Navy Secretary Torpedoes Plan to Add Bay Entry : South Bay: In a letter to Congress not widely disseminated, the Navy concludes that the proposed outlet through the Silver Strand would harm more than help it.

The effort to build a second entrance into San Diego Bay has hit another obstacle, the Navy telling Congress that the “marginal” benefits of a Silver Strand cut-through “are outweighed by potentially adverse effects” on Navy operations.

The Navy’s conclusions are contained in a letter from Navy Secretary H. Lawrence Garrett III to Rep. Bill Hefner (D-N.C.), who heads the House subcommittee on military construction.

Although Garrett’s letter is dated Oct. 27, it has not received wide dissemination, and only recently have opponents of the project become aware of it.

A spokesman for the San Diego Unified Port District, which is evaluating the feasibility of a second harbor entrance, said Monday that the agency was not aware of the Navy’s findings.

At the request of Rep. Bill Lowery (R-San Diego), the Navy was required to “identify and evaluate benefits of a second harbor entrance” as part of the 1989 military construction appropriations bill.

The results of the Navy’s analysis, according to Garrett’s letter, are that, although a Silver Strand entrance would be of some help, the cut-through would probably lead to more headaches. “No manpower or security benefits could be identified,” Garrett said in summarizing the Navy’s analysis.

Among the benefits the Navy found are that a second harbor entrance “would increase operational efficiency for small craft during emergency dispersal from San Diego Bay,” and that congestion at the Point Loma entrance to the bay would be reduced, decreasing the possibility of collisions.

Also, a second entrance would reduce the time it takes small naval vessels to travel to training areas off Silver Strand, but the Navy placed savings as only “one hour per operation.” And, based on an estimated 1,340 small craft operations a year in the Silver Strand area, the Navy said the shorter transit time would save about 35,622 gallons of fuel, a savings it put at about $23,000.

But, according to the Navy secretary, “benefits to the Navy are outweighed by potentially adverse effects.” The Navy’s concerns are that an entrance in the South Bay would lead to more pleasure-boat traffic, “which may interfere with ship movements” in the area.

Also, the Navy is worried about a second harbor entrance interfering with its shipment of “flammable and explosive materials” to North Island Naval Air Station and the Naval Amphibious Base, both in Coronado.

The only highway access to the two bases is from either the Coronado Bridge or up the spine of the Silver Strand on California 75. But, because the transport of flammable and explosive materials is restricted on the bridge, the Navy relies on the state highway for these materials.

“The Navy is concerned that the same kind of restrictions would be placed on the channel crossing for the new harbor entrance,” according to Garrett. “We would then have to barge these materials, and the result would be decreased operational efficiency and significantly higher transportation costs.”

Lastly, the Navy says a second harbor entrance “may also present a serious encroachment problem to the Naval Radio Receiving Facility at Imperial Beach.” Specifically, the Navy is concerned with the “electromagnetic/radio frequency interferences” that could be generated by the new bay entrance.

“This facility is essential to our national defense posture,” said Garrett in his letter. “Any development which has the potential for degradation of this facility’s mission effectiveness would be unacceptable to the Navy.”

“After an examination of the issues associated with this proposal,” the Navy secretary said, “we have concluded that a second harbor entrance would be of some marginal benefits to the Navy, and adverse effects outweigh those benefits.”

Reaction to the the Navy’s report was varied.

Don Wood, president of C-3, a volunteer urban-planning and environmental group in San Diego, on Monday characterized the Navy’s conclusions as “another nail in a coffin that’s already closed.”

“This is another good reason why the Port Commission shouldn’t be wasting money” on the proposal, Wood said.

Many local environmentalists have criticized the lastest push for a second harbor entrance, saying a Silver Strand channel would lead to an environmental disaster in San Diego Bay.

But proponents of the cut-through said they weren’t surprised by the Navy’s report. James E. Fink, chairman of the Second Harbor Entrance Project (SHEP), a private group that two years ago revived the issue and has been its leading advocate, said Monday that, contrary to the Navy secretary’s letter, the Navy really wants the second entrance built.

“They would love to see it but they don’t want to pay for it,” Fink said. “And I don’t blame them. If they say it’s a good thing for the Navy” they might be placed in a position of having to push for its construction.

Fink, who said he’s been aware of the letter from the Navy for several weeks, said he believes this to be true based on private conversations he has with Navy officers stationed at the amphibious base. “They want it as much as we do,” Fink claimed.

The possibility of creating a second bay entrance has been discussed for more than 70 years and was the focus of a critical Army Corps of Engineers study in 1983.

Early last year, the Port District tentatively approved allocating $600,000 to SHEP to begin initial environmental studies as well as to work with the nearly 2 dozen government agencies with interests in or authority over the proposed cut-through.

But last May, SHEP told the Port District to keep the money and instead asked the agency to take over the workload, which the Port District did.

Port District Director Don Nay emphasized at the time that agencies such as the State Lands Commission and the Army Corps of Engineers “have absolute veto power” over the project.

In taking over from SHEP, the Port District said it in no way was committed to the project beyond making initial inquiries into its feasibility.