A mixed group of Shoshone County public officials and landowners, along with representatives from the Spokane-based David Evans and Associates Inc. engineering firm, gathered Wednesday to discuss and evaluate four proposals for the replacement of the decaying Enaville bridge.

According to Greg Holder, David Evans and Associates principal transportation engineer and Enaville bridge project manager, the meeting at the Shoshone Medical Center Heath and Education Center in Smelterville was called by the firm to solicit feedback from local "stakeholders" - the people whose lives will be most affected by the bridge's construction and final design.

"By the end of the night we had a fairly good mix of residents and local officials. We got some good input today," Holder said. "We plan to collect the comments and incorporate them into the final decision."

Since the 2007 collapse of the Interstate 35 bridge in Minnesota, the nation's crumbling infrastructure has been a hot topic, and federal officials are scrambling to define the full scope of the problem.

To prevent another tragedy, state and federal agencies have rated the structural integrity of each bridge in the United States on a scale of one to 100, with one being assigned to the most decrepit structures.

Of the 46 bridges in Shoshone County, the Enaville bridge on Coeur d'Alene River Road - which spans the river between Interstate 90 and the Snake Pit - was identified as the county's top priority last summer. It received a rating of seven.

Holder said bridges are prioritized by the condition of the structure and the amount of traffic they receive.

"If we were to lose that bridge, the only other route (to the communities north of the bridge) would be to go over Dobson Pass," said Shoshone County Commissioner Larry Yergler. "It's pretty important to the county."

Holder ballparked project costs between $3 million and $3.5 million. Shoshone County will be responsible for 7.34 percent of the sum, while the federal government will pick up the rest of the tab.

Holder said each of the four designs presented at the meeting had pros and cons. Alternatives one, two and four entail a crowned surface, with the high point in the center of the road and both sides gently sloping to the edge, to facilitate water runoff. The third proposal is a constant grade (one slope).

Option No. 1 is a 1,800-foot design that would move the bridge directly to the east of its current position and reduce the sharpness of the curve. The project would not impact the Trail of the Coeur d'Alenes trailhead, which is situated on the north end of the bridge.

The second alternative would move the bridge west of its current position, tightening nearby curves and hitting the trailhead. The third design, like the first, would move the bridge to the east, but is shorter in length at 1,616 feet.

Alternative four is projected to be the most time-consuming, requiring 14 months of work.