This active fold dataset, prepared by GNS Science under contract to Otago Regional Council (ORC), is based on the GNS Science QMAP (Quarter-Million-scale geological mAP) dataset 'folds' layer. The base dataset was extracted from the nationwide QMAP 'seamless' dataset (Heron 2014) in mid-2017. That dataset is sourced from original geological map data represented in the Queenstown Lakes and Central Otago districts by the Wakatipu map (Turnbull 2000; western parts of both districts), Haast map (Rattenbury et al. 2010; headwaters of the Wanaka and Hawea catchments), Murihiku map (Turnbull and Allibone 2003; southernmost part of Central Otago District) and the Waitaki map (Forsyth 2001; eastern part of Central Otago).The extracted QMAP folds dataset was modified by the addition of three new attribute fields, the repositioning of some folds or parts of folds, and the addition of new folds. The three new attribute fields are:ORC_name (local name for the mapped feature(s))CertaintySurf_formA single active fault at depth is commonly expressed at the ground surface as a zone of splintering. An individual line of splinters (fault strand) may comprise fault offsets of the ground surface (fault scarps) or ground-surface folds (fold scarps), and typically a mixture of both. A fault zone may include several lines (traces) of semi-parallel strands and a fault zone can in some cases be several kilometres wide. Some fold strands have previously been named separately, and this name is retained in the GIS dataset, but the various strands that comprise fold components of an active fault are grouped under a common name (ORC_name). This is done to highlight that, collectively, the strands are regarded as part of a single active fault structure, whose movements at depth have produced an array of ground-surface fault and/or fold deformation.The Certainty attribute indicates the assessed level of the certainty with which each feature is recognized as an active fold (definite, likely or possible).The Surf_form (Surface form) attributes provides an interpretation of the surface distinctiveness of each feature at the ground surface; the only two categories are used in this dataset are 'moderately expressed' or 'not expressed'. The QMAP folds dataset contains many attribute fields that are not important for the dataset described here, and those fields have been deleted from this dataset. However, to make clear the linkage between the QMAP dataset and this active fold dataset, five of the QMAP attribute fields are retained, comprising ‘NAME’, ‘TYPE’, ‘FACING’, ‘QMAP_NAME’ and ‘QMAP_NUMB’. The 'NAME' field provides the fold name (if any). The 'TYPE' field indicates the nature of the fold; in this dataset, the only fold type represented is 'monocline'. The 'FACING' field indicates the relative direction of fold movement, by stating which side of the fold is downwarped (e.g., north, northeast, east, southeast, south, southwest, west, northwest). The last two fields refer to the original published QMAP sheet name, and the published sheet number. For fold features that are newly added (i.e., not on QMAP), these latter two fields carry a NULL entry. Unless indicated otherwise, all the fold data have been compiled at a regional scale (1:250,000) and the locations of active folds should be regarded as having a general accuracy of ± 250 m, and at best, ± 100 m. The geographic coordinate system for the data is New Zealand Geodetic Datum 2000.

Efficient utilisation of aggregate resources is critical to supporting infrastructure development and reducing operational and transport costs related to extraction of raw materials. To understand the spatial distribution of future resources, aggregate opportunity in the Central Otago area has been mapped using modelling of geological, land use, infrastructure and cultural digital data to map where future resources could be located so they can be prioritised over less critical land uses to support our growing economy. Aggregate opportunity areas are places that have overlapping spatial data classes favourable for extractive activities. A spatial modelling approach has been used to identify places with opportunity for future hard rock, gravel and sand extraction. The resulting maps and their GIS based equivalent datasets of gravel and hard rock aggregate opportunity can be used to manage aggregate resources, generate targets for exploration activities and provide insight into future resources. Appendix to GNS Science report 2024/13 consisting of 27 PDF maps and GIS data files. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.21420/RFGE-SQ76) DOI: https://doi.org/10.21420/6ask-wg49 Cite as: Hill, MP & Chilton, MO. 2024. Aggregate opportunity modelling for the Central Otago area of New Zealand [digital appendix]. Lower Hutt (NZ): GNS Science. https://doi.org/10.21420/6ask-wg49

This liquefaction susceptibility dataset, prepared by GNS Science under contract to Otago Regional Council (ORC), covers the entire extent of the Central Otago District, Clutha District, Queenstown Lakes District, and that part of the Waitaki District lying in the Otago Region. The dataset comprises a four-fold classification of liquefaction susceptibility classes, called 'domains', that identifies areas that are assessed as being underlain by sediments which may have some liquefaction susceptibility. In making the assessment, consideration has been given to whether groundwater levels are likely to be sufficiently close to the ground surface to make liquefaction possible.This dataset does not define hazard zones, but rather identifies liquefaction-susceptibility domains. In terms of the MBIE (2017) guidelines, the mapping approach used to produce this dataset equates to a “Level A” basic desktop assessment, that is aimed at distinguishing between areas where liquefaction damage is unlikely to occur (Domain A) versus areas where liquefaction damage is possible (domains B, B1 and C).The liquefaction-susceptibility domains in this dataset, with reference to MBIE (2017) guidelines, are defined as follows:Domain A. The ground is predominantly underlain by rock or firm sediments. There is little or no likelihood of damaging liquefaction occurring. In MBIE (2017) terms, liquefaction damage is unlikely; Domain B. The ground is predominantly underlain by poorly consolidated river or stream sediments with a shallow groundwater table. There is considered to be a low to moderate likelihood of liquefaction-susceptible materials being present in some parts of the areas classified as Domain B. In MBIE (2017) terms, liquefaction damage is possible;Domain B1. As for Domain B, but there is geotechnical evidence for the presence of liquefaction-susceptible materials at least in some locations in the subsurface; Domain C. The ground is predominantly underlain by poorly consolidated marine or estuarine sediments with a shallow groundwater table. There is considered to be a moderate to high likelihood of liquefaction-susceptible materials being present in some parts of the areas classified as Domain C. In MBIE (2017) terms, liquefaction damage is possible.Reference: MBIE (2017). Planning and engineering guidance for liquefaction-prone land. Wellington (NZ): Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). 134 p. Technical report; ISBN (online) 978-1-98-851770-4.Accuracy: The positioning of boundaries between domain polygons is based largely on landform features. The main topographic and photographic basemaps used to aid the mapping were the 1:50,000-scale LINZ Topo 50 map series, and high-resolution colour aerial photos, accessed digitally through the ArcGIS software. Unless stated otherwise in the companion report (see Credits), the mapping scale was 1:50 000, and the boundary between each domain polygon should be regarded as being a 100 m wide zone, rather than a line. In areas where lidar coverage was available for the mapping, the mapping scale is 1:10 000, and domain boundaries should be regarded as 20 m wide zones. In towns and villages, where Google Earth Street View was available at the time of mapping, Google Earth ground photography was accessed to help in positioning domain boundaries. In those areas, the assigned mapping scale is 1:1 000, and boundaries are considered accurate at the scale of property parcels and buildings. The commentary in Appendix 2 of the companion report indicates where these more detailed scales apply.

Eleven high hazard alluvial fans were identified from the twenty-seven areas studied in the supplementary investigation (Barrel et al, 2009). The fans selected within this investigation do not necessarily represent those fans in Otago with the highest level of hazard rather; this subset has been selected based on existing and future development potential. The eleven Catchment Areas chosen for this report are:Queenstown Lakes: Pipson Creek (Makarora), Flaxmill Creek (Makarora), Johns Creek (Hawea), Stoney Creek (Wanaka), Waterfall Creek (Wanaka), Walter Peak (Wakatipu), Bobs Cove (Wakatipu), Brewery Creek (Queenstown), Reavers Lane (Queenstown), Kingston Creek (Kingston)Central Otago: Reservoir Creek (Roxburgh)The field "AREA_TYPE" has been added to categorize the data based on the original layer from which it came (Catchment Area, Source Area, or Hazard Area).The Source Area layer serves to identify the sediment source areas that supply sediment to the channels in each of the eleven alluvial fans. The data includes information about the type of sediment source (such as Primary Sediment Source, Upper Catchment Source Area, Schistose slides, etc.)To determine the Hazard Area of each alluvial fan, specific information was collated and acquired to gain an improved understanding of potential alluvial fan hazards. This information includes:The extent of existing and potential catchment instability that may contribute significant sediment and/or debris supply to the fan surface.The potential for debris dam formation and identification of existing landforms in the upper catchment that provide evidence for historical damming.Vegetation characteristics of the catchment and potential for log-jam dam formationThe identification and mapping of palaeo-channels on the fan surface and the potential for these to be re-occupied through channel avulsion.Observations of previous debris flow deposits, their location and potential for future debris flow by inspection of existing soil profiles to generally determine the frequency and derivation of events.Observations of channel incision down the fan surface, the location of the hydrographic and topographic apices and key inflection points.The potential for aggradation and lateral migration of active channels and the likely risk of avulsion.The potential for significant erosion of existing channels and likely effects.These Hazard Areas have been defined by combining active alluvial fan areas mapped by Barrel et al (2009), extending potential hazard areas using stereoscopic aerial photography and ground verification, and integrating the results of previous site specific investigations. It is important to note that these hazard areas represent the full extent of possible unmitigated future alluvial fan activity. Alluvial fan hazards will vary spatially within this boundary depending on the nature and characteristics of the storm event and fan surface at that time.Full report available here: https://qldc.t1cloud.com/T1Default/CiAnywhere/Web/QLDC/ECMCore/Rendition/GetFile?docId=3313634&r=pdf&h=qDY6TH9Zof&t=1146791E&rv=PDF_8_1_3_S3_099_00328FD7_00B_pdf&rev=N&ah=q9wIdZELqC&suite=ECM