Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 343
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 343-2 (2026)

  Definitions

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §343-2  Definitions.  As used in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:

     "Acceptance" means a formal determination that the document required to be filed pursuant to section 343-5 fulfills the definition of an environmental impact statement, adequately describes identifiable environmental impacts, and satisfactorily responds to comments received during the review of the statement.

     "Action" means any program or project to be initiated by any agency or applicant.

     "Agency" means any department, office, board, or commission of the state or county government which is a part of the executive branch of that government.

     "Applicant" means any person who, pursuant to statute, ordinance, or rule, officially requests approval for a proposed action.

     "Approval" means a discretionary consent required from an agency prior to actual implementation of an action.

     "Council" means the environmental advisory council.

     "Director" means the director of the office of planning and sustainable development.

     "Discretionary consent" means a consent, sanction, or recommendation from an agency for which judgment and free will may be exercised by the issuing agency, as distinguished from a ministerial consent.

     "Environmental assessment" means a written evaluation to determine whether an action may have a significant effect.

     "Environmental impact statement" or "statement" means an informational document prepared in compliance with the rules adopted under section 343-6 and which discloses the environmental effects of a proposed action, effects of a proposed action on the economic welfare, social welfare, and cultural practices of the community and State, effects of the economic activities arising out of the proposed action, measures proposed to minimize adverse effects, and alternatives to the action and their environmental effects.

     The initial statement filed for public review shall be referred to as the draft statement and shall be distinguished from the final statement which is the document that has incorporated the public's comments and the responses to those comments.  The final statement is the document that shall be evaluated for acceptability by the respective accepting authority.

     "Finding of no significant impact" means a determination based on an environmental assessment that the subject action will not have a significant effect and, therefore, will not require the preparation of an environmental impact statement.

     "Helicopter facility" means any area of land or water which is used, or intended for use for the landing or takeoff of helicopters; and any appurtenant areas which are used, or intended for use for helicopter related activities or rights-of-way.

     "Office" means the office of planning and sustainable development.

     "Person" includes any individual, partnership, firm, association, trust, estate, private corporation, or other legal entity other than an agency.

     "Power-generating facility" means:

     (1)  A new, fossil-fueled, electricity-generating facility, where the electrical output rating of the new equipment exceeds 5.0 megawatts; or

     (2)  An expansion in generating capacity of an existing, fossil-fueled, electricity-generating facility, where the incremental electrical output rating of the new equipment exceeds 5.0 megawatts.

     "Significant effect" means the sum of effects on the quality of the environment, including actions that irrevocably commit a natural resource, curtail the range of beneficial uses of the environment, are contrary to the State's environmental policies or long-term environmental goals as established by law, or adversely affect the economic welfare, social welfare, or cultural practices of the community and State.

     "Wastewater treatment unit" means any plant or facility used in the treatment of wastewater. [L 1974, c 246, pt of §1; am and ren L 1979, c 197, §1(2); am L 1983, c 140, §5; am L 1986, c 186, §1; am L 1987, c 187, §1 and c 325, §2; am L 1996, c 61, §1; am L 2000, c 50, §2; am L 2004, c 55, §2; am L 2005, c 130, §2; am L 2008, c 207, §3; am L 2016, c 27, §4; am L 2021, c 152, §12 and c 153, §9]

 

Attorney General Opinions

 

  "Action" includes a subdivision proposal.  Att. Gen. Op. 75-14.

  "Action" includes issuance of building permits.  Att. Gen. Op. 75-15.

 

Law Journals and Reviews

 

  Determining the Expiration Date of an Environmental Impact Statement:  When to Supplement a Stale EIS in Hawai`i.  35 UH L. Rev. 249 (2013).

  Finding a New Path:  A Practical Look at PASH, the Public Trust, and Western Property Law.  43 UH L. Rev. 613 (2021).

 

Case Notes

 

  Sufficiency of an environmental impact statement.  59 H. 156, 577 P.2d 1116 (1978).

  Sufficiency of an environmental impact statement is a question of law.  81 H. 171, 914 P.2d 1364 (1996).

  The proper inquiry for determining the necessity of an environmental impact statement (EIS) based on the language of §343-5(c) is whether the proposed action will "likely" have a significant effect on the environment; as defined in this section, "significant effect" includes irrevocable commitment of natural resources; where the burning of thousands of gallons of fuel and the withdrawal of millions of gallons of groundwater on a daily basis would "likely" cause such irrevocable commitment, an EIS was required pursuant to both the common meaning of "may" and the statutory definition of "significant effect".  106 H. 270, 103 P.3d 939 (2005).

  Commercial aquarium collection under §188-31 is subject to the requirements of the Hawaii environmental policy act (HEPA) because commercial aquarium collection:  (1) is a "program or project" that constitutes a HEPA "action" as used in this section; (2) is a "use of state . . . lands" and a "use within . . . a conservation district" enumerated under §343-5(a); (3) is not exempt from HEPA pursuant to §343-6(a)(2); and (4) requires discretionary consent by the department of land and natural resources in the approval process.  140 H. 500, 403 P.3d 277 (2017).

  Cited:  134 H. 86 (App.), 332 P.3d 688 (2014).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Umberger v. Dep't of Land & Nat. Resources., 403 P.3d 277 (Haw. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Umberger v. Dep't of Land & Nat. Resources., 403 P.3d 277 (Haw. 2017). · cites it 18× “2016) (quoting HRS § 343-2 (2010)). In addition, the program or project must (1) be initiated by an agency or a private party and require government approval; (2) qualify under one or more of the nine categories of land uses and administrative acts enumerated in HRS § 34S-5(a)…”
Sierra Club v. Hawaii Tourism Auth., 59 P.3d 877 (Haw. 2002). · cites it 25× “HRS § 343-2. HRS § 343-5(b) (Supp.2000) provides in relevant part that an agency such as the HTA “shall prepare an [EA] for such action at the earliest practicable time to determine whether an environmental impact statement [ (EIS) ] shall be required.”
Sierra Club v. Dep't of Transp., 167 P.3d 292 (Haw. 2007). · cites it 10× “An EA, defined in HRS § 343-2, is an informational document prepared by either the agency proposing an action or a private applicant, which is used to evaluate the possible environmental effects of a proposed action.”
Kepo'o v. Kane, 103 P.3d 939 (Haw. 2005). · cites it 12× “) HRS § 343-2 defines “significant effect” as the sum of effects on the quality of the environment, including actions that irrevocably commit a natural resource, curtail the range of beneficial uses of the environment, are contrary to the State’s environmental policies or…”
Nuuanu Valley Ass'n v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 194 P.3d 531 (Haw. 2008). · cites it 8× “This court also determined that the "Project" proposed the "use" of state lands "inasmuch as the construction of the sewage and water transmission lines will require tunneling beneath state highways.”
Molokai Homesteaders Coop. Ass'n v. Cobb, 629 P.2d 1134 (Haw. 1981). · cites it 12× “It was not, they say, an action likely to have a “significant effect” upon the environment within the meaning of HRS § 343-2(11) (formerly § 343-1(8)). We do not affirm the award of summary judgment on the foregoing aasis, for we think the action was one with a probable…”
Unite Here! Local 5 v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 209 P.3d 1271 (Haw. App. 2009). · cites it 16× “This was the conclusion of the DPP, the *1281 agency responsible for determining whether the SEIS was required. [2] E. Kuilima's Subdivision Application Not an "Action" Under HEPA Contrary to Plaintiffs' contention, the Subdivision Application did not constitute an "action"…”
Kilakila 'O Haleakala v. Univ. of Hawaii., 382 P.3d 176 (Haw. 2016). · cites it 6× “; see also HRS § 343-2 (1993). Upon completion of a draft environmental assessment, a thirty-day period begins for review and comment by the public.”
Unite Here! Local 5 v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 231 P.3d 423 (Haw. 2010). · cites it 8× “First, we recognize that HRS § 343-2 (Supp.2005) equates the term "statement" with an EIS.”
Kelly v. 1250 Oceanside Partners, 140 P.3d 985 (Haw. 2006). · cites it 4× “he regulatory community, and businesses and industries that may contribute to categories of nonpoint source pollution for the purpose of establishing plans, and developing management strategies and other mitigation measures to control and manage nonpoint source pollution;…”
'O Haleakalâ v. Bd. of Land & Nat. Resources, 382 P.3d 195 (Haw. 2016). · cites it 6× “; see also HRS § 343-2 (defining “environmental impact statement” as “an informational document”).”
Kaleikini v. Yoshioka. Motion for Reconsideration, filed 09/04/2012., 283 P.3d 60 (Haw. 2012). · cites it 4× “” HRS § 343-2. Under the HEPA’s implementing rules, multiple or phased “actions” are considered a “single action” in certain specified circumstances: Multiple or Phased Applicant or Agency Actions.”
Show all 42 citing cases →
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 343-2(1) — 1 case
Pearl Ridge Estates Cmty. Ass'n v. Lear Siegler, Inc., 648 P.2d 702 (Haw. 1982).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 343-2(11) — 4 cases
Kepo'o v. Kane, 103 P.3d 939 (Haw. 2005). “) HRS § 343-2 defines “significant effect” as the sum of effects on the quality of the environment, including actions that irrevocably commit a natural resource, curtail the range of beneficial uses of the environment, are contrary to the State’s environmental policies or…”
Molokai Homesteaders Coop. Ass'n v. Cobb, 629 P.2d 1134 (Haw. 1981). “It was not, they say, an action likely to have a “significant effect” upon the environment within the meaning of HRS § 343-2(11) (formerly § 343-1(8)). We do not affirm the award of summary judgment on the foregoing aasis, for we think the action was one with a probable…”
McGlone v. Inaba, 636 P.2d 158 (Haw. 1981).
Molokai Homesteaders Co-op. Ass'n v. Cobb, 629 P.2d 1134 (Haw. 1981).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 343-2(2) — 3 cases
Molokai Homesteaders Coop. Ass'n v. Cobb, 629 P.2d 1134 (Haw. 1981). “It was not, they say, an action likely to have a “significant effect” upon the environment within the meaning of HRS § 343-2(11) (formerly § 343-1(8)). We do not affirm the award of summary judgment on the foregoing aasis, for we think the action was one with a probable…”
Pearl Ridge Estates Cmty. Ass'n v. Lear Siegler, Inc., 648 P.2d 702 (Haw. 1982).
Molokai Homesteaders Co-op. Ass'n v. Cobb, 629 P.2d 1134 (Haw. 1981).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 343-2(9) — 4 cases
Molokai Homesteaders Coop. Ass'n v. Cobb, 629 P.2d 1134 (Haw. 1981). “It was not, they say, an action likely to have a “significant effect” upon the environment within the meaning of HRS § 343-2(11) (formerly § 343-1(8)). We do not affirm the award of summary judgment on the foregoing aasis, for we think the action was one with a probable…”
Kepo'o v. Kane, 103 P.3d 939 (Haw. 2005). “) HRS § 343-2 defines “significant effect” as the sum of effects on the quality of the environment, including actions that irrevocably commit a natural resource, curtail the range of beneficial uses of the environment, are contrary to the State’s environmental policies or…”
Pearl Ridge Estates Cmty. Ass'n v. Lear Siegler, Inc., 648 P.2d 702 (Haw. 1982).
Molokai Homesteaders Co-op. Ass'n v. Cobb, 629 P.2d 1134 (Haw. 1981).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.