present the findings in a report, together with a statement of significance and a strategy for mitigation of effects to any site(s) that were to be affected.

3.3.1 This author agrees with Simmon’s criticisms and notes some other shortcomings in Bowers’ report including: (i) no new sites were located, or more features associated with the sites already recorded, (ii) Bowers only used testpitting as a method of subsurface investigation, and did not show where these were dug, and

(iii) on her map the sites were shown only as dots (except for U14/238, 1810 and 1807 which are shown as areas), and she did not indicate where the areas that might contain archaeological evidence were.

3.0 1999 - Phillips Archaeological Assessment

3.4.1 Ken Phillips was asked to undertake an archaeological assessment in response to the comments and conditions set by Simmons⁸.

3.4.2 Phillips surveyed the ridges and spurs by means of random transects, observed exposed faces and undertook testpitting in three areas⁹. He found that four of the recorded sites lay within the proposed quarry extension Stages 1, 2 & 3¹⁰. Fulton Hogan agreed to protect three of the sites with a buffer zone around them, while the fourth (pa site U14/1810) was to be destroyed. He described the state of the pa, and estimated its original extent.

3.4.3 Phillips intention was to examine by field survey on foot the area to be affected in the first three stages of quarry expansion, provide a plan for reducing adverse effects if necessary and provide information for an authority application to the Historic Places Trust to destroy the pa U14/1810.

⁸ Phillips 1999a.

⁹ Phillips testpitted between U14/1809 and 1810, and north of U14/1807 and 1808.

¹⁰ The numbers and boundaries have changed, when Ken Phillips undertook his survey there were two Stage 1s, Stage 2 and 3, where there is now two Stage 1s and Stage 3.