Natural resource management remains a significant issue for the federal government, and the availability of particular natural resources, such as energy resources, can be matters of broad public concern. Natural resource availability represents both an opportunity and constraint for human activities. Local, state, and federal government policies define the intertemporal distribution and use of the nation's natural capital stock of soil, minerals, forests, water, fisheries, etc. Growing demands and pressures for both resources and services from the nation's resources, plus heightened interest in how these resources are used, have increased the complexity of their management and administration. Resource management decisions have economic, social, and environmental implications, which may be local, national, or international. Who decides how natural resources should be managed and how the decisions are made remain topics of debate. The federal role in natural resource management continues to be controversial. Some stakeholders seek to maintain or enhance the federal role in resource management. Others support more local influence or international decision-making in some cases. Often the resource issues debated in Congress are focused on specific management tools and their effects (e.g., changing grazing fees, reforming mining laws, restructuring the Endangered Species Act), rather than on broader goals and objectives of resource policies. However, debate on specific management issues may encompass discussions of broad principles, such as the principles of multiple use and sustainable yield that underpin the management philosophies of some federal resource agencies and whether they remain appropriate for the current demands, constraints, and values of resources. The United States is one of the few countries that possesses a vast array of natural resources—only Canada, Russia, and Brazil have similar endowments. Initially, U.S. policy focused on disposal of federal lands and use of resources to encourage settlement and development of the country. Several waves of conservation, beginning in the 1870s, began to shift this vision. Establishment of Yellowstone as the first national park in 1872 and setting aside in 1891 of unreserved public timberlands as national forests for watershed protection were important early landmarks in development of new policies. Through the 1950s, government policies and institutions largely favored regional resource users (e.g., ranchers, miners, loggers, and irrigators). For example, the federal government often encouraged the settlement, use, and development of federal lands and resources at little cost to users. In the 1960s, more people began questioning the rationale behind federally supported resource use, and the politics began to change due to two main factors—the demand for recreation and amenity goods increased sharply, and the environmental-conservation movement gained political momentum and increasingly sought judicial rulings in favor of greater protection. These factors shifted policies away from those that favored traditional resource users. Tension between traditional and alternative uses and protection programs remains a prominent factor in the current debate over natural resource management. Certain themes are prevalent during consideration of many resource questions. Common themes include how to balance the tensions in multi-use management and protection programs, whether resources should be managed to produce national or local benefits, and how to balance current uses with future supplies and opportunities. Conflicting views reflect different values, needs, and perceptions of the condition of resources and the sustainability of uses. While specific management concerns are constantly in flux, many of the concerns fall under the same categories that have confronted policy-makers for decades: role of the federal government in establishing policies; interagency conflicts and overlaps; sources and levels of funding; information and role of science; and coordination of federal, state, and local efforts. Although these categories of issues are fairly constant and broader questions of resource goals and management objectives remain, Congress for many reasons typically confronts the resource issues based on the natural resource in question—lands and related resources, oceans and coasts, species and ecosystems, or water. Conflicting public values concerning federal and Indian lands raise many questions and issues, such as how much land the federal government should own, how managers should balance conflicting uses (e.g., grazing, timber, habitat, recreation), whether Congress should designate specially protected areas, and when and how agencies should collect and distribute fees for land and resource uses. Multiple use management is an approach to balancing use conflicts that can occur on federal lands. Federal land ownership and management continues to be controversial, especially in some western states where the federal government owns half or more of the land. Congress continues to examine the multi-use land management through legislative proposals, program oversight, and annual appropriations for the four major federal land management agencies. Energy production on federal lands, protection from wildfires, range management, and recreation have been at the forefront of congressional debates in recent Congresses. Indian land issues include energy rights-of-way across tribal lands, especially the amount of compensation sought by Indian tribes. Increasing use of coastal and marine resources is driving proposals to alter the relationship between environmental protection and sustainable resource management. Recent reports note declines in marine resources and shortcomings in the fragmented and limited approaches to resource protection and management in federal and state waters. A further concern is the increasing pressures and conflicts that arise from economic activity associated with continued human population growth in coastal areas. Within coastal areas, the most attractive and highest-valued properties often are the most hazardous, exposed to the forces of wind and waves that accompany ocean storms, hurricanes, and tsunamis. Increased use of coastal and nearshore areas has promoted conflict with ocean energy development and production from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas platforms as well as wind farms. Current projections that sea levels will continue to rise will likely make coastal sites more hazardous in the future. The numbers of animal and plant species facing possible extinction are rising, and some of the ecosystems that they rely on are changing or degrading, raising both species-specific and ecosystem-based management questions and challenges. Some stakeholders contend that species loss may have social and economic impacts, and therefore assert that all species should be saved. However, others hold that the cost to society of protecting species with the aim (but not the certainty) of saving them is substantial, while the benefits are vague. Dwindling species are often indicators of habitat loss or alteration. Habitat loss often results from development, changes in land and water management practices, competition from invasive species, and other factors, nearly all affected by economic, political, or social interests. Because of the tradeoffs inherent in species and ecosystem management decisions, goals and objectives for species protection, ecosystem restoration, and invasive species control remain controversial. For example, is recovery of all species listed under the Endangered Species Act a realistic goal? Similarly, differences of opinion continue over the tradeoffs, performance, and expense of approaches being employed in restoration, species protection, and invasive species control. For example, can the multi-billion dollar wetlands restoration proposals for coastal Louisiana restore the coastal ecosystem without requiring significant changes to the management of the Mississippi River? Increasing pressures on the quality and quantity of available water supplies—due to growing population, environmental regulation, in-stream species and ecosystem needs, water source contamination, agricultural water demand, climate variability, and changing public interests—have resulted in heightened water use conflicts throughout the country, particularly in the West. The federal government has a long history of involvement in water resource development and management to facilitate water-borne transportation, expand irrigated agriculture, reduce flood losses, and more recently restore aquatic ecosystems. Although there is no broad federal water policy, Congress makes decisions that define the federal role in the planning, construction, maintenance, inspection, and financing of water resource projects. Congress makes these decisions within the context of multiple and often conflicting objectives, competing legal decisions, and long-established institutional mechanisms (e.g., century old water rights, contractual obligations, etc.). Hurricane Katrina raised questions about the federal role in water resources; in particular, the disaster brought attention to the trade-offs in benefits, costs, and risks of the current division of responsibilities among local, state, and federal entities. Many resource debates are shaped by the availability of information on the resources. Consequently, the role of science is another common theme in resource discussions. For example, science is instrumental in defining the uncertainty and potential extent and impact of climate change and weather on resource stocks and conditions. Similarly, resources availability and abundance may represent both opportunities and hazards, for example drought and flooding. Natural resources management often is intertwined with issues in other policy areas. For example, relationships between natural resources management and environmental protection are evident in many issues, such as groundwater contamination's effect on rural water supply. Cross-cutting issues are discussed in this report if the congressional concern revolves principally around resource conditions and supply. Similarly, debates on energy policy encompass questions of access to energy resources and the impact of energy production on lands and resources. While a few energy resource issues are covered in this report, information on energy policy broadly is contained in CRS Report RL31720, Energy Policy: Conceptual Framework and Continuing Issues , by [author name scrubbed]. Many natural resource issues, especially ones dealing with resource conditions and uses on private lands, overlap with agricultural topics. For information on federal conservation programs for agricultural lands, see CRS Report RL33556, Soil and Water Conservation: An Overview , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. Congress deals with natural resource issues on a number of fronts. Key laws, programs, and issues are handled by several authorizing committees in the House and Senate. Many issues involve several committees, such as those involving wetlands protection and restoration. In addition, natural resource issues often are addressed during consideration of annual appropriations bills for natural resource agencies, programs, and activities. The 110 th Congress is likely to weigh whether federal funds for natural resources issues are adequate and focused on the appropriate resource priorities. In many cases, natural resource issues do not divide along clear party lines. Instead, they may be split along rural-urban, eastern-western, coastal-interior, or upstream-downstream interests.