Draft EA - San Diego International Airport

SAN DIEGO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT – PROPOSED RUNWAY 9 DISPLACED THRESHOLD
number of annual operations than is now predicted to occur by 2014. However, because the Proposed Action
has no effect on the number or type of aircraft operations at SDIA, nor will it change arrival or departure
routes to the Airport, the NEM contours presented in Figure 4-1 provide a reasonable representation of the
noise contours anticipated to be generated by aviation activity at SDIA in the general timeframe of the
Proposed Action.
4.1.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The No Action alternative would not affect (increase or decrease) the number of aircraft operations at SDIA or
the routing of aircraft in the air to and from the Airport, when compared to the Proposed Action for the same
timeframes. Under the No Action alternative, existing noise levels from aircraft operations would generally
continue, with some change due to the natural growth in aviation activity forecast to occur at the Airport with
or without the Proposed Action.
4.1.3 PROPOSED ACTION
The Proposed Action would result in a minor shifting of a portion of the CNEL 65 dB noise contour (see
Figure 4-1). Relocation of the displaced threshold on Runway 9 by 300 feet and reduction of the glide slope
would result in up to an 8-foot shift of the CNEL 65 dB noise contour to the east, but this shift only affects the
western extent of the contour (no change would result for most of the noise contour). Because the prevailing
winds at the Airport are from the west, Runway 9 is only utilized for arrivals and departures approximately 5
percent of the year (see Table 4-1). The Proposed Action would not increase or decrease aircraft operations
as compared to the No Action alternative for the same timeframes.
A comparison of the noise contours indicates that the 2014 Proposed Action noise contour would be 0.2 acre
less in size when compared to the 2014 No Action alternative noise contour. As shown in Figure 4-1, the shift
in contour is minor and would result in a minimal decrease in noise exposure. Based on the results of the
noise analysis, there would be no change in population or number of households or other sensitive land uses
exposed to noise levels of CNEL 65 dB or higher when compared to the No Action alternative. Thus, while the
Proposed Action would result in a slight reduction in areas exposed to CNEL 65 dB or higher, no significant
noise impact due to implementation of the Proposed Action would occur.
Table 4-1
Runway Utilization
RUNWAY USE
RUNWAY
Arrivals
Departures
Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Runway 09 1.36% 1.24% 4.73% .94% 1.13% 0.86%
Runway 27 98.64% 98.76% 95.27% 99.06% 98.87% 99.14%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: ANOMS, HMMH
Prepared By: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., March 2013.
Draft EA
Environmental Consequences
[4-3]