3.7.1 Ken Phillips undertook a second archaeological survey, encompassing all the Fulton Hogan property¹⁶. This fieldwork was not intended to result in an evaluation, but the identification of further archaeological remains to enable the avoidance or mitigation of adverse effects from the proposed quarrying. This fieldwork was a requirement of the decision of the Special Joint Hearing Committee¹⁷.

3.7.2 Phillips conducted a field inspection on 5 days, by walking over the property, examining exposed cuttings and testpitting throughout the survey area. On this occasion he discovered 7 additional terrace sites, resurveyed the previously recorded sites, and identified ‘sensitive’ areas where there was a high likelihood of finding subsurface remains. One of the 10 previously recorded sites he could not relocate (U14/1662). However it was located on a ridge in the pine plantation so visibility was not good, and Phillips regarded the ridge as one of the sensitive areas.

3.7.3 In his report Phillips gave an overview of the significance of the area, and drawing on Gumbley’s work, discussed the relationship of the terraces on the ridges leading up to Hikotawatawa Pa. He also suggested that at least one major terrace site or possible pa had existed immediately west of the partially destroyed pa U14/1810 in the area of the present quarry. He included enlarged aerial photographs with the features of the recorded sites, and the ‘sensitive’ areas shown. He stated that within the Papamoa Hills slopes of less than 20% generally contained archaeological evidence. He included updated Site Record Forms

3.8 Adequacy of Phillips 2000 Assessment

3.8.1 The author considers that this assessment by Phillips did address some of the shortcomings of the previous ones, however: (i) it did not include a full assessment of effects, (ii) it did not address the requirements to avoid, remedy or

¹⁶ Phillips 2000.

¹⁷ Environment Bay of Plenty & Western Bay of Plenty District Council 2000, condition 7.