
    DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY; Kevin Lunny, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF WEST MARIN; National Parks Conservation Association; Natural Resources Defense Council; Save Our Seashore, Applicants-in-intervention—Appellants, and Sally Jewell, in her official capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior; U.S. Department Of Interior; U.S. National Park Service; Jonathan B. Jarvis, in his official capacity as Director, U.S. National Park Service, Defendants.
    No. 13-15390.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 25, 2014.
    
    Filed April 29, 2014.
    Lawrence Bazel, John Briscoe, Peter Prows, Briscoe Ivester & Bazel LLP, Zachary Walton, Ssl Law Firm LLP, San Francisco, CA, Salem Wayne Rosenbaum, Opper & Vareo LLP, Ryan R. Waterman, Stoel Rives LLP, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
    Trent Orr, George Matthew Torgun, Earthjustice, San Francisco, CA, for Applicants-in-intervention — Appellants.
    John David Gunter, II, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
    Before: McKEOWN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and MARBLEY, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Algenon L. Marbley, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

The district court denied the motion filed by the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, National Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Save Our Seashore (collectively, “proposed interve-nors”) to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a). While appeal of that order was pending, we issued our decision in Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 729 F.3d 967 (9th Cir.2013), amended by 747 F.3d 1073, No. 13-15227, 2014 WL 114699 (9th Cir.2014). To the extent that this appeal by the proposed intervenors is not moot as a consequence of our decision in Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, on de novo review we affirm the districts court’s denial of their motion to intervene. See Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Geithner, 644 F.3d 836, 840 (9th Cir.2011). The proposed intervenors have not satisfied the test for intervention as of right. In particular, they failed to make a “very compelling showing” that the government will not adequately represent their interests. Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     