7.0 In a situation where quarrying is the activity avoidance is the preferable option, and the District Council is taking the position that all currently identified sites (except U14/1810 for which there is already a Historic Places Trust authority) be excluded from operational boundaries. Furthermore, a fenced buffer should be placed around those sites to protect them. I agree with this position.

7.1 To assist in this process I would advise that the sites be plotted on all maps as areas rather than dots. The quarry boundaries shown on the current map has impinged on the area of four other site that were intended to be protected. U14/1660, 3078, 3081, 1809.

7.2 In order to avoid any damage to recorded archaeological sites it is recommended that in future geotechnical surveyors should be accompanied by an archaeologist. It appears that some of the geotechnical testpits were dug through archaeological sites (1 each in U14/1810, 1809 and 3082, and 2-3 in 1808)²².

8.0 MITIGATION OF EFFECTS IN SENSITIVE AREAS

8.1 Both Bowers and Phillips identified ‘sensitive’ areas. Phillips’ comment that nearly all the ground with a slope less than 20° has a high likelihood of containing archaeological evidence is particularly useful here.

8.2 It is suggested that where these sensitive areas may be affected by quarrying that further archaeological investigation take place. This should include methods such as probing or machine trenching. These areas are: (i) the slope between U14/1810 and 1809 in Stage 1, and (ii) the ridgeline leading down from U14/1660 to 1662, 3084 and 3078 in Stages 5 & 6.

8.3 If any other archaeological evidence is uncovered during the quarrying operations the Historic Places trust, tangata whenua and the District Council should be notified. All quarrying should cease and the area concerned should be buffered

²² Fulton Hogan Limited 1999: Fig 3.1.