Hawai'i Unites v. Board of Land and Natural Resources
CAAP-24-0000123
Haw. App.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Hawaiʿi Unites (a nonprofit and individual plaintiff Tina Lia) challenged the Hawaiʿi Department & Board of Land and Natural Resources’ (DLNR & BLNR) mosquito suppression plan aimed at protecting endangered native birds from avian malaria.
- The DLNR prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project, and BLNR issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), determining no Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was required.
- Plaintiffs argued the project required an EIS under the Hawaiʿi Environmental Protection Act (HEPA).
- The Environmental Court dismissed one count (procedural challenge) and granted summary judgment to DLNR, BLNR, and American Bird Conservancy (ABC) on the substantive challenge.
- Plaintiffs appealed, contesting the legal standard, the court’s use of evidence, and EA compliance with state administrative rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for EA review & application of FONSI | BLNR used wrong legal standard and erred in not requiring EIS; court improperly relied on 'rule of reason' | BLNR’s determination is entitled to deference; substantial evidence supported FONSI, and 'rule of reason' applies | Court holds BLNR did not clearly err; substantial evidence supports FONSI; 'clearly erroneous' standard applied |
| Consideration of extra evidence (Lia’s declaration & flight data) | Court wrongly excluded evidence opposing summary judgment | Submitted evidence was not admissible—lacked foundation and was hearsay | Court did not abuse discretion in rejecting the evidence; no error |
| Compliance with HAR § 11-200.1-20(d) (EA process) | Final EA did not comply—commenters not properly identified, comments not appended | DLNR conceded non-compliance; would not oppose remand to fix | Court vacates in part, orders DLNR to amend EA to comply |
Key Cases Cited
- Life of the Land v. Ariyoshi, 577 P.2d 1116 (Haw. 1978) (establishing the 'rule of reason' for reviewing environmental impact statements)
- Price v. Obayashi Haw. Corp., 914 P.2d 1364 (Haw. 1996) (applying 'rule of reason' to EIS sufficiency)
- Kilakila ʻO Haleakalā v. Univ. of Hawaiʻi, 382 P.3d 176 (Haw. 2016) (outlining standards for review of agency environmental determinations)
- Keep the N. Shore Country v. Bd. of Land & Nat. Res., 506 P.3d 150 (Haw. 2022) (explaining judicial deference to agency expertise in technical matters)