Page 1

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION ISSUED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL RISK AND IMPACT GENERAL DIRECTION (DGIRA) REGARDING THE PROJECT “CABO DORADO” The decision which ended the Environmental Impact Assessment Process (PEIA) of the Project “Cabo Dorado” can be found in official letter No. SGPA/DGIRA/DG/04776, dated on the 29 days of May, 2014 in Mexico City. In such official letter, the DGIRA, after carrying out an Environmental Impact Manifestation (MIA) Analysis of the aforementioned project and taking into account the technical opinion of different educational and governmental institutions, decided the following: According to what is set in Article 35, Section III, paragraph a) of the General Ecological and Environmental Protection Law (LGEEP), is hereby DENIED the authorization regarding the Environmental Impact (AIA) of the project “Cabo Dorado” filled by the Company La Rivera Desarrollos BCS, S. de R.L. de C.V., which was intended to be located southwards of the town “La Ribiera”, in an area known as el Rincon, in the municipality of Los Cabos, Baja California Sur, as it does not comply with what is set in Article 13, Sections II-VII of the General Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection Law (REIA), as well as with that what is established in paragraph I of article 30 of the LGEEPA. Hereby is a summary of the observations and comments issued by the DGIRA regarding the sections in the aforementioned official letter:

1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Page 22 of the decision) • Sections that conforms the project’s state (pages 23 and 24 of the decision) La Rivera Desarrollos, in its MIA, shows that the Project has 3 sections that conform the project’s estate and which include 5 development phases. On that regard and notwithstanding that the petitioner details 3 sections, there are several sub-sections that refer to 2 more sections (Section IV and V) for which no evidence is provided as there is no detail on the works and activities to be developed in said section and how will they be integrated in the project. For this specific situation, it is not deemed as irrelevant that the petitioner has 2 more sections to the ones referred to in the MIA, as the petitioner itself links such sections to identification parameters and to hydrological components of the project. As the petitioner does not disclose any information regarding the aforementioned Sections, it is not possible to carry out a comprehensive analysis for the MIA. •

Building Works Chronogram (pages 25 and 26 of the decision)

As the ecosystems are constituted by dynamic elements and any actions to be carried out in such ecosystems there must be a time frame which allows the identification of any possible alteration in the elements that conform the ecosystem. The DGIRA took into consideration the way the company states and conceives the project as it only included the area aspects and excluded the temporary matters (chronological sequence for building the works); therefore, the company underestimated the fact that ecosystems can be modified by external factors during the building works which are projected to last 20 years. •

Preparation, construction, operation and maintenance of the area (page 30 of the decision)

The Project description does not provide technical elements with a basic detail level so as to determine if the impacts mentioned in the MIA are consistent to the characteristics of the building

Profile for Sociedad de Historia Natural Niparajá AC

Summary on the decision issued by the DGIRA  

Summary of the decision issued by the General Direction of Environmental Risk and Impact regarding the project Cabo Dorado

Summary on the decision issued by the DGIRA  

Summary of the decision issued by the General Direction of Environmental Risk and Impact regarding the project Cabo Dorado

Advertisement

Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded