Case Name: SAN DIEGO CHAPTER OF THE SURFRIDER FOUNDATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John B. DALTON, United States Secretary of the Navy; Charles Krulak, Commandant of the United States Marine Corps; Charles W. Reinke, Commanding General of the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base; Steve Fisher, Colonel; W.A. Spencer, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1999-11-16
Citations: 196 F.3d 1057
Docket Number: No. 98-55362
Parties: SAN DIEGO CHAPTER OF THE SURFRIDER FOUNDATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John B. DALTON, United States Secretary of the Navy; Charles Krulak, Commandant of the United States Marine Corps; Charles W. Reinke, Commanding General of the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base; Steve Fisher, Colonel; W.A. Spencer, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 196
Pages: 1057–1058

Head Matter:
SAN DIEGO CHAPTER OF THE SURFRIDER FOUNDATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John B. DALTON, United States Secretary of the Navy; Charles Krulak, Commandant of the United States Marine Corps; Charles W. Reinke, Commanding General of the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base; Steve Fisher, Colonel; W.A. Spencer, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 98-55362.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Sept. 28, 1999.
Filed Nov. 16, 1999.
Thomas P. Davis, Nokes, Davis & Quinn, Laguna Beach, California, for the appellant.
Ronald M. Spritzer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the appel-lees.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED for the reasons set forth in the order of the district court filed on January 13, 1998, and published at 989 F.Supp. 1309 (S.D.Cal.1998).
. We hold that Appellant's complaints are not rendered moot by the partial completion of the project that is the subject of this litigation. This is because a second phase of construction, contemplated by the Corps and approved in the same process as the first phase, has not begun.
We also conclude that the Corps' publication, after the summary judgment briefs were filed with the district court, of a document specifically referencing Executive Order 11990 and containing the Corps' findings with respect to the executive order, renders moot any argument concerning the requirement of a separate document. As to issues concerning Executive Order 11990 that were before the district court, we affirm the district court.