Alaska Wilderness League v.  KEN SALAZAR, Secretary of Interior, and MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

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

-- 1 of 4 --

 RESISTING ENVIRONMENTAL
DESTRUCTION ON INDIGENOUS LANDS,
A PROJECT OF THE INDIGENOUS
ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK; CENTER
FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND
SIERRA CLUB,
Petitioners,
No. 07-71989  v.
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 DOI No. 2007-152 Interior, and MINERALS 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
8164 ALASKA WILDERNESS v. SALAZAR

-- 2 of 4 --

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drew its EP, and the MMS subsequently rescinded its prior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.
8165 ALASKA WILDERNESS v. SALAZAR

-- 3 of 4 --

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.

-- 4 of 4 --