BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 My name is Dr Caroline Phillips. I am an archaeologist, with a PhD in Anthropology from the University of Auckland. I have been working in the field of archaeology in New Zealand for nearly 30 years. I have specialised as an archaeological surveyor and excavator. The main focus of my research has concerned Maori settlements, and the relationship of these places with each other and the landscape they are situated in.

1.2 I am an archaeological consultant, undertaking cultural heritage management relating to the Resource Management Act, Historic Places Act and the Treaty of Waitangi Act, involving conservation and management plans, archaeological surveys, mitigation investigations, and cultural heritage histories in the Bay of Plenty, Hauraki, Auckland, Northland and Waikato.

1.3 I am also part of a University of Auckland research team, investigating the cultural significance of swamp sites in Taranaki, and I am a university lecturer, teaching an MA paper at Te Whare Wananga o Awanuiarangi, at Whakatane.

1.4 I should also state here, as a matter of clarification, that I am unrelated to Ken Phillips, whose reports I refer to in this evidence.

1.5 I appear in support of Western Bay of Plenty District Council’s decision to grant resource consent to Fulton Hogan Limited for the expansion of a quarry at Poplar Lane, Papamoa. I will present evidence relating to: (i) summary of the archaeological studies, (ii) the adequacy of those studies, (iii) the identification of the known archaeological sites, (iv) the apparent significance of those sites, (v) whether the conditions imposed on the consent are sufficient to protect those sites, and (vi) the adequacy of the mechanism for protecting sites as yet unknown.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 The valley of a tributary of the Kopuaroa Stream that cuts through the andesite hills at Poplar Lane was opened up for quarrying in the late 1950s (Fig 1). Fulton Hogan, the current owners of the quarry, wished to extend the operation.

• In February 1999, they employed Lynda Bowers to undertake an archaeological assessment.

• In April 1999, Fulton Hogan lodged an application to Western Bay of Plenty District Council and Bay of Plenty Regional Council for consents.

• In June 1999 submissions were received, among them several criticised the archaeological assessment.

• In July 1999 Fulton Hogan employed Ken Phillips, to undertook a further assessment and gave a statement of evidence, to the

• In December 1999, there was a hearing of the Special Joint Hearings Committee.

• Around the same time Warren Gumbley undertook archaeological research as part of a draft application to register the Papamoa Cultural Landscape - an area overlapping with the Poplar Lane property.

• In February 2000 four iwi groups and Fulton Hogan appealed the decision of the committee. Again the previous archaeological assessments were contested.

• In October 2000, Phillips undertook a second assessment that addressed some of the criticisms.

• In May 2001, an authority was issued by the NZ Historic Places Trust for the modification of one of the sites.

• In June 2001 the parties asked archaeologists to prepare statements for the Environment Court Hearing.

3.0 SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES

3.1 1983-84 Historic Places Trust

3.1.1 The sites around Papamoa was first archaeologically recorded in 1983-84 as part of a survey undertaken by students under Dr Bruce McFadgen of the NZ Historic

Places Trust¹. At that time 9 new archaeological sites were recorded on the hills within the property and a further 3 adjacent to the boundary, the major pa of Hikotawatawa, which is partially within the property, having been recorded previously.

3.1.1 The sites were briefly described, but only the pa were mapped. Hikotawatawa was mapped in detail at this time, while others such as U14/1660 were very sketchily planned. Material for dating purposes was retrieved from Hikotawatawa pa, which showed that it had been occupied over at least a period of 200-300 years. The fortifications had also been rebuilt on at least one occasion².

3.0 1999 - Bowers Archaeological Assessment

3.2.1 Lynda Bowers conducted an archaeological assessment as part of the landuse consent applications by Fulton Hogan, to extend their quarrying operations³.

3.2.2 Bowers undertook a day field inspection, when she relocated all the 10 previously recorded sites on the property and identified 7 areas where there was a likelihood of buried archaeological features.

3.2.3 In her report Bowers included a review of the literature (although the references were not included in my copy), the current condition of the recorded sites and the possible threat to each through logging and quarrying. She advised that an authority from the Historic Places Trust would be needed before (i) the pine trees were felled (this would affect 4 sites and 2 areas between them where there might also be sites) and (ii) the proposed quarrying (this would affect pa U14/1810 and the area immediately to the south, which might contain archaeological features). Bowers included a location map, an aerial photograph with dots marking the sites and enclosed copies of the original Site Record Forms.

¹ Bowers 1999a:2.

² Gumbley 1999

3.2.1 Bowers stated that her aim was to relocate the recorded sites, assess the probable effects of the application on those sites, and give recommendations in mitigation of adverse effects. However, she did not intend to provide an assessment of significance, which would be required for applications to modify sites under the Historic Places Act, and she did not undertake a cultural values assessment as Fulton Hogan were consulting separately with the relevant iwi groups.

3.2.2 In response to questions raised by Western Bay of Plenty District Council, Bowers responded in a letter that was appended to Fulton Hogan’s application for resource consent¹. The additional comments related to: site significance, methodology, avoidance or mitigation of effects.

3.2.3 In relation to site significance Bowers stated that the sites would have “at least local archaeological significance, given that the archaeological investigation of such sites has the potential to provide evidence relating to the history of New Zealand”. Further, she considered that a detailed assessment and evaluation was not warranted unless, or until, an application for an authority was made to the Historic Places Trust to damage, modify or destroy the sites.

3.2.4 In relation to the methodology of assessment, Bowers stated that she walked along all the ridges, and traversed the flatland in a series of transect. She did not undertake any subsurface testing on the ridges because testpitting⁵: (i) would not detect subtle features, (ii) it was unnecessary along the ridges between obvious features recorded as sites as there was a high likelihood of archaeological evidence, and (iii) most of the areas of possible buried archaeological features would not be damaged by quarrying. She did however testpit on the flatland in order to confirm the presence of predominantly gley and organic soils.

³ Bowers 1999a.

⁴ Bowers 1999b, Appendix 7. Note that in this letter she refers to page 10 and 11 of her report, however the copy I have been given only reaches page 8 - Simmons made a similar comment.

3.2.1 In relation to the avoidance or mitigation of effects Bowers stated that it was her understanding that “the majority of archaeological sites on the property would be avoided during future quarrying operations” (emphasis mine). In the proposed western extension she recommended archaeological monitoring⁶ followed by site avoidance or mitigation.

3.0 Adequacy of Bowers Assessment

3.3.1 Several of the submissions presented in opposition to the resource consent application by Fulton Hogan included criticism of Bowers assessment⁷. The most inclusive is that by Alexy Simmons, then regional archaeologist for the NZ Historic Places Trust. This author also has some concerns regarding Bowers report.

3.3.2 Simmons considered that the assessment had several failings: (i) it did not include a full assessment of effects, (ii) it did not address the requirements to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects, (iii) the value of the sites to iwi should have been sought and been part of the evaluation, (iv) systematic sampling should have been undertaken, (v) monitoring areas of suspected but unproven archaeological features was an inappropriate measure of mitigation, and (v) it was not appropriate to use the provisions of the Historic Places Act in a resource management matter.

3.3.3 Simmons requested a series of conditions be imposed on the applicant: (i) a detailed foot inspection of all areas that were to be affected, and map, record and photograph archaeological evidence, (ii) undertake subsurface sampling using hand and mechanical excavation in areas of possible archaeological features, (iii)

⁵ Archaeological testpitting involves spade holes generally 30 cm square dug into the ground through the topsoil and subsoil layers.

⁶ Bowers used the term monitoring to mean ‘controlled mechanical stripping of selected portions under the guidance of an archaeologist’. This is slightly different to the usual meaning.

⁷ EBOP & WBOPDC 1999, Appendix C. Submissions included Nga Potiki, Ngaiterangi Iwi, Des Kahotea and Simmons for the NZ Historic Places Trust - C27, 28, 30 & 32.

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.

3.4.1 Phillips’ report included a literature review, described his survey methology, briefly described the sites that were to be excluded from the quarrying, but gave a detailed description of the pa which was to be destroyed (approximately 90% of which has already been destroyed by past quarrying). He noted that Fulton Hogan was conducting cultural assessment of the property with local iwi independently of his report. He included an updated Site Record Form for the pa with a plan, a location map of the quarry, a map showing the location of recorded sites, and copy of the 1944 aerial photograph before quarrying had begun.

3.4.2 Phillips recommended that: (i) an authority be granted to destroy the pa, subject to a requirement for an intensive subsurface archaeological investigation both inside and immediately outside the defences and adopting a research design to answer questions about the evolution and design of peripheral pa, (ii) the other three recorded sites should be fenced off with a suitable buffer zone to protect them, and (iii) all undisturbed land should be archaeologically monitored (controlled removal of topsoil supervised by an archaeologist prior to quarrying).

3.4.3 In his statement of evidence given before the hearing of the Special Joint Hearings Committee Phillips repeated the substance of his report, but he added several comments: (i) pa U14/1810 had been highly compromised and that its retention would limit quarry operations to an extent which could not be justified, (ii) if any cultural evidence or finds were made by Fulton Hogan during quarrying or forestry operations they should notify Bay of Plenty Regional Council, (iii) the 6 recorded sites in the eastern part of the quarry extension (Stages 4, 5 & 6) were not within the proposed quarry stage boundaries, (iv) that undisturbed areas in all Stages should be archaeologically monitored, (v) that the logging of the pine plantation should be monitored by an archaeologist.

3.0 Adequacy of Phillips 1999 Assessment

3.5.1 Appeals to the Decision of Special Joint Hearings Committee by Waitaha a Hei and Nga Potiki Resource Management Unit criticised the archaeological assessments¹¹.

3.5.2 I do have a few comments of my own in regard to Phillips’ assessment including: (i) only testpitting was used to determine subsurface features, (ii) the locations and findings of the testpits were not shown, (iii) archaeological monitoring is not a suitable mechanism to detect other sites (discussed in more detail below), (iv) pa site U14/1660 is within the proposed quarry boundaries shown on the map included in Phillips report, (v) the logging process should be supervised by an archaeologist experienced in forestry operations and in methods to avoid damage to archaeological features, and (vi) the Historic Places Trust and local iwi (rather than the Regional Council) should be the ones informed if archaeological material, artefacts, or human bone were found.

3.6 1999 - Gumbley Archaeological Assessment

3.6.1 Warren Gumbley prepared an archaeological assessment¹², for the Western Bay of Plenty Regional Committee of the NZ Historic Places Trust to register the Papamoa Hills cultural landscape as a Wahi Tapu Area¹³. Although this document is in draft format at this stage and was not written for the purposes of this resource consent, it deals with the significance of the Papamoa Hill complex.

3.6.2 Gumbley discussed the investigations to date in the Papamoa Hills, which include the NZ Historic Places recovery of radiocarbon samples from five pa for dating, a more substantial investigation of pa U14/243, and a terrace site (U14/1675)¹⁴. The dates showed that all the pa were occupied after 1650, but Hikotawatawa provided one of the earliest dates of any pa in New Zealand.

¹¹ Waitaha a Hei 2000, Nga Potiki Resource Management Unit 2000.

¹² Gumbley 1999, draft only.

¹³ Ishould note that this area overlaps with the western part of the proposed quarry extension, encompassing Stages 4, 5 & 6.

¹⁴ Bowers & Phillips 1998 (cited in Phillips 1999a). Note Phillips also monitored an area on the SW side of Wharo pa (U14/166-7) where he found other subsurface evidence (Phillips 1999b cited in Phillips 1999a)

3.6.1 Gumbley stated that the Papamoa Hills were part of a larger cultural landscape incorporating the flatland below: the coastal foredunes, the inland dunes and along the Kaituna River¹⁵. The strategic location and topography of the Papamoa Hills place it on the front line between neighbouring tribes, which were sustained by rich economic resources, including garden soils, fishing, eeling and flax. Archaeological work on the dune plain indicates it was occupied extensively between 1400-1700, at which time it appears to have been abandoned.

3.6.2 He stated that the Papamoa Hills were remarkable for the range of different pa types, which are generally well preserved. Part of the second largest pa Hikotawatawa (U14/238) and another (U14/1660) are within the Fulton Hogan property. The greatest density of terrace and pit sites in the Tauranga area is also found on the Papamoa Hills. The terrace sites extending along the ridges leading up to Hikotawatawa Pa are part of this, and there is a high likelihood of others hidden beneath the ground. Gumbley proposed that these settlements were ‘client’ sites to the adjacent pa, and although they were not all inhabited at the same time the size and density of sites indicates a large population occupied the hills especially during the period 1650-1800.

3.6.3 Gumbley stated that these sites have the ability to contribute significantly to the understanding of central themes of archaeological research in New Zealand, including: (i) prehistoric demography, (ii) development of pa and their role in prehistoric social organisation, (iii) the development of complex social structures,

(iii) pre-European economy, and (v) relationship of pa with subsidiary kainga. Moreover the area includes a remarkable conjunction of: significant cultural values and significant scientific values.

3.6 2000 - Phillips Archaeological Assessment

¹⁵ Gumbley 2000.

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.

mitigate adverse effects, (iii) the value of the sites to iwi should have been sought and been part of the evaluation, (iv) it did not show the location or details of the test pits, and (v) did not consider any other subsurface testing methods.

1.8 2001 - Historic Places Trust Authority

1.8.1 On 22^nd May the Historic Places Trust granted an authority (2001-02) to Fulton Hogan Limited to modify or damage pa site U14/1810 at the Poplar Lane Quarry. This authority required certain conditions to be met, including: (i) an archaeological investigation should take place involving the recording, measuring, sampling and analysing of the remains encountered, (ii) archaeological work should be “undertaken in conformity with any cultural protocols or monitoring requirements advised by tangata whenua” (iii) if artefacts (taonga) or human remains (koiwi) are found the Historic Places Trust and tangata whenua need to be consulted, (iv) a report is compiled to the satisfaction of the Historic Places Trust and tanagata whenua, and (v) the Site Record Form is updated.

1.8.2 Note that the more detailed suggestions that Phillips made in 1999 concerning the excavation along the spur outside the defences, and adopting a research design to answer questions about the evolution and design of peripheral pa were not explicitly mentioned. However, the authority is very general in its conditions, and the Historic Places Trust can require an excavation proposal under section 17 of the Historic Places Act.

4.0 IDENTIFICATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

4.1 There are 18 recorded sites within the quarry property and one on the boundary which may extend into the property. The plans, descriptions, locations and extent of all the sites, except U14/1662, are shown in Phillips 2000 report.

4.2 The largest site, and the physically most dramatic, is the part of Hikotawatawa pa (U14/23 8) situated on the highest part of the property.

4.3 There are two other, smaller ridge pa. One has been damaged by a fenceline (Q14/1660), the other has been mainly quarried away (Q14/1810).

4.4 The remaining sites are levelled terraces that were used for houses, and pits used for storing the kumara and other crops. These sites are probably more extensive than is marked on Phillips’ plan, as he has indicated with his sensitive areas.

4.5 These sites contain evidence relating to the settlement of the area over a time period estimated to be from at least 1450-1850. Hikotawatawa pa appears to be the earliest site occupied, though it may not have been fortified in its earliest phase of settlement. Archaeological evidence in the sites includes defensive ditches and banks and palisades, storage pits, houses, cooking areas and midden containing evidence of the types and sources of shellfish and fish eaten at the sites. There may also be evidence of tool manufacture. The adjacent stream gullies may include pollen from the area that indicate bush clearance, artefacts that have fallen from the sites above, and wooden items deliberately placed in wet areas for preservation.

5.0 IDENTIFICATION OF SENSITIVE AREAS

5.1 Phillips (2000) identified 9 sensitive areas, of which possibly 5 could be affected by the proposed quarrying. His comment that nearly all the slopes less than 20° contain features is a very useful measure, and my own experience at Kairua backs up his assertion that there are many features hidden beneath the ground surface¹⁸.

5.2 Other sensitive areas might be the stream valleys adjacent to Hikotawatawa pa.

6.0 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RECORDED SITES

18 Caroline Phillips 1999a.

6.0 The significance of archaeological sites is based on criteria such as: archaeological values, context, integrity, importance to tangata whenua, and educational value¹⁹.

6.1 Gumbley has described the archaeological significance of the sites at Papamoa in his report. He identified a pattern of large prominent pa sites with ‘client’ terrace sites on the ridges leading up to them. The sites on the northern and eastern side of the property are part of this. On the western side there are no prominent pa, however there possibly were 3 pa overlooking the stream valley (one of the pa has been totally destroyed, one 90% destroyed and the third damaged by the construction of a fenceline²⁰). The valley floor itself has been quarried, but originally the streams fed into the Kopuaroa Stream, which in turn led to the Kaituna River. Clearly the area was important in the past, and the activities that took place here had a more than local significance.

6.2 The context of the sites is very important. Landscape archaeology, which views the settlements within the context of the whole landscape including the natural resources and use of different landforms, is an essential analytical strategy in order to understand Maori settlements.

6.3.1 The importance of the waterways should also not be overlooked: the springs, with their fresh drinking water, leading to streams with flax and eels, and the main transport routes along the rivers. All these were important in the economic system of the former Maori settlements.

6.3 There are probably no areas in New Zealand which have been totally unaffected by the impacts of post-European contact landuse, such as forestry, mining, drainage and farming. However, the damage that has already been done to the

¹⁹ Draft guidelines Clough 2001, Walton 2001.

²⁰ Phillips 1999.

sites, landscape and waterways in the area as a whole is not so great that the integrity has been lost or even severely compromised.

6.0 The importance of these sites to tangata whenua has been briefly discussed in the assessments. Kahotea has argued elsewhere about the number of associations of different iwi and hapu with the area²¹.

6.5.1 Throughout these investigations at Poplar Lane Quarry the archaeology and tangata whenua reports have been kept separate. Although it is appropriate for both to argue according to their own areas of expertise and knowledge, there are circumstances relating to particular sites, practices, and areas where it is important for both to come together to properly assess the heritage value.

6.1 The clarity of a number of the sites, their large size, the continuing knowledge of the traditions and the archaeological understandings based on the investigations along the dunes and the more limited work on the hills means that this is could be a very valuable place for educational purposes. This is further enhanced by the closeness to major populations at Tauranga, Te Puke and Papamoa Beach, and the fact that it is on a major transport route. Finally, the development of the Papamoa Hills cultural landscape reserve, which includes part of this property, would result in a conservation plan to better preserve the area’s heritage for the future.

7.0 MITIGATION OF EFFECTS ON RECORDED SITES

7.1 The Resource Management Act and Historic Places Act require an assessment of effects, and if there are adverse effects require a discussion on the possibility to avoid, remedy or mitigate those adverse effects.

²¹ Fredericksen et al. 1996.

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.

and fenced off until a decision has been made either to protect or modify the sites through an authority from the Historic Places Trust.

8.0 Much of the area in Stage 5 and 6 is in pines. When the pine trees are felled an archaeologist with experience in avoiding damage to archaeological sites in forestry be present to supervise the felling operation. At that time a more thorough investigation of the area, possibly using trenching and probing, should take place to identify any sites and relocate U14/1662.

8.1 I would rather see further investigation where required at this stage, rather than rely on on-going monitoring as it provides a better method for the identification and protection of sites.

9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

1. all recorded sites, including sites found in the sensitive areas, should be excluded from quarrying

2. all sites adjacent to the quarry faces should be clearly fenced off with a buffer zone agreed with the NZ Historic Places Trust.

3. the sensitive areas which are under threat from quarrying in Stages 1, 5 & 6 should be further examined to determine the presence and extent of sites, including using probing and machine trenches

4. when the pine trees are felled an archaeologist with experience in avoiding damage to archaeological sites in forestry be present to supervise the felling

5. the stream valleys leading up to Hikotawatawa pa, which have a high likelihood of containing archaeological evidence, should not be affected by the quarrying

1. if any archaeological finds are made by chance, including features, midden, artefacts and human remains, the Historic Places Trust and tangata whenua groups should be informed immediately, as well as Regional Council

2. further archaeological work should be done in consultation with tangata whenua

10.0 REFERENCES

Bowers, Lynda

1999a. Archaeological field inspection and assessment of effects: Poplar Lane Quarry. Papamoa. Unpub. report prepared for Fulton Hogan Limited.

1999b. Application for resource consent - Poplar Lane Quarry. Unpub. letter dated 7 April 1999, IN Fulton Hogan Limited 1999. Poplar Lane Quarry: application for resource consents and assessment of environmental effects. Appendix 7.

Bowers, Lynda & Ken Phillips

1998. Archaeological investigation report, pursuant to an authority under section 14 of the Historic Places Act 1993, no. 1996/91, Reid Road, Papamoa. Unpub. report prepared for J & N Cooper.

Clough, R.

2001. Evaluation criteria for Hauraki Gulf Island heritage archaeological. Draft document for Auckland City Council, Auckland.

Environment Bay of Plenty and Western Bay of Plenty District Council

1999. Special Joint Hearings Committee: Application for Resource Consent – Fulton Hogan, Poplar Lane, Papamoa. Unpub. report presented at the Joint Hearings Committee at Te Puke commencing 16 November 1999.

2000. Special Joint Hearings Committee: Report of Resource Consent Application – Fulton Hogan, Poplar Lane, Papamoa. Unpub. report of decision of hearing.

Fredericksen, Clayton, Des Kahotea & Matthew Felgate

1996. An archaeological survey of the Papamoa coastal zone, Tauranga District. Unpub. report for Tauranga District Council and NZ Historic Places Trust.

Fulton Hogan Limited

1999. Poplar Lane Quarry: application for resource consents and assessment of environmental effects. Application to Bay of Plenty Regional Council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council under Section 88 of the Resource Management Act.

Gumbley, Warren

1999. Draft application to register Papamoa Hill cultural landscape, pursuant to the Historic Places Act 1993. Unpub. report on behalf of Bay of Plenty Regional Committee of Historic Places Trust.

Kahotea, Des

1999. Submission for resource consent: Fulton Hogan, Poplar Lane Quarry. IN Western Bay of Plenty District Council 1999, Appendix C30.

Nga Potiki Resource Management Unit

1999. Fulton Hogan Resource Consent Application - Poplar Lane Quarry. Statement of submission by Nga Potiki Resource Management Unit. IN Western Bay of Plenty District Council 1999, Appendix C27.

Nga Potiki Resource Management Unit

2000. Fulton Hogan Resource Consent application – notice of appeal.

Ngaiterangi Iwi Incorporation

1999. Resource consent Fulton Hogan Ltd. Submission in relation to resource consent application. IN Western Bay of Plenty District Council 1999, Appendix C28.

Phillips, Caroline

1999a. Archaeological monitoring of test pits on Lot 6 Kairua Road, Tauranga. Unpub. report for Tauranga District Council.

1999b. Assessment of damage to Tamapahore Pa, Papamoa, Tauranga. Unpub. report for Tauranga District Council.

1999c. Stabiltisation & mitigation of Tamapahore Pa, Papamoa, Tauranga. . Unpub. report for Tauranga District Council.

Phillips, Ken

1999a. Archaeological field inspection and assessment of effects from proposed expansion stages 1, 2, 3 and 7 Poplar Lane Quarry, Papamoa. Unpub. report prepared for Fulton Hogan Limited.

1999b. Statement of evidence in the matter of the Resource Management Act and applications by Fulton Hogan Limited for resource consents for a quarry at Poplar Lane, Papamoa.

1999c. Archaeological investigation report, Authority no. 1998/114. Unpub. report prepared for C. Winch.

2000. Archaeological survey Fulton Hogan Ltd Poplar Lane Quarry Papamoa. Unpub. report prepared for Fulton Hogan Limited.

Simmons, Alexy NZ Historic Places Trust

1999. Statement of submission by the NZ Historic Places Trust. IN Western Bay of Plenty District Council 1999, Appendix C32.

Waitaha a Hei Research Team

2000. Notice of appeal under section 121 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Walton, T.

1999. Guidelines for archaeological evaluations and assessment of effects. Draft document for Department of Conservation, Wellington.

FIG 1. Plan of Poplar Lane Quarry, showing former stream channels and ridgelines (blue), present and proposed quarry (red) with recorded archaeological sites and sensitive areas (green).

FIG 2. Plan of Poplar Lane Quarry, showing former stream channels and ridgelines (blue), present and proposed quarry (red), with recorded archaeological sites and sensitive areas (green).

FIG 3. Plan of Poplar Lane Quarry, showing former stream channels and ridgelines (blue), present and proposed quarry (red), with recorded archaeological sites and sensitive areas (green).