Indeed, but requiring a 50% loss before compensation kicks in is not.
Anything in the bill on economic factors trumping ESA land set asides for endangered critters?
That's already in NEPA. The agencies and the courts ignore it.
As I read it, it provides no compensation if the private landowner is precluded from using his property because the use, though otherwise lawfull, would "take" a species - harass harm, trap, injure or impair an essential life function such as breeding by modifying habitat.
It only pays under recovery plans - which are supposed to be voluntary anyway.