romikgosai/squad_modified_2 huggingface dataset:
A species can be listed in two ways. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or NOAA Fisheries (also called the National Marine Fisheries Service) can directly list a species through its candidate assessment program, or an individual or organizational petition may request that the FWS or NMFS list a species. A "species" under the act can be a true taxonomic species, a subspecies, or in the case of vertebrates, a "distinct population segment." The procedures are the same for both types except with the person/organization petition, there is a 90-day screening period.

Q1: How many different ways can a species be added to the endangered list?
A1: two ways
Q2: What federal program is used to list a species?
A2: candidate assessment program
Q3: How long is the screening period of an individual's or organization's petition to add a species to the list
A3: 90-day screening period
Q4: In the case of vertebrates, what is the most lenient interpretation of "species"?
A4: a "distinct population segment."
During the listing process, economic factors cannot be considered, but must be " based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available." The 1982 amendment to the ESA added the word "solely" to prevent any consideration other than the biological status of the species. Congress rejected President Ronald Reagan's Executive Order 12291 which required economic analysis of all government agency actions. The House committee's statement was "that economic considerations have no relevance to determinations regarding the status of species."

Q1: What word was added to the Endangered Species Act in 1982?
A1: "solely"
Q2: Because of the change to the Endangered Species Act in 1982, what is the only consideration for being listed as endangered?
A2: the biological status of the species
Q3: Which president issued an Executive Order that required financial consideration of all government actions?
A3: Ronald Reagan
Q4: What did Congress do to the Executive Order that would have included financial considerations as a factor for a species to be listed?
A4: Congress rejected
Public notice is given through legal notices in newspapers, and communicated to state and county agencies within the species' area. Foreign nations may also receive notice of a listing. A public hearing is mandatory if any person has requested one within 45 days of the published notice. "The purpose of the notice and comment requirement is to provide for meaningful public participation in the rulemaking process." summarized the Ninth Circuit court in the case of Idaho Farm Bureau Federation v. Babbitt.

Q1: How is public notice given regarding a listing?
A1: through legal notices in newspapers, and communicated to state and county agencies within the species' area
Q2: How long after a published notice of the listing may a public hearing regarding the listing be requested?
A2: 45 days
Q3: Do listing notices cross international soil?
A3: Foreign nations may also receive notice of a listing
The provision of the law in Section 4 that establishes critical habitat is a regulatory link between habitat protection and recovery goals, requiring the identification and protection of all lands, water and air necessary to recover endangered species. To determine what exactly is critical habitat, the needs of open space for individual and population growth, food, water, light or other nutritional requirements, breeding sites, seed germination and dispersal needs, and lack of disturbances are considered.

Q1: What section of the Endangered Species Act establishes critical habitat regulations?
A1: Section 4
Q2: Critical habitat regulation links what two topics?
A2: habitat protection and recovery goals
Q3: What does critical habitat regulation require?
A3: the identification and protection of all lands, water and air necessary to recover endangered species
Q4: What is an example of a critical habitat consideration that would apply to plant wildlife?
A4: seed germination and dispersal needs
All federal agencies are prohibited from authorizing, funding or carrying out actions that "destroy or adversely modify" critical habitats (Section 7(a) (2)). While the regulatory aspect of critical habitat does not apply directly to private and other non-federal landowners, large-scale development, logging and mining projects on private and state land typically require a federal permit and thus become subject to critical habitat regulations. Outside or in parallel with regulatory processes, critical habitats also focus and encourage voluntary actions such as land purchases, grant making, restoration, and establishment of reserves.

Q1: How are non-federal government activities that might impact critical habitat often subject to the Endangered Species Act?
A1: require a federal permit
Q2: What are some non-regulation actions that critical habitats encourage?
A2: land purchases, grant making, restoration, and establishment of reserves
Q3: What does the Endangered Species Act detail about government action regarding critical habitats?
A3: federal agencies are prohibited from authorizing, funding or carrying out actions that "destroy or adversely modify" critical habitats
The ESA requires that critical habitat be designated at the time of or within one year of a species being placed on the endangered list. In practice, most designations occur several years after listing. Between 1978 and 1986 the FWS regularly designated critical habitat. In 1986 the Reagan Administration issued a regulation limiting the protective status of critical habitat. As a result, few critical habitats were designated between 1986 and the late 1990s. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a series of court orders invalidated the Reagan regulations and forced the FWS and NMFS to designate several hundred critical habitats, especially in Hawaii, California and other western states. Midwest and Eastern states received less critical habitat, primarily on rivers and coastlines. As of December, 2006, the Reagan regulation has not yet been replaced though its use has been suspended. Nonetheless, the agencies have generally changed course and since about 2005 have tried to designate critical habitat at or near the time of listing.

Q1: What is the time limit for designating a species critical habitat after the species has been added to the endangered list?
A1: within one year
Q2: Which presidential adminstration limited the protective status of critical habitat in 1986?
A2: the Reagan Administration
Q3: After the limitations placed on critical habitat were lifted by the courts, where were critical habitats established primarily?
A3: Hawaii, California and other western states
Q4: Where have the majority of critical habitats in the Midwest and Eastern states been located geographically?
A4: primarily on rivers and coastlines
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are required to create an Endangered Species Recovery Plan outlining the goals, tasks required, likely costs, and estimated timeline to recover endangered species (i.e., increase their numbers and improve their management to the point where they can be removed from the endangered list). The ESA does not specify when a recovery plan must be completed. The FWS has a policy specifying completion within three years of the species being listed, but the average time to completion is approximately six years. The annual rate of recovery plan completion increased steadily from the Ford administration (4) through Carter (9), Reagan (30), Bush I (44), and Clinton (72), but declined under Bush II (16 per year as of 9/1/06).

Q1: What four topics are required in an Endangered Species Recovery Plan?
A1: goals, tasks required, likely costs, and estimated timeline to recover endangered species
Q2: What is the time limit for completing an Endangered Species Recovery Plan?
A2: The ESA does not specify when a recovery plan must be completed.
Q3: What Recovery Plan duration the does Fish and Wildlife Service plan for in their policies?
A3: completion within three years
Q4: What is the average time of completion of an Endangered Species Recovery Plan?
A4: approximately six years
Q5: Which president had the most completed Recovery Plans during their administration?
A5: Clinton (72)
The question to be answered is whether a listed species will be harmed by the action and, if so, how the harm can be minimized. If harm cannot be avoided, the project agency can seek an exemption from the Endangered Species Committee, an ad hoc panel composed of members from the executive branch and at least one appointee from the state where the project is to occur. Five of the seven committee members must vote for the exemption to allow taking (to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or significant habitat modification, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) of listed species.

Q1: What is the primary consideration for determining if projects may be carried out in areas with endangered species?
A1: whether a listed species will be harmed by the action and, if so, how the harm can be minimized
Q2: If a species may be harmed, who holds final say on whether the project may proceed?
A2: the Endangered Species Committee
Q3: How many members are on the ad hoc panel that allows project exemptions for cases where a species may harmed?
A3: seven
Q4: How many votes must be in favor of the exemption in order to award the exemption?
A4: Five
Q5: What is one specific requirement regarding the make-up of the exmeption panel?
A5: at least one appointee from the state where the project is to occur
Long before the exemption is considered by the Endangered Species Committee, the Forest Service, and either the FWS or the NMFS will have consulted on the biological implications of the timber harvest. The consultation can be informal, to determine if harm may occur; and then formal if the harm is believed to be likely. The questions to be answered in these consultations are whether the species will be harmed, whether the habitat will be harmed and if the action will aid or hinder the recovery of the listed species.

Q1: Who reviews exemption considerations before the Endangered Species committee?
A1: the Forest Service, and either the FWS or the NMFS
Q2: During informal consultation, what is the goal?
A2: to determine if harm may occur
Q3: What prompts the need for formal consultation?
A3: if the harm is believed to be likely
Q4: What considerations are weighed during the consultations?
A4: whether the species will be harmed, whether the habitat will be harmed and if the action will aid or hinder the recovery
There have been six instances as of 2009 in which the exemption process was initiated. Of these six, one was granted, one was partially granted, one was denied and three were withdrawn. Donald Baur, in The Endangered Species Act: law, policy, and perspectives, concluded," ... the exemption provision is basically a nonfactor in the administration of the ESA. A major reason, of course, is that so few consultations result in jeopardy opinions, and those that do almost always result in the identification of reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid jeopardy."

Q1: How many times has the exemption process been used, as of 2009?
A1: six
Q2: What were the results of those exemption petitions?
A2: one was granted, one was partially granted, one was denied and three were withdrawn
Q3: Why is this exemption provision often considered a nonfactor?
A3: few consultations result in jeopardy opinions
Q4: How can jeopardy opinions be dissuaded?
A4: in the identification of reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid jeopardy.
More than half of habitat for listed species is on non-federal property, owned by citizens, states, local governments, tribal governments and private organizations. Before the law was amended in 1982, a listed species could be taken only for scientific or research purposes. The amendment created a permit process to circumvent the take prohibition called a Habitat Conservation Plan or HCP to give incentives to non-federal land managers and private landowners to help protect listed and unlisted species, while allowing economic development that may harm ("take") the species.

Q1: Who owns the majority of critical habitat?
A1: non-federal property, owned by citizens, states, local governments, tribal governments and private organizations
Q2: What program gives incentives to private landowners to protect species on their land?
A2: Habitat Conservation Plan
Q3: Before the amendment in 1982, under what situations could a listed species be displaced?
A3: only for scientific or research purposes
The person or organization submits a HCP and if approved by the agency (FWS or NMFS), will be issued an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) which allows a certain number of "takes" of the listed species. The permit may be revoked at any time and can allow incidental takes for varying amounts of time. For instance, the San Bruno Habitat Conservation Plan/ Incidental Take Permit is good for 30 years and the Wal-Mart store (in Florida) permit expires after one year. Because the permit is issued by a federal agency to a private party, it is a federal action-which means other federal laws can apply, such as the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA. A notice of the permit application action is published in the Federal Register and a public comment period of 30 to 90 days begins.

Q1: An approved HCP results in what being issued for the species?
A1: an Incidental Take Permit (ITP)
Q2: How long do ITPs last?
A2: allow incidental takes for varying amounts of time
Q3: How is the public made aware of ITP applications?
A3: A notice of the permit application action is published in the Federal Register
Q4: How long does the public have to comment on ITP applications?
A4: 30 to 90 days
The US Congress was urged to create the exemption by proponents of a conservation plan on San Bruno Mountain, California that was drafted in the early 1980s and is the first HCP in the nation. In the conference report on the 1982 amendments, Congress specified that it intended the San Bruno plan to act "as a model" for future conservation plans developed under the incidental take exemption provision and that "the adequacy of similar conservation plans should be measured against the San Bruno plan". Congress further noted that the San Bruno plan was based on "an independent exhaustive biological study" and protected at least 87% of the habitat of the listed butterflies that led to the development of the HCP.

Q1: What location held the first HCP?
A1: San Bruno Mountain, California
Q2: What percentage of the critical habitat was protected for the area that received the first HCP?
A2: 87%
Q3: What type of animal was being protected in the area that received the first HCP?
A3: butterflies
Growing scientific recognition of the role of private lands for endangered species recovery and the landmark 1981 court decision in Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources both contributed to making Habitat Conservation Plans/ Incidental Take Permits "a major force for wildlife conservation and a major headache to the development community", wrote Robert D.Thornton in the 1991 Environmental Law article, Searching for Consensus and Predictability: Habitat Conservation Planning under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Q1: What 1981 court decision added to the power of HCPs and ITPs for conservation?
A1: Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources
Q2: Who wrote the article "Searching for Consensus and Predictability: Habitat Conservation Planning under the Endangered Species Act of 1973."
A2: Robert D.Thornton
Q3: What did Thornton compare the scientific and legal advances to, from the viewpoint of the development community?
A3: a major headache
The "No Surprises" rule is meant to protect the landowner if "unforeseen circumstances" occur which make the landowner's efforts to prevent or mitigate harm to the species fall short. The "No Surprises" policy may be the most controversial of the recent reforms of the law, because once an Incidental Take Permit is granted, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) loses much ability to further protect a species if the mitigation measures by the landowner prove insufficient. The landowner or permittee would not be required to set aside additional land or pay more in conservation money. The federal government would have to pay for additional protection measures.

Q1: What is the name of the rule that protects the landowner if their conservation efforts fall short?
A1: The "No Surprises" rule
Q2: Why is this particular rule so controversial?
A2: the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) loses much ability to further protect a species if the mitigation measures by the landowner prove insufficient.
Q3: If the landowner fails to adequately protect the species, what penalties do they face with the "No Surprises" rule?
A3: The landowner or permittee would not be required to set aside additional land or pay more in conservation money
Q4: Who covers the cost of additional efforts if the ITP holder's efforts fall short?
A4: The federal government would have to pay for additional protection measures
The "Safe Harbor" agreement is a voluntary agreement between the private landowner and FWS. The landowner agrees to alter the property to benefit or even attract a listed or proposed species in exchange for assurances that the FWS will permit future "takes" above a pre-determined level. The policy relies on the "enhancement of survival" provision of Section §1539(a)(1)(A). A landowner can have either a "Safe Harbor" agreement or an Incidental Take Permit, or both. The policy was developed by the Clinton Administration in 1999.

Q1: What two groups are bound by a "Safe Harbor" agreement?
A1: the private landowner and FWS
Q2: In exchange for altering the property to a more beneficial state, what does the landowner gain from the Safe Harbor agreement?
A2: assurances that the FWS will permit future "takes" above a pre-determined level
Q3: Which presidential administration developed Safe Harbor policy?
A3: the Clinton Administration
Q4: Are Safe Harbor agreements and ITPs mutually exclusive?
A4: A landowner can have either a "Safe Harbor" agreement or an Incidental Take Permit, or both.
The Candidate Conservation Agreement is closely related to the "Safe Harbor" agreement, the main difference is that the Candidate Conservation Agreements With Assurances(CCA) are meant to protect unlisted species by providing incentives to private landowners and land managing agencies to restore, enhance or maintain habitat of unlisted species which are declining and have the potential to become threatened or endangered if critical habitat is not protected. The FWS will then assure that if, in the future the unlisted species becomes listed, the landowner will not be required to do more than already agreed upon in the CCA.

Q1: How do Candidate Conservation Agreements differ from Safe Harbor agreements?
A1: Candidate Conservation Agreements With Assurances(CCA) are meant to protect unlisted species
Q2: How does a CCA help protect a private landowner?
A2: if, in the future the unlisted species becomes listed, the landowner will not be required to do more than already agreed upon in the CCA.
Q3: How does a CCA impact unlisted species?
A3: enhance or maintain habitat of unlisted species which are declining and have the potential to become threatened or endangered
Two examples of animal species recently delisted are: the Virginia northern flying squirrel (subspecies) on August, 2008, which had been listed since 1985, and the gray wolf (Northern Rocky Mountain DPS). On April 15, 2011, President Obama signed the Department of Defense and Full-Year Appropriations Act of 2011. A section of that Appropriations Act directed the Secretary of the Interior to reissue within 60 days of enactment the final rule published on April 2, 2009, that identified the Northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolf (Canis lupus) as a distinct population segment (DPS) and to revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by removing most of the gray wolves in the DPS.

Q1: What animal species was delisted in August 2008?
A1: the Virginia northern flying squirrel
Q2: How long had the squirrel been listed as endangered?
A2: listed since 1985
Q3: Which president signed an Act directing the delisting of the Northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolf?
A3: President Obama
As of September 2012, fifty-six species have been delisted; twenty-eight due to recovery, ten due to extinction (seven of which are believed to have been extinct prior to being listed), ten due to changes in taxonomic classification practices, six due to discovery of new populations, one due to an error in the listing rule, and one due to an amendment to the Endangered Species Act specifically requiring the species delisting. Twenty-five others have been down listed from "endangered" to "threatened" status.

Q1: As of September 2012, how many species had been delisted due to recovery?
A1: twenty-eight
Q2: Of the ten species removed due to extinction, how many are believe to have already been extinct when listed?
A2: seven
Q3: How many species have been downgraded from endangered to threatened status?
A3: Twenty-five
Q4: How many species were delisted due to discoveries of new populations?
A4: six
Opponents of the Endangered Species Act argue that with over 2,000 endangered species listed, and only 28 delisted due to recovery, the success rate of 1% over nearly three decades proves that there needs to be serious reform in their methods to actually help the endangered animals and plants. Others argue that the ESA may encourage preemptive habitat destruction by landowners who fear losing the use of their land because of the presence of an endangered species; known colloquially as "Shoot, Shovel and Shut-Up." One example of such perverse incentives is the case of a forest owner who, in response to ESA listing of the red-cockaded woodpecker, increased harvesting and shortened the age at which he harvests his trees to ensure that they do not become old enough to become suitable habitat. While no studies have shown that the Act's negative effects, in total, exceed the positive effects, many economists believe that finding a way to reduce such perverse incentives would lead to more effective protection of endangered species.

Q1: How did a land owner impact the protected red-cockaded woodpecker species?
A1: increased harvesting and shortened the age at which he harvests his trees to ensure that they do not become old enough to become suitable habitat
Q2: What is the success rate of the list and the Endangered Species Act initiatives?
A2: 1%
Q3: What is the name given to the act of pre-emptive habitat destruction by landowners fearing a protected species?
A3: "Shoot, Shovel and Shut-Up."
Q4: How many species are currently listed?
A4: over 2,000