Comment on FR Doc # 2011-24519

The Florida Department of Transportation, specifically District 3 located in the Panhandle of Florida, would be impacted by the designation of critical habitat and endangered species listing of the eight mussels. The FDOT is required to conduct bridge ratings of all bridges, including those on federal, city or county properties. State and federal funded bridge replacement programs are available to assist counties/cities with the replacement of their bridges. Adding a designation of critical habitat and endangered species to the Panhandle will increase costs and time for replacement due to: the need to conduct mussel survey, the need to have formal Section 7 consultant with FWS, the need to hire specialized consultants to conduct the survey and perform the formal consultation, and the mandated time requirements of a formal Section 7 consultation. Florida has an additional level of environmental protection not offered in Alabama - the Environmental Resource Program. The ERP is overseen by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Florida has state laws and statutes applicable to all bridge repairs and replacements. The ERP program specifically addresses hightened water quality requirements and Best Management Practices to improve the area impacted by a particular activity. I believe Florida should be excluded from the requirements of critical habitat designation due to the presense of already applicable state statutes and water quality program of ERP. ERP applies to all activities, on state, county, city, or federal properties. Designating the eight mussels as endangered is not a hardship on the cities, counties, and state; but the additional requirements that designation entails. Due to the significant number of bridges needing replacement, and a limited amount of funds to go around, time becomes a critical component. Increasing the costs and time for bridge replacement, will have an economic burden and a safety concern for the public.