I have been following this for awhile without commenting. Since it's unlikely I'll ever get out there, it's more of an abstract question for me. While many here make an excellent case for replacing the bridge and I probably lean that way, the Wilderness "purity" argument has merit as well. I wonder if the FS has given any consideration to an "abandon in place" option? In other words, neither repair, replace nor remove the bridge but just leave it as is to gradually deteriorate into a Wilderness artifact. This might have less environmental impact in the long run than either the replace or remove options. They could officially say the bridge is closed but when you get out there, if you want use whatever's left of it to try and cross, it's up to you. I suspect their lawyers won't let them go this route.
