Alaska Wilderness v. Kempthorne

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALASKA WILDERNESS LEAGUE;  NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.; PACIFIC ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES CENTER,

Petitioners,

v.  No. 07-71457 KEN SALAZAR, Secretary of Interior, and MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE,

Respondents,

SHELL OFFSHORE, INC.,

Respondent-Intervenor.



8163

8164 ALASKA WILDERNESS v. SALAZAR RESISTING ENVIRONMENTAL  DESTRUCTION ON INDIGENOUS LANDS, A PROJECT OF THE INDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK; CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND SIERRA CLUB,

Petitioners,

v.  No. 07-71989 KEN SALAZAR, Secretary of Interior, and MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE,

Respondents,

SHELL OFFSHORE, INC.,

Respondent-Intervenor.

 NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH; ALASKA  ESKIMO WHALING COMMISSION,

Petitioners, v.

No. 07-72183 KEN SALAZAR, Secretary of Interior, and MINERALS

 DOI No. 2007-152

ORDER MANAGEMENT SERVICE,

Respondents,

SHELL OFFSHORE, INC.,

Respondent-Intervenor.

 On Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Department of Interior Argued and Submitted

December 4, 2007—San Francisco, California

ALASKA WILDERNESS v. SALAZAR 8165

Filed June 30, 2009

Before: Dorothy W. Nelson, Stephen Reinhardt, and

Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges. COUNSEL

Christopher Winter, Crag Law Center, Portland, Oregon; Deirdre A. McDonnell, Earthjustice, Juneau, Alaska, for the petitioners.

David C. Shilton, United States Department of Justice, Wash- ington, D.C., for the respondent.

Kyle W. Parker, Patton Boggs LLP, Anchorage, Alaska, for the respondent-intervenor.

ORDER

Petitioners in this case challenge the Minerals Management Service’s (“MMS”) approval of Respondent-Intervenor Shell Offshore Inc.’s (“Shell”) 2007-2009 Beaufort Sea Plan of Exploration (“EP”). On May 5, 2009, however, Shell with- drew its EP, and the MMS subsequently rescinded its prior approval of that EP. The MMS characterized the EP as “null and void” and declared that it “will not consider nor approve any exploratory drilling activity under this EP.”

The MMS’s rescission of its approval of the EP, which was the agency action at issue in this appeal, renders Petitioners’ challenge moot. Accordingly, Shell’s unopposed “Motion to Dismiss Appeal as Moot” is GRANTED.

This appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. A certified copy of this order shall serve as the mandate of this court.

SO ORDERED.

PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West.