gem_id
stringlengths 20
25
| id
stringlengths 24
24
| title
stringlengths 3
59
| context
stringlengths 151
3.71k
| question
stringlengths 1
270
| target
stringlengths 1
270
| references
list | answers
dict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
gem-squad_v2-train-1000 | 5a847d907cf838001a46a862 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What has to be designated after a waiting period of 1 year? | What has to be designated after a waiting period of 1 year? | [
"What has to be designated after a waiting period of 1 year?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1001 | 5a847d907cf838001a46a863 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What entity caused an increase of critical habitats in between 1986 and the 1990s? | What entity caused an increase of critical habitats in between 1986 and the 1990s? | [
"What entity caused an increase of critical habitats in between 1986 and the 1990s?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1002 | 5a847d907cf838001a46a864 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What did the Reagan regulations invalidate? | What did the Reagan regulations invalidate? | [
"What did the Reagan regulations invalidate?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1003 | 5a847d907cf838001a46a865 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | How many critical habitats were built between 1978 and 1986? | How many critical habitats were built between 1978 and 1986? | [
"How many critical habitats were built between 1978 and 1986?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1004 | 5a847d907cf838001a46a866 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | Which two states in the Midwest and Eastern states received fewer habitats? | Which two states in the Midwest and Eastern states received fewer habitats? | [
"Which two states in the Midwest and Eastern states received fewer habitats?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1005 | 572eb435cb0c0d14000f1490 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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). | What four topics are required in an Endangered Species Recovery Plan? | What four topics are required in an Endangered Species Recovery Plan? | [
"What four topics are required in an Endangered Species Recovery Plan?"
]
| {
"text": [
"goals, tasks required, likely costs, and estimated timeline to recover endangered species"
],
"answer_start": [
150
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1006 | 572eb435cb0c0d14000f1491 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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). | What is the time limit for completing an Endangered Species Recovery Plan? | What is the time limit for completing an Endangered Species Recovery Plan? | [
"What is the time limit for completing an Endangered Species Recovery Plan?"
]
| {
"text": [
"The ESA does not specify when a recovery plan must be completed."
],
"answer_start": [
365
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1007 | 572eb435cb0c0d14000f1492 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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). | What Recovery Plan duration the does Fish and Wildlife Service plan for in their policies? | What Recovery Plan duration the does Fish and Wildlife Service plan for in their policies? | [
"What Recovery Plan duration the does Fish and Wildlife Service plan for in their policies?"
]
| {
"text": [
"completion within three years"
],
"answer_start": [
462
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1008 | 572eb435cb0c0d14000f1493 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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). | What is the average time of completion of an Endangered Species Recovery Plan? | What is the average time of completion of an Endangered Species Recovery Plan? | [
"What is the average time of completion of an Endangered Species Recovery Plan?"
]
| {
"text": [
"approximately six years"
],
"answer_start": [
559
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1009 | 572eb435cb0c0d14000f1494 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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). | Which president had the most completed Recovery Plans during their administration? | Which president had the most completed Recovery Plans during their administration? | [
"Which president had the most completed Recovery Plans during their administration?"
]
| {
"text": [
"Clinton (72)"
],
"answer_start": [
730
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1010 | 5a847e9c7cf838001a46a87e | Endangered_Species_Act | 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). | What does FWS require NMFS to create? | What does FWS require NMFS to create? | [
"What does FWS require NMFS to create?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1011 | 5a847e9c7cf838001a46a87f | Endangered_Species_Act | 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). | What length of time does the NMFS policy say plans must be completed by? | What length of time does the NMFS policy say plans must be completed by? | [
"What length of time does the NMFS policy say plans must be completed by?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1012 | 5a847e9c7cf838001a46a880 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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). | What was the average completion time for an FWS plan? | What was the average completion time for an FWS plan? | [
"What was the average completion time for an FWS plan?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1013 | 5a847e9c7cf838001a46a881 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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). | Who requires the FWS to have a completion policy? | Who requires the FWS to have a completion policy? | [
"Who requires the FWS to have a completion policy?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1014 | 5a847e9c7cf838001a46a882 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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). | What organizations are not required to have a recovery plan? | What organizations are not required to have a recovery plan? | [
"What organizations are not required to have a recovery plan?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1015 | 572eb52fc246551400ce453c | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What is the primary consideration for determining if projects may be carried out in areas with endangered species? | What is the primary consideration for determining if projects may be carried out in areas with endangered species? | [
"What is the primary consideration for determining if projects may be carried out in areas with endangered species?"
]
| {
"text": [
"whether a listed species will be harmed by the action and, if so, how the harm can be minimized"
],
"answer_start": [
31
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1016 | 572eb52fc246551400ce453d | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | If a species may be harmed, who holds final say on whether the project may proceed? | If a species may be harmed, who holds final say on whether the project may proceed? | [
"If a species may be harmed, who holds final say on whether the project may proceed?"
]
| {
"text": [
"the Endangered Species Committee"
],
"answer_start": [
201
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1017 | 572eb52fc246551400ce453e | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | How many members are on the ad hoc panel that allows project exemptions for cases where a species may harmed? | How many members are on the ad hoc panel that allows project exemptions for cases where a species may harmed? | [
"How many members are on the ad hoc panel that allows project exemptions for cases where a species may harmed?"
]
| {
"text": [
"seven"
],
"answer_start": [
382
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1018 | 572eb52fc246551400ce453f | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | How many votes must be in favor of the exemption in order to award the exemption? | How many votes must be in favor of the exemption in order to award the exemption? | [
"How many votes must be in favor of the exemption in order to award the exemption?"
]
| {
"text": [
"Five"
],
"answer_start": [
370
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1019 | 572eb52fc246551400ce4540 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What is one specific requirement regarding the make-up of the exmeption panel? | What is one specific requirement regarding the make-up of the exmeption panel? | [
"What is one specific requirement regarding the make-up of the exmeption panel?"
]
| {
"text": [
"at least one appointee from the state where the project is to occur"
],
"answer_start": [
301
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1020 | 5a847fc97cf838001a46a888 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | Who does the Endangered Species Committee get an exemption from? | Who does the Endangered Species Committee get an exemption from? | [
"Who does the Endangered Species Committee get an exemption from?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1021 | 5a847fc97cf838001a46a889 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | How many members must vote against the exemption? | How many members must vote against the exemption? | [
"How many members must vote against the exemption?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1022 | 5a847fc97cf838001a46a88a | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | How many members must a project agency have? | How many members must a project agency have? | [
"How many members must a project agency have?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1023 | 5a847fc97cf838001a46a88b | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What do project agencies vote on? | What do project agencies vote on? | [
"What do project agencies vote on?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1024 | 5a847fc97cf838001a46a88c | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What happens if the harm can be minimized? | What happens if the harm can be minimized? | [
"What happens if the harm can be minimized?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1025 | 572eb5bddfa6aa1500f8d2e7 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | Who reviews exemption considerations before the Endangered Species committee? | Who reviews exemption considerations before the Endangered Species committee? | [
"Who reviews exemption considerations before the Endangered Species committee?"
]
| {
"text": [
"the Forest Service, and either the FWS or the NMFS"
],
"answer_start": [
77
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1026 | 572eb5bddfa6aa1500f8d2e8 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | During informal consultation, what is the goal? | During informal consultation, what is the goal? | [
"During informal consultation, what is the goal?"
]
| {
"text": [
"to determine if harm may occur"
],
"answer_start": [
236
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1027 | 572eb5bddfa6aa1500f8d2e9 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What prompts the need for formal consultation? | What prompts the need for formal consultation? | [
"What prompts the need for formal consultation?"
]
| {
"text": [
"if the harm is believed to be likely"
],
"answer_start": [
284
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1028 | 572eb5bddfa6aa1500f8d2ea | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What considerations are weighed during the consultations? | What considerations are weighed during the consultations? | [
"What considerations are weighed during the consultations?"
]
| {
"text": [
"whether the species will be harmed, whether the habitat will be harmed and if the action will aid or hinder the recovery"
],
"answer_start": [
378
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1029 | 5a8489e57cf838001a46a8e0 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | Who is consulted after the Endangered Species Committee? | Who is consulted after the Endangered Species Committee? | [
"Who is consulted after the Endangered Species Committee?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1030 | 5a8489e57cf838001a46a8e1 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What implications does the Endangered Species Committee consider? | What implications does the Endangered Species Committee consider? | [
"What implications does the Endangered Species Committee consider?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1031 | 5a8489e57cf838001a46a8e2 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What type of consultation is used if harm is not going to occur? | What type of consultation is used if harm is not going to occur? | [
"What type of consultation is used if harm is not going to occur?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1032 | 5a8489e57cf838001a46a8e3 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What kind of consultation does the Endangered Species use when harm is likely? | What kind of consultation does the Endangered Species use when harm is likely? | [
"What kind of consultation does the Endangered Species use when harm is likely?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1033 | 5a8489e57cf838001a46a8e4 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | Who is consulted before going to the FWS and Forest Service? | Who is consulted before going to the FWS and Forest Service? | [
"Who is consulted before going to the FWS and Forest Service?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1034 | 572eb63603f989190075697d | Endangered_Species_Act | 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." | How many times has the exemption process been used, as of 2009? | How many times has the exemption process been used, as of 2009? | [
"How many times has the exemption process been used, as of 2009?"
]
| {
"text": [
"six"
],
"answer_start": [
16
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1035 | 572eb63603f989190075697e | Endangered_Species_Act | 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." | What were the results of those exemption petitions? | What were the results of those exemption petitions? | [
"What were the results of those exemption petitions?"
]
| {
"text": [
"one was granted, one was partially granted, one was denied and three were withdrawn"
],
"answer_start": [
101
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1036 | 572eb63603f989190075697f | Endangered_Species_Act | 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." | Why is this exemption provision often considered a nonfactor? | Why is this exemption provision often considered a nonfactor? | [
"Why is this exemption provision often considered a nonfactor?"
]
| {
"text": [
"few consultations result in jeopardy opinions"
],
"answer_start": [
398
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1037 | 572eb63603f9891900756980 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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." | How can jeopardy opinions be dissuaded? | How can jeopardy opinions be dissuaded? | [
"How can jeopardy opinions be dissuaded?"
]
| {
"text": [
"in the identification of reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid jeopardy."
],
"answer_start": [
484
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1038 | 5a848a6d7cf838001a46a8ea | Endangered_Species_Act | 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." | How many exemptions were granted in 2009? | How many exemptions were granted in 2009? | [
"How many exemptions were granted in 2009?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1039 | 5a848a6d7cf838001a46a8eb | Endangered_Species_Act | 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." | What is a key factor for the ESA? | What is a key factor for the ESA? | [
"What is a key factor for the ESA?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1040 | 5a848a6d7cf838001a46a8ec | Endangered_Species_Act | 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." | What did Donald Baur write in 2009? | What did Donald Baur write in 2009? | [
"What did Donald Baur write in 2009?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1041 | 5a848a6d7cf838001a46a8ed | Endangered_Species_Act | 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." | How many exemptions were withdrawn in 2009? | How many exemptions were withdrawn in 2009? | [
"How many exemptions were withdrawn in 2009?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1042 | 5a848a6d7cf838001a46a8ee | Endangered_Species_Act | 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." | How many exemptions has Donald Baur ruled on? | How many exemptions has Donald Baur ruled on? | [
"How many exemptions has Donald Baur ruled on?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1043 | 572eb6c0c246551400ce4546 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | Who owns the majority of critical habitat? | Who owns the majority of critical habitat? | [
"Who owns the majority of critical habitat?"
]
| {
"text": [
"non-federal property, owned by citizens, states, local governments, tribal governments and private organizations"
],
"answer_start": [
51
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1044 | 572eb6c0c246551400ce4547 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What program gives incentives to private landowners to protect species on their land? | What program gives incentives to private landowners to protect species on their land? | [
"What program gives incentives to private landowners to protect species on their land?"
]
| {
"text": [
"Habitat Conservation Plan"
],
"answer_start": [
358
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1045 | 572eb6c0c246551400ce4548 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | Before the amendment in 1982, under what situations could a listed species be displaced? | Before the amendment in 1982, under what situations could a listed species be displaced? | [
"Before the amendment in 1982, under what situations could a listed species be displaced?"
]
| {
"text": [
"only for scientific or research purposes"
],
"answer_start": [
233
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1046 | 5a848c557cf838001a46a8fe | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What fraction of habitat for listed species is owned by citizens? | What fraction of habitat for listed species is owned by citizens? | [
"What fraction of habitat for listed species is owned by citizens?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1047 | 5a848c557cf838001a46a8ff | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | Who created the 1982 amendment? | Who created the 1982 amendment? | [
"Who created the 1982 amendment?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1048 | 5a848c557cf838001a46a900 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | When was it decided species could be taken for scientific purposes? | When was it decided species could be taken for scientific purposes? | [
"When was it decided species could be taken for scientific purposes?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1049 | 5a848c557cf838001a46a901 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What purpose does the HCP state listed species cannot be taken for? | What purpose does the HCP state listed species cannot be taken for? | [
"What purpose does the HCP state listed species cannot be taken for?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1050 | 5a848c557cf838001a46a902 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What can economic development not do under HCP? | What can economic development not do under HCP? | [
"What can economic development not do under HCP?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1051 | 572eb73cc246551400ce454c | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | An approved HCP results in what being issued for the species? | An approved HCP results in what being issued for the species? | [
"An approved HCP results in what being issued for the species?"
]
| {
"text": [
"an Incidental Take Permit (ITP)"
],
"answer_start": [
101
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1052 | 572eb73cc246551400ce454d | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | How long do ITPs last? | How long do ITPs last? | [
"How long do ITPs last?"
]
| {
"text": [
"allow incidental takes for varying amounts of time"
],
"answer_start": [
243
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1053 | 572eb73cc246551400ce454e | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | How is the public made aware of ITP applications? | How is the public made aware of ITP applications? | [
"How is the public made aware of ITP applications?"
]
| {
"text": [
"A notice of the permit application action is published in the Federal Register"
],
"answer_start": [
650
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1054 | 572eb73cc246551400ce454f | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | How long does the public have to comment on ITP applications? | How long does the public have to comment on ITP applications? | [
"How long does the public have to comment on ITP applications?"
]
| {
"text": [
"30 to 90 days"
],
"answer_start": [
760
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1055 | 5a848d097cf838001a46a912 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What is issued if an HCP is rejected? | What is issued if an HCP is rejected? | [
"What is issued if an HCP is rejected?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1056 | 5a848d097cf838001a46a913 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | How long does an HCP last for? | How long does an HCP last for? | [
"How long does an HCP last for?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1057 | 5a848d097cf838001a46a914 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What state is San Bruno in? | What state is San Bruno in? | [
"What state is San Bruno in?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1058 | 5a848d097cf838001a46a915 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What do not apply when a permit is issued? | What do not apply when a permit is issued? | [
"What do not apply when a permit is issued?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1059 | 5a848d097cf838001a46a916 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What entity publishes the HCP for public comment? | What entity publishes the HCP for public comment? | [
"What entity publishes the HCP for public comment?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1060 | 572eb7ab03f989190075698d | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What location held the first HCP? | What location held the first HCP? | [
"What location held the first HCP?"
]
| {
"text": [
"San Bruno Mountain, California"
],
"answer_start": [
90
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1061 | 572eb7ab03f989190075698e | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What percentage of the critical habitat was protected for the area that received the first HCP? | What percentage of the critical habitat was protected for the area that received the first HCP? | [
"What percentage of the critical habitat was protected for the area that received the first HCP?"
]
| {
"text": [
"87%"
],
"answer_start": [
632
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1062 | 572eb7ab03f989190075698f | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What type of animal was being protected in the area that received the first HCP? | What type of animal was being protected in the area that received the first HCP? | [
"What type of animal was being protected in the area that received the first HCP?"
]
| {
"text": [
"butterflies"
],
"answer_start": [
665
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1063 | 5a848ddc7cf838001a46a926 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | Who did the US Congress ask to create an exemption? | Who did the US Congress ask to create an exemption? | [
"Who did the US Congress ask to create an exemption?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1064 | 5a848ddc7cf838001a46a927 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | When was the last permit given out? | When was the last permit given out? | [
"When was the last permit given out?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1065 | 5a848ddc7cf838001a46a928 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What was the San Bruno plan compared to during its creation? | What was the San Bruno plan compared to during its creation? | [
"What was the San Bruno plan compared to during its creation?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1066 | 5a848ddc7cf838001a46a929 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | How many of the listed butterfly habitats were in San Bruno? | How many of the listed butterfly habitats were in San Bruno? | [
"How many of the listed butterfly habitats were in San Bruno?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1067 | 5a848ddc7cf838001a46a92a | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | Who ran the biological study for the San Bruno plan? | Who ran the biological study for the San Bruno plan? | [
"Who ran the biological study for the San Bruno plan?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1068 | 572eb844dfa6aa1500f8d311 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What 1981 court decision added to the power of HCPs and ITPs for conservation? | What 1981 court decision added to the power of HCPs and ITPs for conservation? | [
"What 1981 court decision added to the power of HCPs and ITPs for conservation?"
]
| {
"text": [
"Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources"
],
"answer_start": [
132
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1069 | 572eb844dfa6aa1500f8d312 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | Who wrote the article "Searching for Consensus and Predictability: Habitat Conservation Planning under the Endangered Species Act of 1973." | Who wrote the article "Searching for Consensus and Predictability: Habitat Conservation Planning under the Endangered Species Act of 1973." | [
"Who wrote the article \"Searching for Consensus and Predictability: Habitat Conservation Planning under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.\""
]
| {
"text": [
"Robert D.Thornton"
],
"answer_start": [
368
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1070 | 572eb844dfa6aa1500f8d313 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What did Thornton compare the scientific and legal advances to, from the viewpoint of the development community? | What did Thornton compare the scientific and legal advances to, from the viewpoint of the development community? | [
"What did Thornton compare the scientific and legal advances to, from the viewpoint of the development community?"
]
| {
"text": [
"a major headache"
],
"answer_start": [
314
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1071 | 5a848eae7cf838001a46a930 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | When did private lands start to have more recognition? | When did private lands start to have more recognition? | [
"When did private lands start to have more recognition?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1072 | 5a848eae7cf838001a46a931 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | Who ruled on the Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources? | Who ruled on the Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources? | [
"Who ruled on the Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1073 | 5a848eae7cf838001a46a932 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What did Thornton say the role of private lands was like for the development community? | What did Thornton say the role of private lands was like for the development community? | [
"What did Thornton say the role of private lands was like for the development community?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1074 | 5a848eae7cf838001a46a933 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | When was the Environmental Law magazine started? | When was the Environmental Law magazine started? | [
"When was the Environmental Law magazine started?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1075 | 5a848eae7cf838001a46a934 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What case limited ITP power? | What case limited ITP power? | [
"What case limited ITP power?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1076 | 572ebaa1c246551400ce45a6 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What is the name of the rule that protects the landowner if their conservation efforts fall short? | What is the name of the rule that protects the landowner if their conservation efforts fall short? | [
"What is the name of the rule that protects the landowner if their conservation efforts fall short?"
]
| {
"text": [
"The \"No Surprises\" rule"
],
"answer_start": [
0
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1077 | 572ebaa1c246551400ce45a7 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | Why is this particular rule so controversial? | Why is this particular rule so controversial? | [
"Why is this particular rule so controversial?"
]
| {
"text": [
"the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) loses much ability to further protect a species if the mitigation measures by the landowner prove insufficient."
],
"answer_start": [
325
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1078 | 572ebaa1c246551400ce45a8 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | If the landowner fails to adequately protect the species, what penalties do they face with the "No Surprises" rule? | If the landowner fails to adequately protect the species, what penalties do they face with the "No Surprises" rule? | [
"If the landowner fails to adequately protect the species, what penalties do they face with the \"No Surprises\" rule?"
]
| {
"text": [
"The landowner or permittee would not be required to set aside additional land or pay more in conservation money"
],
"answer_start": [
473
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1079 | 572ebaa1c246551400ce45a9 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | Who covers the cost of additional efforts if the ITP holder's efforts fall short? | Who covers the cost of additional efforts if the ITP holder's efforts fall short? | [
"Who covers the cost of additional efforts if the ITP holder's efforts fall short?"
]
| {
"text": [
"The federal government would have to pay for additional protection measures"
],
"answer_start": [
586
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1080 | 5a848fe67cf838001a46a944 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | Why is the ITP controversial? | Why is the ITP controversial? | [
"Why is the ITP controversial?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1081 | 5a848fe67cf838001a46a945 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What policy protects the species from unforeseen circumstances? | What policy protects the species from unforeseen circumstances? | [
"What policy protects the species from unforeseen circumstances?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1082 | 5a848fe67cf838001a46a946 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What is granted after the No Surprises rule comes into play? | What is granted after the No Surprises rule comes into play? | [
"What is granted after the No Surprises rule comes into play?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1083 | 5a848fe67cf838001a46a947 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What is the federal government is not required to pay for? | What is the federal government is not required to pay for? | [
"What is the federal government is not required to pay for?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1084 | 5a848fe67cf838001a46a948 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What does the No Surprises rule requires landowners to put aside? | What does the No Surprises rule requires landowners to put aside? | [
"What does the No Surprises rule requires landowners to put aside?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1085 | 572ec434c246551400ce463a | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What two groups are bound by a "Safe Harbor" agreement? | What two groups are bound by a "Safe Harbor" agreement? | [
"What two groups are bound by a \"Safe Harbor\" agreement?"
]
| {
"text": [
"the private landowner and FWS"
],
"answer_start": [
61
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1086 | 572ec434c246551400ce463b | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | In exchange for altering the property to a more beneficial state, what does the landowner gain from the Safe Harbor agreement? | In exchange for altering the property to a more beneficial state, what does the landowner gain from the Safe Harbor agreement? | [
"In exchange for altering the property to a more beneficial state, what does the landowner gain from the Safe Harbor agreement?"
]
| {
"text": [
"assurances that the FWS will permit future \"takes\" above a pre-determined level"
],
"answer_start": [
207
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1087 | 572ec434c246551400ce463c | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | Which presidential administration developed Safe Harbor policy? | Which presidential administration developed Safe Harbor policy? | [
"Which presidential administration developed Safe Harbor policy?"
]
| {
"text": [
"the Clinton Administration"
],
"answer_start": [
497
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1088 | 572ec434c246551400ce463d | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | Are Safe Harbor agreements and ITPs mutually exclusive? | Are Safe Harbor agreements and ITPs mutually exclusive? | [
"Are Safe Harbor agreements and ITPs mutually exclusive?"
]
| {
"text": [
"A landowner can have either a \"Safe Harbor\" agreement or an Incidental Take Permit, or both."
],
"answer_start": [
376
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1089 | 5a8490bd7cf838001a46a958 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What provision is the ITP under? | What provision is the ITP under? | [
"What provision is the ITP under?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1090 | 5a8490bd7cf838001a46a959 | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | When did FWS create the Safe Harbor agreement? | When did FWS create the Safe Harbor agreement? | [
"When did FWS create the Safe Harbor agreement?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1091 | 5a8490bd7cf838001a46a95a | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What form of agreement can a landowner no longer have if they acquire an ITP? | What form of agreement can a landowner no longer have if they acquire an ITP? | [
"What form of agreement can a landowner no longer have if they acquire an ITP?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1092 | 5a8490bd7cf838001a46a95b | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What provision relies on the Safe Harbor agreement? | What provision relies on the Safe Harbor agreement? | [
"What provision relies on the Safe Harbor agreement?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1093 | 5a8490bd7cf838001a46a95c | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What administration developed Section §1539(a)(1)(A)? | What administration developed Section §1539(a)(1)(A)? | [
"What administration developed Section §1539(a)(1)(A)?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1094 | 572ec4a3dfa6aa1500f8d36d | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | How do Candidate Conservation Agreements differ from Safe Harbor agreements? | How do Candidate Conservation Agreements differ from Safe Harbor agreements? | [
"How do Candidate Conservation Agreements differ from Safe Harbor agreements?"
]
| {
"text": [
"Candidate Conservation Agreements With Assurances(CCA) are meant to protect unlisted species"
],
"answer_start": [
120
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1095 | 572ec4a3dfa6aa1500f8d36e | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | How does a CCA help protect a private landowner? | How does a CCA help protect a private landowner? | [
"How does a CCA help protect a private landowner?"
]
| {
"text": [
"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."
],
"answer_start": [
492
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1096 | 572ec4a3dfa6aa1500f8d36f | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | How does a CCA impact unlisted species? | How does a CCA impact unlisted species? | [
"How does a CCA impact unlisted species?"
]
| {
"text": [
"enhance or maintain habitat of unlisted species which are declining and have the potential to become threatened or endangered"
],
"answer_start": [
298
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1097 | 5a8493837cf838001a46a96c | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What agreement is the Safe Harbor Agreement primarily different from? | What agreement is the Safe Harbor Agreement primarily different from? | [
"What agreement is the Safe Harbor Agreement primarily different from?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1098 | 5a8493837cf838001a46a96d | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | How does the Safe Harbor agreement protect unlisted species? | How does the Safe Harbor agreement protect unlisted species? | [
"How does the Safe Harbor agreement protect unlisted species?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-1099 | 5a8493837cf838001a46a96e | Endangered_Species_Act | 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. | What organization can make a landowner do activities beyond those agreed on in the CCA? | What organization can make a landowner do activities beyond those agreed on in the CCA? | [
"What organization can make a landowner do activities beyond those agreed on in the CCA?"
]
| {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.