Earthquake Fault Map

Earthquake Fault Map

Earthquake Faults Map. This map that contains all the relevant earthquake fault data for the Canterbury Region

Created by: canterburymaps
Last updated: Monday, June 24, 2024

Open

Description

This map shows all earthquake fault data for the Canterbury region, including mapped fault traces, mapped fault ruptures from the 2016 Kaikoura earthquake, and fault avoidance zones for the Hanmer, Ashley, Greendale, and Ostler faults.


The Earthquake data included in this map is:


The fault awareness areas and fault avoidance zone show areas where there may be a surface fault rupture hazard. Surface fault rupture is the permanent breaking, ripping, buckling or warping of the ground on or near the line where a fault meets the ground surface, as a result of an earthquake on the fault. It is different from earthquake shaking.

The fault awareness areas are derived from faults mapped at a broad scale of 1:250,000 for Environment Canterbury by GNS Science between 2009 and 2019: Kaikoura (2015, updated 2019), Hurunui (2012), Waimakariri (2013, updated 2019), Selwyn (2013), Ashburton (2009), Timaru (2017), Mackenzie (2010), Waimate (2017) and Waitaki (2017). There is no dataset for Christchurch City as there are no known earthquake faults at the ground surface in the Christchurch City or Banks Peninsula area.

This dataset has been created as recommended in Barrell, et al, 2015, Guidelines for using regional-scale earthquake fault information in Canterbury. GNS Science Consultancy Report 2014/211. A 125m or 250m buffer was placed around the mapped fault traces to create this polygon dataset, depending on how certain the fault is, and how well expressed it is at the ground surface. Definite (well expressed and moderately expressed) fault and monocline records and likely (well expressed and moderately expressed) fault and monocline records have a 125m buffer, recognising that the mapped location of the fault is fairly well constrained and is reasonably close the actual location. All other faults and monocline records have a 250m buffer, recognising the the mapped location is not as well constrained. See Barrell, et al, 2015 for a full description of the method used to create this polygon dataset, and recommended actions for each type of area.

The fault avoidance zones are derived from more detailed fault mapping (generally 1:10,000 or better, using LiDAR) undertaken between 2004 and 2024 for faults closer to populated areas where more detailed mapping is needed for land use planning. These include: several faults in Kaikoura, the Hanmer Fault (Hurunui District), Ashley Fault (Waimakariri District), Greendale Fault (Selwyn District) and the Ostler Fault (Mackenzie District). 

Descriptions of the attribute fields:

Name: Fault name, generally taken from the district fault name field (e.g. KDC_name) in the district fault datasets or the fault name in the fault avoidance zone datasets. Some of these have been changed or updated from the original district fault names to make them consistent with fault names in neighbouring districts.

Zone:Fault zone that the fault is within, if any.

Certainty:The level of confidence that the mapped feature is in fact an active earthquake fault - definite, likely or possible. See Barrell, et al, 2015 for full descriptions.

Surface form:How clearly the mapped feature can be seen at the ground surface - well expressed, moderately expressed, not expressed or unknown. See Barrell, et al, 2015 for full descriptions.

Min RI:Minimum fault recurrence interval, taken from the summary table of each district fault report, or updated with more recent information.

Max RI:Maximum fault recurrence interval, taken from the summary table of each district fault report, or updated with more recent information.

Min RI Class:Minimum fault recurrence interval class (as defined in Kerr, et al, 2003, Guidelines for development of land on or close to active faults), taken from the summary table of each district fault report, or updated with more recent information. Some values have been changed to better match the minimum fault recurrence interval.

Max RI Class:Maximum fault recurrence interval class (as defined in Kerr, et al 2003, Guidelines for development of land on or close to active faults), taken from the summary table of each district fault report, or updated with more recent information. 

Dom sense:Dominant sense of movement on fault - dextral (strike-slip), sinistral (strike-slip), reverse, thrust or normal. Kept from the 1:250,000 GNS Science QMAP series fault attributes, where given.

Sub sense:Secondary sense of movement on fault - dextral (strike-slip), sinistral (strike-slip), reverse, thrust or normal. Kept from the 1:250,000 GNS Science QMAP series fault attributes, where given.

Down quad:Which side of the fault has gone down relative to the other side. Kept from the 1:250,000 GNS Science QMAP series fault attributes, where given.

District:District that fault is within.

Buffer: Whether a 125m or 250m buffer has been applied to the fault to create the fault awareness area as per Barrell, et al, 2015. Or the buffer distance used for fault avoidance zonation.

Poly_type: Whether the polygon is a fault awareness area or a fault avoidance zone, as described above.

Date: Year the information was created.

Report: Report that accompanies the information.

Author: The organisation that created the information.

Complexity: The complexity of fault deformation within a fault avoidance zone (for fault avoidance zones only).

Base_data: The original dataset that the fault awareness area or fault avoidance zone is based on.

Base_scale: The scale at which the fault mapping was originally undertaken.

Rept_link: Hyperlink to accompanying report.


Fault Avoidance Zones are a recommended risk-based tool to mitigate surface rupture hazard for land use planning purposes, as described in the MfE Active Fault Guidelines. The aim of the MfE Active Fault Guidelines is to assist resource management planners tasked with formulating land use policy and making decisions about development of land on, or near, active faults. Ideally Fault Avoidance Zones would have been generated for all faults in the Kaikōura District. However, many of the faults in the district are in sparsely populated rural areas or Department of Conservation estate and are unlikely to experience development pressures in the near future. As a result, Fault Avoidance Zones have only been generated for faults with relatively short recurrence intervals and which are in areas of potential future development. Avoidance Zones were generated from buffering the deformation width of individual fault traces and adding the 20 m setback zone.



Mapped fault ruptures associated with the 14 November 2016 Mw7.8 Kaikoura earthquake. Extracted from the New Zealand Active Fault Database, maintained by GNS Science, with a 50m buffer applied.


Hanmer Fault Trace 2004: 

The surveyed location of the Hanmer Fault through Hanmer Springs township. Data as collected using differential GPS in 2004 with accuracy to +/- 5 metres. Note that the original dataset also included two small parallel inferred fault traces to the north of the main trace in the Queen Mary Hospital site. During fault investigations in the area by GNS Science and Tonkin & Taylor in 2008 these were found to be man-made features. These fault traces have been removed from this dataset.


Hanmer Fault Hazard Area Hurunui District Plan 2003:           

Hanmer Fault Natural Hazard Area as shown in the Hurunui District Plan. This natural hazard area encompasses the mapped fault scarps/areas of deformation associated with the Hanmer Fault plus a 20-metre buffer either side. The fault scarps were mapped from aerial photos by Geotech Consulting Ltd in 1993. Accompanying report is Yetton, M., 1993, Active Fault and Landslide Hazard Assessment in Hanmer and Cheviot. Report prepared for Hurunui District Council by Soils and Foundations, Ltd, Christchurch, 31 July 1993.Hurunui District Council has placed restrictions on development within the Hanmer Fault Natural Hazard Area as outlined in the Hurunui District Plan.



Ashley Fault Zone Active Fault Lines 2014

Locations of Fault lines located within the Ashley Fault Zone. The locations of the fault lines where the fault is classified as 'well expressed' are considered to be accurate to +/- 10 m at best on the younger river terraces (Okuku Terrace 3/Makerikeri Terrace 2 and younger) but are no better than +/- 20 m on older terrace or hill landforms. There is lesser accuracy for lines that are classified as 'moderately expressed' or 'not expressed'. Users should obtain guidance from the Ground Deformation Classification map dataset as to the likely accuracy of the fault lines dataset coverage. Accuracy will be greatest close to mapped fault scarps, and increasingly less accurate the farther one is from a mapped scarp.


Ashley Fault Zone Active Fold Axes 2014

Locations of active fold axes in the Ashley Fault Zone represented as lines. This dataset was compiled for presentation at a scale of 1:35,000 in the report, but the data were captured at more detailed scales. Lines representing folds were mapped at ~1:5,000 scale. The mapped fold axis lines are less precise than the fault lines because the fold scarps or arches are less clearly defined in the landscape than the fault scarps. Lines representing monoclines are considered to be accurate to +/- 20 m at best, while syncline or anticline axis positions are considered to be accurate to +/- 40 m at best.


Ashley Fault Zone Landform Feature Lines 2014

Locations of Landform Feature lines (terrace edge or edge of high ground) in the Ashley Fault Zone. The landform feature lines, were mapped on-screen at a scale of approximately 1:10,000. Locations of the boundaries of the landform lines are considered to be accurate to about +/- 30 m. The lesser precision and greater generalisation applied to the mapping of these features allowed more effort to be focused on mapping the fault-related features.


Ashley Fault Zone Geomorphologic Map Units 2014

The geomorphologic map units (fault/fold scarp, broad fault escarpment, river, alluvial fan, minor valley, terraces, and hills) were drawn on-screen at a scale of approximately 1:10,000, except for tectonic landform map units, which were mapped at ~1:5,000 scale. Locations of the boundaries of the map unit boundaries are considered to be accurate to about +/- 30 m, apart from the tectonic landform unit boundaries, which are considered to be accurate to +/- 10 m at best on the younger river terraces (Okuku Terrace 3/Makerikeri Terrace 2 and younger) but are no better than +/- 20 m on older terrace or hill landforms.


Ashley Fault Zone Ground Deformation 2014

This ground deformation dataset (scarps, monoclinal flexure, fault escarpment, deformation, river bed) for the Ashley Fault Zone was compiled for presentation at a scale of 1:35,000 in the report, but the data were captured at more detailed scales. The ground deformation classification map dataset is derived from the geomorphologic map unit dataset, and its accuracy is the same as for the geomorphologic map. The geomorphologic map units were drawn on-screen at a scale of approximately 1:10,000, except for tectonic landform map units, which were mapped at ~1:5,000 scale. Locations of the boundaries of the map unit boundaries are considered to be accurate to about +/- 30 m, apart from the tectonic landform unit boundaries, which are considered to be accurate to +/- 10 m at best on the younger river terraces (Okuku Terrace 3/Makerikeri Terrace 2 and younger), but are no better than +/- 20 m on older terrace or hill landforms.


Ashley Fault Zone Fault Complexity 2014

The dataset is derived from the Ashley Fault Zone ground deformation dataset. Accuracy of the polygon boundaries is the same as for the geomorphologic map unit dataset. The geomorphologic map units were drawn on-screen at a scale of approximately 1:10,000, except for tectonic landform map units, which were mapped at ~1:5,000 scale. Locations of the boundaries of the map unit boundaries are considered to be accurate to about +/- 30 m, apart from the tectonic landform unit boundaries, which are considered to be accurate to +/- 10 m at best on the younger river terraces (Okuku Terrace 3/Makerikeri Terrace 2 and younger), but are no better than +/- 20 m on older terrace or hill landforms.


Ashley Fault Avoidance Zone 2020

Extent of the Ashley Fault Avoidance Zones. Areas of well-defined and distributed deformation have a 20 m buffer applied as per the Ministry for the Environment guidelines. Areas of uncertain and extended deformation were considered by the report (Environment Canterbury, April 2020 for the Waimakariri District Plan review. Based on mapping and data in Barrell, D. J. A.; Van Dissen, R. J. 2014. Assessment of active fault ground deformation hazards associated with the Ashley Fault Zone, Loburn, North Canterbury, GNS Science Consultancy Report 2013/173 / Environment Canterbury Report No. R14/77) and the uncertain and extended deformation (without 20 m buffer) have been manually adjusted slightly to smooth out any sharp edges. The well-defined and distributed deformation areas (with 20 m buffer) have also been clipped out of adjacent uncertain or extended deformation areas.



Greendale Fault 2011

Mapped surface fault ruptures of the Greendale Fault during the September 2010 Mw7.1 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake. Features are described as faults, fault scarps or suspected faults; broad scarps; or broad folds.Accompanying report is Villamor, P., Barrell, D., Litchfield, N., Van Dissen, R., Hornblow, S. and Levick, S., 2011, Greendale Fault investigation of surface rupture characteristics for fault avoidance zonation. Science Consultancy report 2011-121, Environment Canterbury report R11/25.


Greendale Fault Complexity 2011

Fault complexity/avoidance zones for the Greendale Fault, based on the Greendale Fault traces dataset mapped after the Greendale Fault rupture in the September 2010 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake. Areas are mapped as either well-defined, distributed, or uncertain deformation, as outlined in the accompanying report. At the time of the report the best estimate of recurrence interval class (long term average time between earthquakes) for the Greendale Fault was RI Class V (5,000-10,000 years). Subsequent research by Hornblow et al (2014) has placed the recurrence interval class into RI Class VI (10,000-20,000 years).Accompanying report is Villamor, P., Barrell, D., Litchfield, N., Van Dissen, R., Hornblow, S. and Levick, S., 2011, Greendale Fault investigation of surface rupture characteristics for fault avoidance zonation.GNS Science Consultancy report 2011-121, Environment Canterbury report R11/25.See also Hornblow, et al, 2014, Paleoseismology of the 2010 Mw7.1 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake source, Greendale Fault, New Zealand.Tectonophysics 637:178-190.


Ostler Fault Zone Active Fault Lines and Fold Axes 2010

Location of fault traces and fold axes that form part of the Ostler Fault Zone. The southern part of the dataset ('Ruataniwha') was mapped with hand held and differential GPS in 2005, the northern part of the dataset ('Twizel') was mapped using aerial photos in 2010.Accompanying report is Barrell, D.J.A., 2010, Assessment of active fault and fold hazards in the Twizel area, Mackenzie District, South Canterbury. GNS Science Consultancy Report 2010/040. Environment Canterbury report R10/25 (Figures 2 and 3).<o:p></o:p>


Ostler Fault Zone Ground Deformation 2010

Interpretation of the extent and nature of pre-existing fault-related ground deformation associated with the Ostler Fault Zone near Twizel (east of the Pukaki Canal), and adjacent areas that show no indication of deformation. The southern part of the dataset ('Ruataniwha') was mapped with hand held and differential GPS in 2005, the northern part of the dataset ('Twizel') was mapped using aerial photos in 2010.Accompanying report is Barrell, D.J.A., 2010, Assessment of active fault and fold hazards in the Twizel area, Mackenzie District, South Canterbury. GNS Science Consultancy Report 2010/040. Environment Canterbury report R10/25 (Figure 2).


Ostler Fault Zone Fault Complexity 2010

Interpretation of the extent and nature of pre-existing fault-related ground deformation associated with the Ostler Fault Zone near Twizel (east of the Pukaki Canal), and adjacent areas that show no indication of deformation.The dataset is derived from the Ostler Fault Zone ground deformation dataset.Accompanying report is Barrell, D.J.A., 2010, Assessment of active fault and fold hazards in the Twizel area, Mackenzie District, South Canterbury. GNS Science Consultancy Report 2010/040. Environment Canterbury report R10/25 (Figure 3).


Ostler Zone Hazard Area in Mackenzie District Plan 2011

The Ostler Fault Hazard Area as shown in the Mackenzie District Plan. The Ostler Fault Hazard Area includes the 'well defined deformation' and 'distributed deformation' areas from the Ostler Fault Zone fault complexity 2010 dataset, with a 100-metre buffer on the upthrown side of these areas and a 50-metre buffer on the downthrown side, as well as the 'uncertain deformation - constrained' areas from the Ostler Fault Zone fault complexity 2010 dataset. The buffer is wider on the upthrown side of the fault, as more ground deformation is seen on the upthrown sides of faults, compared to the downthrown side. The 'uncertain deformation - constrained' area was included in the Ostler Fault Hazard Area because two 'well defined' and 'distributed' areas 'disappear' into this area, meaning that the fault traces could continue under this area. Mackenzie District Council has placed restrictions on development in the Ostler Fault Hazard Area as outlined in the Mackenzie District Plan (Plan Change 15 and Variation 1 to Plan Change 13).

Ostler Fault Hazard Area 2023

Ostler Fault Hazard Area for the Mackenzie District Plan. This revised version of the Ostler Fault Hazard Area replaces the Ostler Fault Hazard Area developed for the Mackenzie District Plan in 2010.

The Ostler Fault Hazard Area is the area potentially at risk of surface fault rupture (breaking and buckling of the ground) associated with an earthquake on the Ostler Fault. Surface fault rupture only affects a narrow zone tens of metres wide along the fault. It is a different hazard from earthquake shaking, which would affect a much wider area.

The hazard area has been derived by placing buffers around the mapped 'distributed' and 'well-defined' fault deformation associated with the Ostler Fault. A 35 metre buffer was placed either side of the Haybarn strands of the Ostler Fault, on the western side of the Pukaki Canal. A 50 metre buffer was placed on the downthrown side of the Ruataniwha strands of the Ostler Fault on the eastern and northern side of the Pukaki Canal, and a 100 metre buffer on the upthrown side. This additional buffer width is to take account of the more complex deformation associated with the Ruataniwha strand, and the greater likelihood of deformation on the upthrown side of fault strands than the downthrown.

Accompanying report is Jack, H., 2023, Revised Ostler Fault mapping for the Mackenzie District Plan.Environment Canterbury science report.

Ostler Fault Deformation 2023

This dataset shows ground deformation associated with the Ostler Fault at Twizel. The accompanying report is Jack, H., 2023, Revised Ostler Fault mapping for the Mackenzie District Plan, Environment Canterbury report available on the Environment Canterbury website www.ecan.govt.nz.

Ground deformation, or fault complexity, is defined as 'well-defined' where there is a distinct fault scarp and 'distributed' where the deformation is distributed over a wider area.

Mapping was undertaken from lidar at 1:2,000, and drew on past work of Barrell (2010) (for Mackenzie District Council Variation 1 to Plan Change 13) and Barrell (2008, 2009, 2017, 2019 and 2022) undertaken for subdivision consent applications.

Map Credits

See layer descriptions for data sources. Environment Canterbury

Access and Use Constraints

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand License

Map Contents

Basemap:
  • {{layersInfo.baseMap.title}}: {{layer.url}}{{$last ? '' : '; '}}
Operational Layers: