The Department of Defense and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Collaborated to Produce the Fall 2015 Wildlife Stewardship & National Defense Issue of the Endangered Species Bulletin (ESB)

2016 ◽  
Vol 97 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-139
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Department Of Defense ◽  
National Defense ◽  
Fish And Wildlife Service ◽  
The U.S

Remarks by Col. Gary Corn

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 57-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary Corn
Keyword(s):  
Department Of Defense ◽  
National Defense ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Moment ◽  
The U.S

First, I should note that I am speaking today in my personal capacity only, and my views do not represent those of the U.S. government, the Department of Defense, or U.S. Cyber Command. At the outset, let me provide a brief overview of U.S. Cyber Command. It is a relatively new command within the Department of Defense. Established about seven years ago as a subunified command, it is an operational headquarters at the strategic level but at the moment subordinate to U.S. Strategic Command, one of the combatant commands within the Department of Defense. The 2017 National Defense Authorization Act included a provision stating that there shall be established a combatant command known as U.S. Cyber Command. As a result, there is now a lot of movement afoot to see how we will meet that legislative intent. In all likelihood, U.S. Cyber Command will elevate at some time in the future as a full combatant command.

ENDANGERED SPECIES AND THE USE OF A BIOLOGICAL OPINION DURING SPILL RESPONSE

2005 ◽  
Vol 2005 (1) ◽  
pp. 1025-1030
Author(s):  
Matthew P. Bernard ◽  
Russ Strach ◽  
Christina Fahy ◽  
Jeremy Rusin ◽  
Travis C. Coley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Hazardous Substances ◽  
Biological Assessment ◽  
Critical Habitat ◽  
Fish And Wildlife Service ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT Endangered Species and the use of a Biological Opinion During Spill Response In 2001, six Federal agencies signed an Interagency Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding Oil Spill Planning and Response Activities under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act's National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The agencies participating in the MOA include the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of the Interior's Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's—National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) and National Ocean Service (NOS). In the MOA, NOAA Fisheries and USFWS determined that oil spill response activities qualify as an emergency action, as defined by regulations implementing the ESA in 50 CFR 402.02. As such, the emergency continues to exist until the removal operations are completed and the case is closed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.320(b). To reduce the burden of processing emergency consultation paperwork during every routine oil spill clean-up action that occurs in the Northwest, the USCG and the EPA initiated formal consultation (pursuant to 50 CFR 402.14(c)) with the Northwest Regional Office of NOAA Fisheries on November 12, 2002, and submitted a programmatic biological assessment (BA). The Aassessed the effects of most response activities on ESA-listed species that may be present in the inland waters of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho (salmonids) and the offshore waters out to 200 nautical miles (salmonids, large whales, Steiler sea lion, and sea turtles). On November 6, 2003, NOAA Fisheries completed and signed the nation's first programmatic biological opinion (BO) on oil spill response activities. While NOAA Fisheries determined that the proposed action was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, the agency included reasonable and prudent measures with non-discretionary terms and conditions. The terms and conditions now serve as a “job aid” for oil spill responders in the Northwest and ensure that effects on listed species and their critical habitat are minimized during most response methods that are used. There has been some disagreement regarding the value of conducting formal consultation prior to an actual oil spill event. In addition to the upfront staff time and related costs, there is always the possibility that an incident-specific BA and BO may still have to be done. Moreover, the USCG and EPA have not yet initiated an analogous programmatic consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) so incident-specific consultations are ongoing for ESA-listed species under their jurisdiction. This paper presents the background, process, and outcomes (including pros and cons) in the development of a successful programmatic consultation on oil spill activities.

scholarly journals Corporate Governance of Artificial Intelligence in the Public Interest

Information ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (7) ◽  
pp. 275
Author(s):  
Peter Cihon ◽  
Jonas Schuett ◽  
Seth D. Baum
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Nonprofit Organizations ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Department Of Defense ◽  
The Public ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Media ◽  
The U.S

Corporations play a major role in artificial intelligence (AI) research, development, and deployment, with profound consequences for society. This paper surveys opportunities to improve how corporations govern their AI activities so as to better advance the public interest. The paper focuses on the roles of and opportunities for a wide range of actors inside the corporation—managers, workers, and investors—and outside the corporation—corporate partners and competitors, industry consortia, nonprofit organizations, the public, the media, and governments. Whereas prior work on multistakeholder AI governance has proposed dedicated institutions to bring together diverse actors and stakeholders, this paper explores the opportunities they have even in the absence of dedicated multistakeholder institutions. The paper illustrates these opportunities with many cases, including the participation of Google in the U.S. Department of Defense Project Maven; the publication of potentially harmful AI research by OpenAI, with input from the Partnership on AI; and the sale of facial recognition technology to law enforcement by corporations including Amazon, IBM, and Microsoft. These and other cases demonstrate the wide range of mechanisms to advance AI corporate governance in the public interest, especially when diverse actors work together.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document