1. Drakes Estero Point Reyes National Seashore

4. History of DBOC permit violations In February 2012, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it has been consistently out of compliance with permit conditions established to protect harbor seals and other marine resources, including through repeated motorboat incursions into off‐limits areas, since those conditions were established 4 years ago. The Commission wrote that “complete and consistent adherence” to these conditions “is crucially important as they were not designed to provide a level of protection that would be considered adequate with only partial compliance.” The Commission noted that it may have no choice but to seek penalties and/or file a lawsuit to ensure compliance. In September 2011, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC to “aggressively and comprehensively” address significant amounts of plastic and other marine debris from DBOC operations that pose “a hazard to the marine environment and natural resources of Drakes Estero” and address “adverse impacts from the boats and DBOC personnel on the sensitive harbor seals and their habitat during the breeding and pupping season.” In November 2010, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers advised the Park Service that the DBOC aquaculture activities require a Corps permit but that the Corps does not have either a current permit application or permit on file. In December 2009, the California Coastal Commission fined DBOC $61,250 for numerous ongoing violations of five separate provisions of a Cease and Desist and Consent Order that was issued to DBOC in 2007 and advised DBOC that the fines will continue to accrue until DBOC comes into compliance. Violations included operating in areas of Drakes Estero that are off limits during the crucial harbor seal pupping and rearing season. In September 2009, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC of numerous ongoing violations of a Cease and Desist and Consent Order issued to DBOC in 2007, including provisions developed to protect the Estero from invasive species, to impose appropriate restrictions on new construction, and to protect water quality. In February 2009, DBOC began harvesting Manila clams without a Park Service permit and 10 months prior to review and approval by the California Fish and Game Commission. DBOC declined to provide information on cultivation to assist the Park Service in evaluating this expansion of species cultivation. Manila clam cultivation has never been approved by the Park Service. In December 2007, the California Coastal Commission issued a Consent Cease and Desist Order to DBOC regarding unpermitted activities carried out in connection with DBOC oyster operations in Drakes Estero. In the related staff report, the Coastal Commission noted that DBOC was not in compliance with the provisions of the cease and desist order requirements assumed by DBOC when it purchased the oyster operation (the “Johnson Cease and Desist Order”) and that DBOC had engaged in new development and unauthorized uses without the required permits (e.g., refrigerated storage units installed, second leach field constructed, parking area paved, boat transit outside established channels). In October 2007, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it intended to commence Cease and Desist Order Proceedings due to DBOC’s continued unpermitted offshore and onshore operations and facilities. In June 2007, the California Coastal Commissions again advised DBOC that it was not in compliance with the Johnson Cease and Desist Order and that DBOC also may require a coastal development permit, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit, and Park Service permits. In March 2006, the California Coastal Commission again advised DBOC that it was not in compliance with the Johnson Cease and Desist Order, that it was in violation of the Coastal Act, and that it must obtain a coastal development permit for additional new and unpermitted development. In May 2005, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it was not in compliance with the Johnson Cease and Desist Order and that it must obtain a coastal development permit. In December 2004, DBOC purchased the remaining seven years of the Johnson Oyster Company mariculture lease, knowing that it would expire in 2012, and assumed responsibility for complying with the Johnson Cease and Desist Order.

5. History of DBOC permit violations In February 2012, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it has been consistently out of compliance with permit conditions established to protect harbor seals and other marine resources, including through repeated motorboat incursions into off‐limits areas, since those conditions were established 4 years ago. The Commission wrote that “complete and consistent adherence” to these conditions “is crucially important as they were not designed to provide a level of protection that would be considered adequate with only partial compliance.” The Commission noted that it may have no choice but to seek penalties and/or file a lawsuit to ensure compliance.

6. Quote from 2/2012 CCC Letter In February 2012, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it has been consistently out of compliance with permit conditions established to protect harbor seals and other marine resources, including through repeated motorboat incursions into off‐limits areas, since those conditions were established 4 years ago. The Commission wrote that “complete and consistent adherence” to these conditions “is crucially important as they were not designed to provide a level of protection that would be considered adequate with only partial compliance.” The Commission noted that it may have no choice but to seek penalties and/or file a lawsuit to ensure compliance. “Thus, as demonstrated by numerous photographs reviewed by Commission staff and corroborated by your admission… DBOC has been consistently acting in a manner inconsistent with a) the 1992 protocol that was in place prior to 2008; and b) the 2008 SUP that has been in place since April 22, 2008.”

7. Quote from 2/2012 CCC Letter In February 2012, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it has been consistently out of compliance with permit conditions established to protect harbor seals and other marine resources, including through repeated motorboat incursions into off‐limits areas, since those conditions were established 4 years ago. The Commission wrote that “complete and consistent adherence” to these conditions “is crucially important as they were not designed to provide a level of protection that would be considered adequate with only partial compliance.” The Commission noted that it may have no choice but to seek penalties and/or file a lawsuit to ensure compliance. “As a result, DBOC has been in violation of the Order since April 22, 2008.” “…this has apparently been a standard practice of DBOC…”

8. Quote from 2/2012 CCC Letter In February 2012, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it has been consistently out of compliance with permit conditions established to protect harbor seals and other marine resources, including through repeated motorboat incursions into off‐limits areas, since those conditions were established 4 years ago. The Commission wrote that “complete and consistent adherence” to these conditions “is crucially important as they were not designed to provide a level of protection that would be considered adequate with only partial compliance.” The Commission noted that it may have no choice but to seek penalties and/or file a lawsuit to ensure compliance. “we may have little choice but to seek such remedies as assessment of stipulated penalties and/or filing a lawsuit, pursuant to Chapter 9 of the Coastal Act, to resolve the alleged violations and ensure compliance with the Order and Coastal Act.”

9. History of DBOC permit violations In February 2012, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it has been consistently out of compliance with permit conditions established to protect harbor seals and other marine resources, including through repeated motorboat incursions into off‐limits areas, since those conditions were established 4 years ago. The Commission wrote that “complete and consistent adherence” to these conditions “is crucially important as they were not designed to provide a level of protection that would be considered adequate with only partial compliance.” The Commission noted that it may have no choice but to seek penalties and/or file a lawsuit to ensure compliance. In September 2011, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC to “aggressively and comprehensively” address significant amounts of plastic and other marine debris from DBOC operations that pose “a hazard to the marine environment and natural resources of Drakes Estero” and address “adverse impacts from the boats and DBOC personnel on the sensitive harbor seals and their habitat during the breeding and pupping season.”

10. Quote from 9/11 CCC Letter In February 2012, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it has been consistently out of compliance with permit conditions established to protect harbor seals and other marine resources, including through repeated motorboat incursions into off‐limits areas, since those conditions were established 4 years ago. The Commission wrote that “complete and consistent adherence” to these conditions “is crucially important as they were not designed to provide a level of protection that would be considered adequate with only partial compliance.” The Commission noted that it may have no choice but to seek penalties and/or file a lawsuit to ensure compliance. In September 2011, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC to “aggressively and comprehensively” address significant amounts of plastic and other marine debris from DBOC operations that pose “a hazard to the marine environment and natural resources of Drakes Estero” and address “adverse impacts from the boats and DBOC personnel on the sensitive harbor seals and their habitat during the breeding and pupping season.” “We are concerned about adverse impacts from the boats and DBOC personnel on the sensitive harbor seals during the breeding and pupping season.”

11. History of DBOC permit violations In February 2012, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it has been consistently out of compliance with permit conditions established to protect harbor seals and other marine resources, including through repeated motorboat incursions into off‐limits areas, since those conditions were established 4 years ago. The Commission wrote that “complete and consistent adherence” to these conditions “is crucially important as they were not designed to provide a level of protection that would be considered adequate with only partial compliance.” The Commission noted that it may have no choice but to seek penalties and/or file a lawsuit to ensure compliance. In September 2011, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC to “aggressively and comprehensively” address significant amounts of plastic and other marine debris from DBOC operations that pose “a hazard to the marine environment and natural resources of Drakes Estero” and address “adverse impacts from the boats and DBOC personnel on the sensitive harbor seals and their habitat during the breeding and pupping season.” In November 2010, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers advised the Park Service that the DBOC aquaculture activities require a Corps permit but that the Corps does not have either a current permit application or permit on file.

12. History of DBOC permit violations In February 2012, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it has been consistently out of compliance with permit conditions established to protect harbor seals and other marine resources, including through repeated motorboat incursions into off‐limits areas, since those conditions were established 4 years ago. The Commission wrote that “complete and consistent adherence” to these conditions “is crucially important as they were not designed to provide a level of protection that would be considered adequate with only partial compliance.” The Commission noted that it may have no choice but to seek penalties and/or file a lawsuit to ensure compliance. In September 2011, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC to “aggressively and comprehensively” address significant amounts of plastic and other marine debris from DBOC operations that pose “a hazard to the marine environment and natural resources of Drakes Estero” and address “adverse impacts from the boats and DBOC personnel on the sensitive harbor seals and their habitat during the breeding and pupping season.” In November 2010, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers advised the Park Service that the DBOC aquaculture activities require a Corps permit but that the Corps does not have either a current permit application or permit on file. In December 2009, the California Coastal Commission fined DBOC $61,250 for numerous ongoing violations of five separate provisions of a Cease and Desist and Consent Order that was issued to DBOC in 2007 and advised DBOC that the fines will continue to accrue until DBOC comes into compliance. Violations included operating in areas of Drakes Estero that are off limits during the crucial harbor seal pupping and rearing season.

13. Quote from 12/09 CCC Letter In February 2012, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it has been consistently out of compliance with permit conditions established to protect harbor seals and other marine resources, including through repeated motorboat incursions into off‐limits areas, since those conditions were established 4 years ago. The Commission wrote that “complete and consistent adherence” to these conditions “is crucially important as they were not designed to provide a level of protection that would be considered adequate with only partial compliance.” The Commission noted that it may have no choice but to seek penalties and/or file a lawsuit to ensure compliance. In September 2011, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC to “aggressively and comprehensively” address significant amounts of plastic and other marine debris from DBOC operations that pose “a hazard to the marine environment and natural resources of Drakes Estero” and address “adverse impacts from the boats and DBOC personnel on the sensitive harbor seals and their habitat during the breeding and pupping season.” In November 2010, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers advised the Park Service that the DBOC aquaculture activities require a Corps permit but that the Corps does not have either a current permit application or permit on file. In December 2009, the California Coastal Commission fined DBOC $61,250 for numerous ongoing violations of five separate provisions of a Cease and Desist and Consent Order that was issued to DBOC in 2007 and advised DBOC that the fines will continue to accrue until DBOC comes into compliance. Violations included operating in areas of Drakes Estero that are off limits during the crucial harbor seal pupping and rearing season. “We are particularly concerned about this violation, as by signing the Consent Order, you agreed to the specific requirements of the Consent Order that established the harbor seal protection areas, and you were well aware of the location of these harbor seal protection areas, which were clearly designated on maps that were included with the Consent Order.”

14. Quote from 12/09 CCC Letter In February 2012, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it has been consistently out of compliance with permit conditions established to protect harbor seals and other marine resources, including through repeated motorboat incursions into off‐limits areas, since those conditions were established 4 years ago. The Commission wrote that “complete and consistent adherence” to these conditions “is crucially important as they were not designed to provide a level of protection that would be considered adequate with only partial compliance.” The Commission noted that it may have no choice but to seek penalties and/or file a lawsuit to ensure compliance. In September 2011, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC to “aggressively and comprehensively” address significant amounts of plastic and other marine debris from DBOC operations that pose “a hazard to the marine environment and natural resources of Drakes Estero” and address “adverse impacts from the boats and DBOC personnel on the sensitive harbor seals and their habitat during the breeding and pupping season.” In November 2010, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers advised the Park Service that the DBOC aquaculture activities require a Corps permit but that the Corps does not have either a current permit application or permit on file. In December 2009, the California Coastal Commission fined DBOC $61,250 for numerous ongoing violations of five separate provisions of a Cease and Desist and Consent Order that was issued to DBOC in 2007 and advised DBOC that the fines will continue to accrue until DBOC comes into compliance. Violations included operating in areas of Drakes Estero that are off limits during the crucial harbor seal pupping and rearing season. “It is very disturbing that boats, personnel, structures, and materials for the cultivation of the Manila clams were brought into a harbor seal protection area that was established specifically to protect the sensitive resources within it, and it calls into question your ability and commitment to carry out the resource protection requirements of the Consent Order.”

15. History of DBOC permit violations In February 2012, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it has been consistently out of compliance with permit conditions established to protect harbor seals and other marine resources, including through repeated motorboat incursions into off‐limits areas, since those conditions were established 4 years ago. The Commission wrote that “complete and consistent adherence” to these conditions “is crucially important as they were not designed to provide a level of protection that would be considered adequate with only partial compliance.” The Commission noted that it may have no choice but to seek penalties and/or file a lawsuit to ensure compliance. In September 2011, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC to “aggressively and comprehensively” address significant amounts of plastic and other marine debris from DBOC operations that pose “a hazard to the marine environment and natural resources of Drakes Estero” and address “adverse impacts from the boats and DBOC personnel on the sensitive harbor seals and their habitat during the breeding and pupping season.” In November 2010, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers advised the Park Service that the DBOC aquaculture activities require a Corps permit but that the Corps does not have either a current permit application or permit on file. In December 2009, the California Coastal Commission fined DBOC $61,250 for numerous ongoing violations of five separate provisions of a Cease and Desist and Consent Order that was issued to DBOC in 2007 and advised DBOC that the fines will continue to accrue until DBOC comes into compliance. Violations included operating in areas of Drakes Estero that are off limits during the crucial harbor seal pupping and rearing season. In September 2009, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC of numerous ongoing violations of a Cease and Desist and Consent Order issued to DBOC in 2007, including provisions developed to protect the Estero from invasive species, to impose appropriate restrictions on new construction, and to protect water quality.

16. History of DBOC permit violations In February 2012, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it has been consistently out of compliance with permit conditions established to protect harbor seals and other marine resources, including through repeated motorboat incursions into off‐limits areas, since those conditions were established 4 years ago. The Commission wrote that “complete and consistent adherence” to these conditions “is crucially important as they were not designed to provide a level of protection that would be considered adequate with only partial compliance.” The Commission noted that it may have no choice but to seek penalties and/or file a lawsuit to ensure compliance. In September 2011, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC to “aggressively and comprehensively” address significant amounts of plastic and other marine debris from DBOC operations that pose “a hazard to the marine environment and natural resources of Drakes Estero” and address “adverse impacts from the boats and DBOC personnel on the sensitive harbor seals and their habitat during the breeding and pupping season.” In November 2010, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers advised the Park Service that the DBOC aquaculture activities require a Corps permit but that the Corps does not have either a current permit application or permit on file. In December 2009, the California Coastal Commission fined DBOC $61,250 for numerous ongoing violations of five separate provisions of a Cease and Desist and Consent Order that was issued to DBOC in 2007 and advised DBOC that the fines will continue to accrue until DBOC comes into compliance. Violations included operating in areas of Drakes Estero that are off limits during the crucial harbor seal pupping and rearing season. In September 2009, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC of numerous ongoing violations of a Cease and Desist and Consent Order issued to DBOC in 2007, including provisions developed to protect the Estero from invasive species, to impose appropriate restrictions on new construction, and to protect water quality. In February 2009, DBOC began harvesting Manila clams without a Park Service permit and 10 months prior to review and approval by the California Fish and Game Commission. DBOC declined to provide information on cultivation to assist the Park Service in evaluating this expansion of species cultivation. Manila clam cultivation has never been approved by the Park Service.

17. History of DBOC permit violations In February 2012, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it has been consistently out of compliance with permit conditions established to protect harbor seals and other marine resources, including through repeated motorboat incursions into off‐limits areas, since those conditions were established 4 years ago. The Commission wrote that “complete and consistent adherence” to these conditions “is crucially important as they were not designed to provide a level of protection that would be considered adequate with only partial compliance.” The Commission noted that it may have no choice but to seek penalties and/or file a lawsuit to ensure compliance. In September 2011, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC to “aggressively and comprehensively” address significant amounts of plastic and other marine debris from DBOC operations that pose “a hazard to the marine environment and natural resources of Drakes Estero” and address “adverse impacts from the boats and DBOC personnel on the sensitive harbor seals and their habitat during the breeding and pupping season.” In November 2010, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers advised the Park Service that the DBOC aquaculture activities require a Corps permit but that the Corps does not have either a current permit application or permit on file. In December 2009, the California Coastal Commission fined DBOC $61,250 for numerous ongoing violations of five separate provisions of a Cease and Desist and Consent Order that was issued to DBOC in 2007 and advised DBOC that the fines will continue to accrue until DBOC comes into compliance. Violations included operating in areas of Drakes Estero that are off limits during the crucial harbor seal pupping and rearing season. In September 2009, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC of numerous ongoing violations of a Cease and Desist and Consent Order issued to DBOC in 2007, including provisions developed to protect the Estero from invasive species, to impose appropriate restrictions on new construction, and to protect water quality. In February 2009, DBOC began harvesting Manila clams without a Park Service permit and 10 months prior to review and approval by the California Fish and Game Commission. DBOC declined to provide information on cultivation to assist the Park Service in evaluating this expansion of species cultivation. Manila clam cultivation has never been approved by the Park Service. In December 2007, the California Coastal Commission issued a Consent Cease and Desist Order to DBOC regarding unpermitted activities carried out in connection with DBOC oyster operations in Drakes Estero. In the related staff report, the Coastal Commission noted that DBOC was not in compliance with the provisions of the cease and desist order requirements assumed by DBOC when it purchased the oyster operation (the “Johnson Cease and Desist Order”) and that DBOC had engaged in new development and unauthorized uses without the required permits (e.g., refrigerated storage units installed, second leach field constructed, parking area paved, boat transit outside established channels). In October 2007, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it intended to commence Cease and Desist Order Proceedings due to DBOC’s continued unpermitted offshore and onshore operations and facilities. In June 2007, the California Coastal Commissions again advised DBOC that it was not in compliance with the Johnson Cease and Desist Order and that DBOC also may require a coastal development permit, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit, and Park Service permits. In March 2006, the California Coastal Commission again advised DBOC that it was not in compliance with the Johnson Cease and Desist Order, that it was in violation of the Coastal Act, and that it must obtain a coastal development permit for additional new and unpermitted development. In May 2005, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it was not in compliance with the Johnson Cease and Desist Order and that it must obtain a coastal development permit. In December 2004, DBOC purchased the remaining seven years of the Johnson Oyster Company mariculture lease, knowing that it would expire in 2012, and assumed responsibility for complying with the Johnson Cease and Desist Order. In December 2007, the California Coastal Commission issued a Consent Cease and Desist Order to DBOC regarding unpermitted activities carried out in connection with DBOC oyster operations in Drakes Estero. In the related staff report, the Coastal Commission noted that DBOC was not in compliance with the provisions of the cease and desist order requirements assumed by DBOC when it purchased the oyster operation (the “Johnson Cease and Desist Order”) and that DBOC had engaged in new development and unauthorized uses without the required permits (e.g., refrigerated storage units installed, second leach field constructed, parking area paved, boat transit outside established channels).

18. History of DBOC permit violations In February 2012, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it has been consistently out of compliance with permit conditions established to protect harbor seals and other marine resources, including through repeated motorboat incursions into off‐limits areas, since those conditions were established 4 years ago. The Commission wrote that “complete and consistent adherence” to these conditions “is crucially important as they were not designed to provide a level of protection that would be considered adequate with only partial compliance.” The Commission noted that it may have no choice but to seek penalties and/or file a lawsuit to ensure compliance. In September 2011, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC to “aggressively and comprehensively” address significant amounts of plastic and other marine debris from DBOC operations that pose “a hazard to the marine environment and natural resources of Drakes Estero” and address “adverse impacts from the boats and DBOC personnel on the sensitive harbor seals and their habitat during the breeding and pupping season.” In November 2010, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers advised the Park Service that the DBOC aquaculture activities require a Corps permit but that the Corps does not have either a current permit application or permit on file. In December 2009, the California Coastal Commission fined DBOC $61,250 for numerous ongoing violations of five separate provisions of a Cease and Desist and Consent Order that was issued to DBOC in 2007 and advised DBOC that the fines will continue to accrue until DBOC comes into compliance. Violations included operating in areas of Drakes Estero that are off limits during the crucial harbor seal pupping and rearing season. In September 2009, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC of numerous ongoing violations of a Cease and Desist and Consent Order issued to DBOC in 2007, including provisions developed to protect the Estero from invasive species, to impose appropriate restrictions on new construction, and to protect water quality. In February 2009, DBOC began harvesting Manila clams without a Park Service permit and 10 months prior to review and approval by the California Fish and Game Commission. DBOC declined to provide information on cultivation to assist the Park Service in evaluating this expansion of species cultivation. Manila clam cultivation has never been approved by the Park Service. In December 2007, the California Coastal Commission issued a Consent Cease and Desist Order to DBOC regarding unpermitted activities carried out in connection with DBOC oyster operations in Drakes Estero. In the related staff report, the Coastal Commission noted that DBOC was not in compliance with the provisions of the cease and desist order requirements assumed by DBOC when it purchased the oyster operation (the “Johnson Cease and Desist Order”) and that DBOC had engaged in new development and unauthorized uses without the required permits (e.g., refrigerated storage units installed, second leach field constructed, parking area paved, boat transit outside established channels). In October 2007, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it intended to commence Cease and Desist Order Proceedings due to DBOC’s continued unpermitted offshore and onshore operations and facilities. In June 2007, the California Coastal Commissions again advised DBOC that it was not in compliance with the Johnson Cease and Desist Order and that DBOC also may require a coastal development permit, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit, and Park Service permits. In March 2006, the California Coastal Commission again advised DBOC that it was not in compliance with the Johnson Cease and Desist Order, that it was in violation of the Coastal Act, and that it must obtain a coastal development permit for additional new and unpermitted development. In May 2005, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it was not in compliance with the Johnson Cease and Desist Order and that it must obtain a coastal development permit. In December 2004, DBOC purchased the remaining seven years of the Johnson Oyster Company mariculture lease, knowing that it would expire in 2012, and assumed responsibility for complying with the Johnson Cease and Desist Order. In October 2007, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it intended to commence Cease and Desist Order Proceedings due to DBOC’s continued unpermitted offshore and onshore operations and facilities.

19. History of DBOC permit violations In February 2012, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it has been consistently out of compliance with permit conditions established to protect harbor seals and other marine resources, including through repeated motorboat incursions into off‐limits areas, since those conditions were established 4 years ago. The Commission wrote that “complete and consistent adherence” to these conditions “is crucially important as they were not designed to provide a level of protection that would be considered adequate with only partial compliance.” The Commission noted that it may have no choice but to seek penalties and/or file a lawsuit to ensure compliance. In September 2011, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC to “aggressively and comprehensively” address significant amounts of plastic and other marine debris from DBOC operations that pose “a hazard to the marine environment and natural resources of Drakes Estero” and address “adverse impacts from the boats and DBOC personnel on the sensitive harbor seals and their habitat during the breeding and pupping season.” In November 2010, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers advised the Park Service that the DBOC aquaculture activities require a Corps permit but that the Corps does not have either a current permit application or permit on file. In December 2009, the California Coastal Commission fined DBOC $61,250 for numerous ongoing violations of five separate provisions of a Cease and Desist and Consent Order that was issued to DBOC in 2007 and advised DBOC that the fines will continue to accrue until DBOC comes into compliance. Violations included operating in areas of Drakes Estero that are off limits during the crucial harbor seal pupping and rearing season. In September 2009, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC of numerous ongoing violations of a Cease and Desist and Consent Order issued to DBOC in 2007, including provisions developed to protect the Estero from invasive species, to impose appropriate restrictions on new construction, and to protect water quality. In February 2009, DBOC began harvesting Manila clams without a Park Service permit and 10 months prior to review and approval by the California Fish and Game Commission. DBOC declined to provide information on cultivation to assist the Park Service in evaluating this expansion of species cultivation. Manila clam cultivation has never been approved by the Park Service. In December 2007, the California Coastal Commission issued a Consent Cease and Desist Order to DBOC regarding unpermitted activities carried out in connection with DBOC oyster operations in Drakes Estero. In the related staff report, the Coastal Commission noted that DBOC was not in compliance with the provisions of the cease and desist order requirements assumed by DBOC when it purchased the oyster operation (the “Johnson Cease and Desist Order”) and that DBOC had engaged in new development and unauthorized uses without the required permits (e.g., refrigerated storage units installed, second leach field constructed, parking area paved, boat transit outside established channels). In October 2007, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it intended to commence Cease and Desist Order Proceedings due to DBOC’s continued unpermitted offshore and onshore operations and facilities. In June 2007, the California Coastal Commissions again advised DBOC that it was not in compliance with the Johnson Cease and Desist Order and that DBOC also may require a coastal development permit, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit, and Park Service permits. In March 2006, the California Coastal Commission again advised DBOC that it was not in compliance with the Johnson Cease and Desist Order, that it was in violation of the Coastal Act, and that it must obtain a coastal development permit for additional new and unpermitted development. In May 2005, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it was not in compliance with the Johnson Cease and Desist Order and that it must obtain a coastal development permit. In December 2004, DBOC purchased the remaining seven years of the Johnson Oyster Company mariculture lease, knowing that it would expire in 2012, and assumed responsibility for complying with the Johnson Cease and Desist Order.

20. History of DBOC permit violations In February 2012, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it has been consistently out of compliance with permit conditions established to protect harbor seals and other marine resources, including through repeated motorboat incursions into off‐limits areas, since those conditions were established 4 years ago. The Commission wrote that “complete and consistent adherence” to these conditions “is crucially important as they were not designed to provide a level of protection that would be considered adequate with only partial compliance.” The Commission noted that it may have no choice but to seek penalties and/or file a lawsuit to ensure compliance. In September 2011, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC to “aggressively and comprehensively” address significant amounts of plastic and other marine debris from DBOC operations that pose “a hazard to the marine environment and natural resources of Drakes Estero” and address “adverse impacts from the boats and DBOC personnel on the sensitive harbor seals and their habitat during the breeding and pupping season.” In November 2010, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers advised the Park Service that the DBOC aquaculture activities require a Corps permit but that the Corps does not have either a current permit application or permit on file. In December 2009, the California Coastal Commission fined DBOC $61,250 for numerous ongoing violations of five separate provisions of a Cease and Desist and Consent Order that was issued to DBOC in 2007 and advised DBOC that the fines will continue to accrue until DBOC comes into compliance. Violations included operating in areas of Drakes Estero that are off limits during the crucial harbor seal pupping and rearing season. In September 2009, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC of numerous ongoing violations of a Cease and Desist and Consent Order issued to DBOC in 2007, including provisions developed to protect the Estero from invasive species, to impose appropriate restrictions on new construction, and to protect water quality. In February 2009, DBOC began harvesting Manila clams without a Park Service permit and 10 months prior to review and approval by the California Fish and Game Commission. DBOC declined to provide information on cultivation to assist the Park Service in evaluating this expansion of species cultivation. Manila clam cultivation has never been approved by the Park Service. In December 2007, the California Coastal Commission issued a Consent Cease and Desist Order to DBOC regarding unpermitted activities carried out in connection with DBOC oyster operations in Drakes Estero. In the related staff report, the Coastal Commission noted that DBOC was not in compliance with the provisions of the cease and desist order requirements assumed by DBOC when it purchased the oyster operation (the “Johnson Cease and Desist Order”) and that DBOC had engaged in new development and unauthorized uses without the required permits (e.g., refrigerated storage units installed, second leach field constructed, parking area paved, boat transit outside established channels). In October 2007, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it intended to commence Cease and Desist Order Proceedings due to DBOC’s continued unpermitted offshore and onshore operations and facilities. In June 2007, the California Coastal Commissions again advised DBOC that it was not in compliance with the Johnson Cease and Desist Order and that DBOC also may require a coastal development permit, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit, and Park Service permits. In March 2006, the California Coastal Commission again advised DBOC that it was not in compliance with the Johnson Cease and Desist Order, that it was in violation of the Coastal Act, and that it must obtain a coastal development permit for additional new and unpermitted development. In May 2005, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it was not in compliance with the Johnson Cease and Desist Order and that it must obtain a coastal development permit. In December 2004, DBOC purchased the remaining seven years of the Johnson Oyster Company mariculture lease, knowing that it would expire in 2012, and assumed responsibility for complying with the Johnson Cease and Desist Order.

21. History of DBOC permit violations In February 2012, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it has been consistently out of compliance with permit conditions established to protect harbor seals and other marine resources, including through repeated motorboat incursions into off‐limits areas, since those conditions were established 4 years ago. The Commission wrote that “complete and consistent adherence” to these conditions “is crucially important as they were not designed to provide a level of protection that would be considered adequate with only partial compliance.” The Commission noted that it may have no choice but to seek penalties and/or file a lawsuit to ensure compliance. In September 2011, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC to “aggressively and comprehensively” address significant amounts of plastic and other marine debris from DBOC operations that pose “a hazard to the marine environment and natural resources of Drakes Estero” and address “adverse impacts from the boats and DBOC personnel on the sensitive harbor seals and their habitat during the breeding and pupping season.” In November 2010, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers advised the Park Service that the DBOC aquaculture activities require a Corps permit but that the Corps does not have either a current permit application or permit on file. In December 2009, the California Coastal Commission fined DBOC $61,250 for numerous ongoing violations of five separate provisions of a Cease and Desist and Consent Order that was issued to DBOC in 2007 and advised DBOC that the fines will continue to accrue until DBOC comes into compliance. Violations included operating in areas of Drakes Estero that are off limits during the crucial harbor seal pupping and rearing season. In September 2009, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC of numerous ongoing violations of a Cease and Desist and Consent Order issued to DBOC in 2007, including provisions developed to protect the Estero from invasive species, to impose appropriate restrictions on new construction, and to protect water quality. In February 2009, DBOC began harvesting Manila clams without a Park Service permit and 10 months prior to review and approval by the California Fish and Game Commission. DBOC declined to provide information on cultivation to assist the Park Service in evaluating this expansion of species cultivation. Manila clam cultivation has never been approved by the Park Service. In December 2007, the California Coastal Commission issued a Consent Cease and Desist Order to DBOC regarding unpermitted activities carried out in connection with DBOC oyster operations in Drakes Estero. In the related staff report, the Coastal Commission noted that DBOC was not in compliance with the provisions of the cease and desist order requirements assumed by DBOC when it purchased the oyster operation (the “Johnson Cease and Desist Order”) and that DBOC had engaged in new development and unauthorized uses without the required permits (e.g., refrigerated storage units installed, second leach field constructed, parking area paved, boat transit outside established channels). In October 2007, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it intended to commence Cease and Desist Order Proceedings due to DBOC’s continued unpermitted offshore and onshore operations and facilities. In June 2007, the California Coastal Commissions again advised DBOC that it was not in compliance with the Johnson Cease and Desist Order and that DBOC also may require a coastal development permit, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit, and Park Service permits. In March 2006, the California Coastal Commission again advised DBOC that it was not in compliance with the Johnson Cease and Desist Order, that it was in violation of the Coastal Act, and that it must obtain a coastal development permit for additional new and unpermitted development. In May 2005, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it was not in compliance with the Johnson Cease and Desist Order and that it must obtain a coastal development permit. In December 2004, DBOC purchased the remaining seven years of the Johnson Oyster Company mariculture lease, knowing that it would expire in 2012, and assumed responsibility for complying with the Johnson Cease and Desist Order.

22. History of DBOC permit violations In February 2012, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it has been consistently out of compliance with permit conditions established to protect harbor seals and other marine resources, including through repeated motorboat incursions into off‐limits areas, since those conditions were established 4 years ago. The Commission wrote that “complete and consistent adherence” to these conditions “is crucially important as they were not designed to provide a level of protection that would be considered adequate with only partial compliance.” The Commission noted that it may have no choice but to seek penalties and/or file a lawsuit to ensure compliance. In September 2011, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC to “aggressively and comprehensively” address significant amounts of plastic and other marine debris from DBOC operations that pose “a hazard to the marine environment and natural resources of Drakes Estero” and address “adverse impacts from the boats and DBOC personnel on the sensitive harbor seals and their habitat during the breeding and pupping season.” In November 2010, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers advised the Park Service that the DBOC aquaculture activities require a Corps permit but that the Corps does not have either a current permit application or permit on file. In December 2009, the California Coastal Commission fined DBOC $61,250 for numerous ongoing violations of five separate provisions of a Cease and Desist and Consent Order that was issued to DBOC in 2007 and advised DBOC that the fines will continue to accrue until DBOC comes into compliance. Violations included operating in areas of Drakes Estero that are off limits during the crucial harbor seal pupping and rearing season. In September 2009, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC of numerous ongoing violations of a Cease and Desist and Consent Order issued to DBOC in 2007, including provisions developed to protect the Estero from invasive species, to impose appropriate restrictions on new construction, and to protect water quality. In February 2009, DBOC began harvesting Manila clams without a Park Service permit and 10 months prior to review and approval by the California Fish and Game Commission. DBOC declined to provide information on cultivation to assist the Park Service in evaluating this expansion of species cultivation. Manila clam cultivation has never been approved by the Park Service. In December 2007, the California Coastal Commission issued a Consent Cease and Desist Order to DBOC regarding unpermitted activities carried out in connection with DBOC oyster operations in Drakes Estero. In the related staff report, the Coastal Commission noted that DBOC was not in compliance with the provisions of the cease and desist order requirements assumed by DBOC when it purchased the oyster operation (the “Johnson Cease and Desist Order”) and that DBOC had engaged in new development and unauthorized uses without the required permits (e.g., refrigerated storage units installed, second leach field constructed, parking area paved, boat transit outside established channels). In October 2007, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it intended to commence Cease and Desist Order Proceedings due to DBOC’s continued unpermitted offshore and onshore operations and facilities. In June 2007, the California Coastal Commissions again advised DBOC that it was not in compliance with the Johnson Cease and Desist Order and that DBOC also may require a coastal development permit, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit, and Park Service permits. In March 2006, the California Coastal Commission again advised DBOC that it was not in compliance with the Johnson Cease and Desist Order, that it was in violation of the Coastal Act, and that it must obtain a coastal development permit for additional new and unpermitted development. In May 2005, the California Coastal Commission advised DBOC that it was not in compliance with the Johnson Cease and Desist Order and that it must obtain a coastal development permit. In December 2004, DBOC purchased the remaining seven years of the Johnson Oyster Company mariculture lease, knowing that it would expire in 2012, and assumed responsibility for complying with the Johnson Cease and Desist Order.