics of U.S. Businesses, plus most Small Business Administration tallies — largely exclude public administration (NAICS sector 92). The Economic Census excludes government-operated establishments, and Nonemployer Statistics exclude public administration entirely [2][3]. So the usual "how many firms, how much payroll, how many small businesses" profile essentially does not exist for this code, and our own dataset contains no ingested Census/SBA business statistics for NAICS 924120 — none. Any headline "market size" number attached to this code from a commercial vendor should be treated with suspicion.

The one federal series that does cover government payrolls, the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), recorded only about 317 establishments and roughly 2,300 jobs coded specifically to NAICS 924120 nationally in 2023, at an average annual wage near $46,000 [4]. That figure is real but radically undercounts the function: the bulk of the conservation workforce is recorded inside large federal and state land agencies under other codes and personnel systems, not this narrow bucket.

The honest way to size this industry is through the agencies and the land they manage:

• The federal government owns roughly 640 million acres — about 28% of all U.S. land — most of it managed by the four big agencies [5].

• BLM: ~245 million acres, ~9,250 employees [6].

• U.S. Forest Service: 193 million acres across 154 national forests and 20 national grasslands; historically on the order of ~35,000 employees (including seasonal wildland firefighters), reduced by 2025 federal staffing cuts [5][7].

• Fish and Wildlife Service: 568 national wildlife refuges spanning ~89 million acres in the 50 states (over 150 million acres including territories), ~8,300 employees, and lead responsibility for more than 1,600 domestic endangered and threatened species [8].

• National Park Service: 433 units and ~85 million acres, with 21,639 full- and part-time employees in 2023 [9].

Add the states — Texas Parks and Wildlife alone runs ~3,000 employees across 1.4 million acres [10] — and the true workforce is well into the hundreds of thousands. The point for an investor: this is a large, durable, appropriations-funded function whose scale is measured in acres and budgets, not in company revenues.

4. The investable universe

There are no publicly traded "conservation-administration" companies — the function is government. Public-market exposure comes from firms that sell services to these agencies or monetize the regulations they write. The cleanest plays are government-services and environmental-engineering firms; timber landowners are a looser, adjacent play. All are diversified proxies, not pure plays.

Adjacent (not conservation administration, but exposed to conservation economics): timber real estate investment trusts (REITs) — Weyerhaeuser (WY), Rayonier (RYN), PotlatchDeltic (PCH) — own and manage millions of acres of private forestland and increasingly monetize conservation through carbon credits and conservation easements. They are classified under forestry/REIT codes, not 924120, and trade primarily on timber and housing.

Private and other owners. Much of the most direct exposure is unlisted:

• Environmental / engineering consultancies: Environmental Resources Management (ERM), majority-owned by KKR since 2021; TRC Companies, taken private by New Mountain Capital; the employee-owned firms HDR and Burns & McDonnell; and SWCA Environmental Consultants (employee-owned; biological, ecological, cultural-resource, and permitting work) [32][33][34][35][36].

• Ecological-restoration and mitigation-banking firms — e.g., Resource Environmental Solutions (RES) — that build and sell wetland, stream, and species "credits" [37].

• Conservation-focused private equity — e.g., Ecosystem Investment Partners, which has raised more than $200 million to restore wetlands and sell the resulting credits [38].

• Land trusts and NGOs (The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited) that hold easements and partner on federal programs — not investable, but major counterparties.

5. How the money works

Because owners here are governments, "how owners make money" splits into two very different economics.

The public side — appropriations plus user-pays funds. Conservation agencies are cost centers funded by budgets, not profit centers. Two streams matter:

1. General appropriations — annual budgets set by Congress and state legislatures.
2. Dedicated, user-pays funds — the distinctive feature of this industry. Hunters and anglers fund state agencies through an 11% federal excise tax on firearms, ammunition, archery, and fishing tackle: the Pittman-Robertson (wildlife) and Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux (sport fish) programs apportioned about $1.3 billion to state fish-and-wildlife agencies in FY2024, typically covering up to 75% of project costs with states matching the rest via license revenue [11]. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) draws up to $900 million a year from offshore oil-and-gas royalties, made permanent by the 2020 Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA), which also authorized up to $1.9 billion a year (about $9.5 billion over five years, through FY2025) for the parks deferred-maintenance backlog [12]. In June 2026 the Department of the Interior announced more than $461 million in LWCF grants, expected with matching to exceed $900 million in total investment [13]. Park entrance fees and grazing and mineral-lease receipts round it out.

Most of this money flows out as grants and payments: to states (the excise-tax apportionments), to farmers and landowners (the Conservation Reserve Program idles ~26 million acres for ~$1.7 billion a year in rental payments, averaging ~$74/acre) [15], and to contractors. Only a portion becomes contractor revenue.

The private side — where investors actually earn a return. Follow the outflow. Agencies either administer programs internally or outsource discrete work — technical assistance and field inspections, conservation planning and grant administration, environmental review and permitting support, biological surveys and habitat monitoring, geographic information systems (GIS) and data management, restoration design and construction oversight, and program evaluation.

• Government-services contractors capture that spending under rules set by Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 200 (the Uniform Guidance for federal awards) and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) [22][23]. Contracts come in three shapes: fixed-price (cost-overrun risk sits with the contractor), time-and-materials (revenue depends on billable headcount, utilization, and billing rates), and cost-plus (more cost protection, but subject to allowable-cost rules and ceilings) [23]. As an illustration — not an industry benchmark — Tetra Tech's FY2025 revenue mix was 43.5% fixed-price, 42.6% time-and-materials, and 13.9% cost-plus [24]. The metrics that matter are the ones for any professional-services roll-up: funded backlog, book-to-bill, billable utilization, labor-rate growth, project gross margin, subcontractor dependence, recompete rates, cash conversion, and customer/program concentration — not same-store sales or occupancy.

• Mitigation and conservation banks turn regulation into a product: a private developer restores wetlands or protects endangered-species habitat, is issued credits by the regulators, and sells those credits to third parties who must offset their own impacts under the Clean Water Act or Endangered Species Act. Revenue is credit sales; the economics resemble a long-duration real-asset project — buy or restore land cheaply, earn credits, sell into regulated demand. One commercial estimate put the U.S. mitigation-banking market near $13 billion in 2025, with private, for-profit banks supplying roughly two-thirds of credits [37].

• Land monetization — timber owners and ranchers increasingly sell carbon credits and conservation easements, converting standing habitat into recurring or one-time payments, often under programs these agencies administer [38].

6. What drives demand

• Federal and state budgets and politics. Appropriations are the master variable. Conservation spending rises with bipartisan land bills (e.g., GAOA) and falls with budget-cutting cycles [12].

• Statutory mandates. The Endangered Species Act (ESA), Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) generate non-discretionary demand for surveys, permits, restoration, and offsets — including from the private sector, since more than 70% of listed species depend at least partly on private land [17].

• Climate and resilience. Wildfire, drought, flooding, water scarcity, coastal change, and habitat loss have become a large and growing share of land-agency activity — and of contractor backlogs.

• Farm-bill and one-off conservation funding. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) added $19.5 billion over five years to USDA conservation programs — the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), and Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) — a demand surge for agencies and the technical-service providers around them, though a policy-sensitive one [14].

• Permitting and mitigation. Infrastructure, transmission, renewable-energy, mining, water, and transportation projects require environmental analysis, biological studies, habitat plans, and compliance monitoring.

• Data and accountability. Agencies increasingly need measurable outcomes — acres restored, habitat improved, water-quality gains, carbon benefits, audit-ready grant records — favoring firms that pair field science with data systems.

• Outdoor recreation. The outdoor-recreation economy was $639.5 billion, or 2.3% of GDP, supporting 5.0 million jobs in 2023 — much of it dependent on the public lands these agencies run, which strengthens the political case for their budgets [16].

7. Regulation

Here regulation is the product — these agencies are regulators. The load-bearing statutes:

• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): requires federal agencies to weigh environmental effects and alternatives before covered actions, via a categorical exclusion, environmental assessment, or environmental impact statement [20]. NEPA is in transition: the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) government-wide NEPA regulations were removed effective April 11, 2025, raising the importance of agency-specific procedures and current guidance [21]. This cuts both ways for private firms — less review can mean less consulting work but faster project throughput.

• Endangered Species Act (ESA): listing, critical-habitat designation, habitat conservation plans, and Section 7 consultation on federal actions affecting listed species, administered mainly by FWS [17][18].

• Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404: wetland and stream permitting for dredged or fill material (Army Corps of Engineers with EPA), which underpins the mitigation-banking market [19].

• Multiple-use and land-planning laws: the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (BLM), National Forest Management Act (USFS), and NPS Organic Act govern how public land is used.

• Funding statutes: Pittman-Robertson, Dingell-Johnson, the LWCF Act, and GAOA dictate where dedicated dollars go [11][12].

• Grant and procurement rules: 2 CFR Part 200 and the FAR govern cost allowability, competition, subcontracting, audits, and conflicts of interest [22][23].

Regulatory direction is the key swing factor for private investors: streamlined ESA permitting and robust Section 404 enforcement expand the mitigation-banking market, while deregulation can shrink the compliance work that consultants monetize even as it speeds projects.

8. Competitive dynamics and consolidation

The government side does not "compete," but the private surface around it does — and it is consolidating.

• Fragmented, then rolling up. Competition is split by geography, agency, technical specialty, and contract vehicle. Large firms compete on past performance, contract access, multidisciplinary teams, compliance systems, and nationwide staffing; smaller firms compete on local relationships, niche science, and speed [24]. Scale matters because large agencies award large, multi-year indefinite-delivery contracts favoring firms with bonding capacity, clearances, and past performance.

• Consolidation is common because acquisitions buy scarce scientists, local licenses, agency relationships, and contract vehicles — WSP's acquisition of Golder built a much larger earth-science platform, and New Mountain Capital's take-private of TRC illustrates private-equity consolidation [31][33]. The listed roll-ups (Tetra Tech, Jacobs, AECOM, Stantec, Montrose) have all grown by serial acquisition of specialist shops [24][30].

• Mitigation banking is professionalizing. What began as scattered landowner projects is consolidating into institutionally backed platforms (RES, Ecosystem Investment Partners) as private equity recognizes the recurring, regulation-driven demand for credits [37][38].

• Barriers to entry on the private side are past-performance records, regulatory relationships, scarce technical talent, and the patience to hold restoration assets for years before credits sell.

Our assessment: consolidation should continue, but the market stays structurally fragmented because local knowledge, agency procurement rules, and technical credentials keep mattering.

9. Risks

• Budget and political risk (the dominant one). This entire demand engine is discretionary federal and state spending. Funding and staffing can be cut sharply and quickly: 2025 brought steep federal workforce reductions across land agencies, including significant cuts at the National Park Service and Forest Service, with further budget reductions proposed [7][9]. Contractor backlogs and mitigation-credit demand both soften when agencies retrench.

• Contract risk. Government clients can delay, reduce, recompete, or terminate work; backlog is not guaranteed revenue, and continuing resolutions or shutdowns hit revenue directly [24].

• Fixed-price execution. Labor shortages, permitting delays, weather, subcontractor failures, or scope ambiguity can erase project margins [23][24].

• Regulatory reversal / transition. Changing NEPA procedures or ESA and Section 404 rules can shrink compliance work and offset markets, delay projects, and force rework [21].

• Talent risk. Biologists, hydrologists, ecologists, engineers, planners, and grant specialists are hard to replace quickly.

• Long project cycles and execution risk in mitigation banking: capital is tied up for years in land and restoration before credits sell, and ecological performance is not guaranteed.

• Liability and reputation. Environmental errors, inaccurate data, hazardous-site work, or grant noncompliance can bring penalties, litigation, lost eligibility, or debarment [27].

• Commodity and land-use cycles for the adjacent timber names, whose earnings track lumber and housing more than conservation policy.

• Measurement risk. Conventional statistics understate the core government activity and give no clean view of outsourced conservation revenue.

10. How to invest and the outlook

Public-market routes. The most direct exposure is the environmental- and government-services contractors — Tetra Tech, ICF International, Jacobs, AECOM, Stantec, WSP, and Montrose — where the strongest candidates share high-quality funded backlog, repeat agency relationships and contract vehicles, balanced federal/state/local/commercial exposure, strong billable utilization and labor retention, disciplined fixed-price execution, high cash conversion, moderate concentration, and a sensible acquisition record [24][26][27][28][29][30][31]. For loose land-and-carbon exposure, the timber REITs (Weyerhaeuser, Rayonier, PotlatchDeltic) offer conservation-monetization optionality but trade primarily on timber and housing.

Private-market routes. Direct participation runs through environmental consultancies (private ownership, private credit to engineering platforms, or employee-owned firms), ecological-restoration and mitigation-banking companies, conservation-focused private-equity and real-asset funds (Ecosystem Investment Partners and peers), and conservation easements or carbon projects on owned land [32][33][37][38]. These are illiquid, regulation-dependent, and long-duration, and demand more diligence on customer contracts, licensing, key-person dependence, working capital, insurance, and regulatory liabilities — but they offer the purest link to the credits these agencies' rules create.

Outlook. The underlying need for land, water, wildlife, wildfire, and resilience management is durable; the revenue outlook for service providers is less certain because public funding and permitting policy can change fast. 2025's staffing and budget cuts pressure contractor demand in the near term, while the permanent $900 million LWCF and multi-year IRA conservation dollars provide a funded floor [12][14]. Longer term, three structural tailwinds favor the private surface even if government headcount shrinks: agencies increasingly outsource restoration, wildfire, and environmental-review work; mitigation banking is professionalizing and projected to keep growing as private capital scales; and emerging environmental-credit markets (species, carbon, water) could turn more of the conservation function into tradeable private assets [37]. The through-line for investors: you cannot own the conservation agency, but you can own the firms that do its fieldwork and the ones that turn its rules into sellable credits — and both track the budgets and statutes above. The best risk-adjusted exposure is likely a diversified operator with strong government-procurement capabilities and enough commercial work to absorb a policy-driven downturn.

---

Sources

1. U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 NAICS Manual: 924120 Administration of Conservation Programs (definition, scope, exclusions), 2022. https://www.census.gov/naics/resources/archives/sect92.html
2. U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census — Overview (excludes government-operated establishments), 2026. https://www.census.gov/econ/overview/mu0000.html
3. U.S. Census Bureau, Nonemployer Statistics — Overview (excludes public administration), 2026. https://www.census.gov/econ/overview/mu0500.html
4. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), annual 2023, NAICS 924120 national totals, 2024. https://data.bls.gov/cew/data/api/2023/a/industry/924120.csv
5. Congressional Research Service, Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data (R42346) and The Federal Land Management Agencies (IF10585), 2024. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R42346
6. Bureau of Land Management, About: What We Manage (~245M acres, ~9,250 employees), 2024. https://www.blm.gov/about/what-we-manage/national
7. U.S. Forest Service (193M acres; 154 national forests / 20 grasslands; employees), 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forest_Service
8. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oversight / About the Service (568 refuges; ~89M+ acres; ~8,300 employees; 1,600+ ESA species), 2024. https://www.fws.gov/testimony/oversight-us-fish-and-wildlife-service
9. U.S. Department of the Interior / National Park Service, FY2025 Budget Highlights — NPS (433 units; ~85M acres; 21,639 employees in 2023), 2024. https://www.doi.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-03/fy2025-508-bib-nps.pdf
10. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Agency Workforce Plan, Fiscal Year 2024 (~3,028 employees; 1.4M acres), 2024. https://hr.sao.texas.gov/Workforce/Plans/2024/802-plan-2024.pdf
11. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service / U.S. Department of the Interior, Final Apportionments for Wildlife Restoration and Sport Fish Restoration Funds — FY2024 (~$1.3B; Pittman-Robertson & Dingell-Johnson), 2024. https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/final-apportionments-wildlife-restoration-and-sport-fish-restoration-funds
12. U.S. Department of the Interior / National Park Service, Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Great American Outdoors Act ($900M/yr; up to $1.9B/yr deferred maintenance through FY2025), 2022–2024. https://www.doi.gov/lwcf
13. U.S. Department of the Interior, Department of the Interior Announces $461 Million for Parks and Outdoor Recreation across America, June 2026. https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/department-interior-announces-461-million-parks-and-outdoor-recreation-across-america
14. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Inflation Reduction Act — $19.5 billion for conservation programs (EQIP, CSP, RCPP, ACEP), 2023–2024. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/about/priorities/inflation-reduction-act
15. USDA Farm Service Agency, Conservation Reserve Program statistics (~26M acres; ~$1.7B annual rental payments; ~$74/acre), 2024. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/tools/informational/reports/conservation-statistics/crp
16. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account, U.S. and States, 2023 ($639.5B; 2.3% of GDP; 5.0M jobs), 2024. https://www.bea.gov/news/2024/outdoor-recreation-satellite-account-us-and-states-2023
17. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat Conservation Plans and the Endangered Species Act (>70% of listed species depend on private land), 2024. https://www.fws.gov/service/habitat-conservation-plans
18. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ESA Section 7 Consultation, 2026. https://www.fws.gov/service/esa-section-7-consultation
19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Permit Program under Clean Water Act Section 404, 2026. https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/permit-program-under-cwa-section-404
20. U.S. Department of Energy, NEPA Reviews (categorical exclusion / EA / EIS overview), 2026. https://www.energy.gov/em/nepa-reviews
21. U.S. Department of Energy, History of CEQ NEPA Regulations and Guidance (CEQ government-wide rule removed effective April 11, 2025), 2026. https://www.energy.gov/nepa/history-ceq-nepa-regulations-and-guidance
22. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, 2 CFR Part 200 — Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, 2026. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/subtitle-A/chapter-II/part-200
23. Acquisition.gov, Federal Acquisition Regulation 16.101 — General (contract types), 2026. https://www.acquisition.gov/far/16.101
24. Tetra Tech, Inc., Form 10-K for Fiscal Year Ended September 28, 2025 (revenue; government services; contract-type mix 43.5% fixed-price / 42.6% time-and-materials / 13.9% cost-plus), 2025. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/831641/000083164125000032/ttek-20250928.htm
25. Tetra Tech, Inc., Reports Record Fiscal 2024 and Fourth Quarter Results ($5.2B revenue; $4.32B net revenue; ~35% U.S. federal), 2024. https://investor.tetratech.com/news/news-details/2024/Tetra-Tech-Reports-Record-Fiscal-2024-and-Fourth-Quarter-Results/default.aspx
26. ICF International, Inc., Form 10-K for Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2025 and Natural Resources (~$2.0B revenue; habitat, permitting, grant/program management), 2025–2026. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1362004/000119312526082536/icfi-20251231.htm
27. AECOM, Form 10-K for Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2025, 2025. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/868857/000086885725000013/acm-20250930.htm
28. Jacobs Solutions, Form 10-K for Fiscal Year Ended September 26, 2025, 2025. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/52988/000162828025053316/jec-20250926.htm
29. Stantec, 2025 Annual Information Form, 2026. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1131383/000113138326000007/ex-991xaif2025.htm
30. Montrose Environmental Group, Inc., Record Full Year 2024 Results (~$696.4M revenue), 2025. https://investors.montrose-env.com/news/news-details/2025/Montrose-Environmental-Group-Reports-Record-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2024-Results-and-Provides-Strong-2025-Guidance/
31. WSP Global, Golder Is Now Part of WSP, 2021. https://www.wsp.com/en-sa/news/2021/golder-is-now-part-of-wsp
32. Environmental Resources Management (ERM), Sustainability Report 2022 (KKR majority investment completed 2021), 2022. https://www.erm.com/globalassets/2022/erm-sustainability-report-2022.pdf
33. TRC Companies, TRC Completes Merger With Affiliates of New Mountain Capital, 2017. https://www.trccompanies.com/insights/trc-completes-merger-with-affiliates-of-new-mountain-capital/
34. HDR, 2025 Annual Report (employee-owned engineering/architecture/environmental firm), 2025. https://www.hdrinc.com/about-us/2025-hdr-annual-report
35. Burns & McDonnell, Supporting a Sustainable Future (employee-owned engineering/environmental firm), 2026. https://info.burnsmcd.com/supporting-a-sustainable-future
36. SWCA Environmental Consultants, About SWCA (employee-owned environmental consultancy), 2026. https://www.swca.com/about-swca/
37. Custom Market Insights / Verified Market Reports, Mitigation Banking Market Size (~$13B in 2025; private banks ~65% of credits), 2025–2026. https://www.custommarketinsights.com/report/mitigation-banking-market/
38. Forbes (Ashoka), How Private Capital Is Restoring U.S. Wetlands (Ecosystem Investment Partners; >$200M raised), 2014. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashoka/2014/04/25/how-private-capital-is-restoring-u-s-wetlands/