You're missing the point, and falling for one of the Federal government's modern myths, that it is a SUPERIOR government to the State governments.
Constitutionally speaking, the Federal Government is subservient to the State governments, it exists to create a single point of contact in regards to foreign affairs, national defense, and to act as a neutral third party arbiter between the States. When it comes to land use States should have complete and final say on land use within their territory, nothing in the US Constitution grants the Federal government the power to set aside such large swaths of land.
Further, your claim that States would fail to preserve their own natural beauty and resources without the Federal government to do so is entirely bunk because, well, we actually have some solid data on that. You see, Federal Land is not distributed evenly in the county, and in fact it ranges WILDLY:
View attachment 1937
Would you say that New York and Maine have not preserved their natural regions compared to Nevada? Has Tennessee preserved less natural beauty and resources than Alaska (in proportion to the State's side obviously)? Are Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas somehow worse off than Oregon, Idaho, and Arizona? Is Texas somehow worse off than California?
Yeah, sorry, this idea that the Federal Parks and land preservation is necessary and good just doesn't hold up with actual state level results, and it's also led to major issues with States being able to control their own economic development and in many cases allowed the Federal government to pick winners and losers by how they allow resource development to happen on Federal land, which ends up being weaponized by the Federal government to favor States that ideologically align with the administration and punish states that do not.