ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS
343-1 Findings and purpose
343-3 Public records and notice
343-5 Applicability and requirements
343-5.5 Exception to applicability of chapter
343-6.5 Waiahole water system; exemption
343-7 Limitation of actions
Broadband services; exemption from certain permitting requirements. L 2011, c 151; L 2013, c 264, §3; L 2016, c 193, §§1, 2.
Department of transportation's bridge rehabilitation and replacement program; temporary exemption from certain construction requirements of this chapter through June 30, 2022, or until completion. L 2012, c 218; L 2017, c 48.
Environmental courts, jurisdiction over proceedings arising under this chapter, see §604A-2.
Law Journals and Reviews
Ke Ala Pono--The Path of Justice: The Moon Court's Native Hawaiian Rights Decisions. 33 UH L. Rev. 447 (2011).
The Moon Court's Environmental Review Jurisprudence: Throwing Open the Courthouse Doors to Beneficial Public Participation. 33 UH L. Rev. 581 (2011).
A Suggested Framework for Judicial Review of Challenges to the Adequacy of an Environmental Impact Statement Prepared under the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act. 18 UH L. Rev. 719.
Determining the Expiration Date of an Environmental Impact Statement: When to Supplement a Stale EIS in Hawai`i. 35 UH L. Rev. 249 (2013).
Poisons in Our Communities: Environmental Justice's Role in Regulating Hawai`i's Biotechnology Industry. 40 UH L. Rev. 155 (2018).
Environmental impact statement addressed all statutory requirements of chapter, was compiled in good faith, and set forth sufficient information to enable decisionmaker to consider fully the environmental factors involved. 81 H. 171, 914 P.2d 1364.
Chapter does not conflict with Hawaiian homes commission act, has only incidental impact on Hawaiian home lands, and is not inconsistent with interests of the beneficiaries; thus, chapter applies to Hawaiian home lands. 87 H. 91, 952 P.2d 379.
HHCA §204 not violated by application of this chapter. 87 H. 91, 952 P.2d 379.
Where lease was executed in contravention of this chapter, power plant developers were not "existing Hawaiian homes commission act lessees"; trial court's decision that the lease was void did not deprive developers of any interest they were entitled to under the law. 106 H. 270, 103 P.3d 939.
Appellants established standing where they showed threatened injuries under the traditional injury-in-fact test and procedural injuries based on a procedural right test; the threatened injury in fact was due to defendant's decision to go forward with harbor improvements and allow the superferry project to operate at Kahului harbor without conducting an environmental assessment; the procedural injury was based on various interests appellants identified that were threatened due to the violation of their procedural rights under this chapter. 115 H. 299, 167 P.3d 292.
Where the record showed that the department of transportation did not consider whether its facilitation of the Hawaii superferry project would probably have minimal or no significant impacts, both primary and secondary, on the environment, its determination that the improvements to Kahului harbor were exempt from the requirements of this chapter was erroneous as a matter of law; the exemption thus being invalid, the environmental assessment of §343-5 was applicable. 115 H. 299, 167 P.3d 292.
Where nothing in §607-25 indicated that §607-25 should provide the exclusive means for awarding attorney's fees and costs against a party for a violation of this chapter, §607-25 was not the exclusive means for awarding attorney's fees and costs for violations of this chapter. 120 H. 181, 202 P.3d 1226.
There is nothing in this chapter to indicate that an archeological inventory survey is a "necessary study" for the completion of an environmental impact statement. 128 H. 53, 283 P.3d 60 (2012).
Where, based on an environmental assessment, the University of Hawaii determined that the implementation of its management plan for the Haleakala High Altitude Observatory Site would not have a significant effect on the environment and did not require the preparation of an environmental impact statement, the circuit court did not err by: (1) concluding the management plan's environmental assessment complied with this chapter and that an environmental impact statement was not required as a matter of law; and (2) granting the University of Hawaii's protective order barring discovery requests. 134 H. 86 (App.), 332 P.3d 688 (2014).