CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

HOLOCENE-PLEISTOCENE SAND PROVENANCE IN

THE CANTERBURY BASIN, EASTERN

SOUTH ISLAND, NEW ZEALAND

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of Master of Science in Geology

By

Carrie Bender-Whitaker

May 2013

The thesis of Carrie Bender-Whitaker is approved:

______

John M. Jaeger, Ph.D. Date

______

Richard V. Heermance, Ph.D. Date

______

Kathleen M. Marsaglia, Ph.D., Chair Date

California State University, Northridge

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would first like to thank my committee members, Dr. Kathleen Marsaglia, Dr. John

Jaeger, and Dr. Richard Heermance, for their time and support during this very significant milestone in my life. Very special thanks go to: Dr. Kathleen Marsaglia and

Greg Browne for introducing me to the exciting world of New Zealand geology; IODP-

MI and Shipboard Scientists of Expedition 317 for their contribution to this study; the

faculty and staff of the CSUN geology department, for imparting me with the

fundamental knowledge that has allowed me to achieve my goals; funding from NSF

OCE 1060703 and BD-NSF HRD-0928852; my project members, Claire Bailey and

Jasmyn Nolasco; and lastly my friends and family, who gave me the strength to never

give up.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SIGNATURE PAGE ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii ABSTRACT vi INTRODUCTION 1 Background 1 New Zealand Tectonic Evolution 1 Geology of Southern Island New Zealand 2 Canterbury Basin Geology and Sequence Stratigraphy 4 Modern South Island Sediment Sources 6 Previous Petrologic Work 6 METHODS 8 RESULTS 11 Onshore River and Beach Samples 11 Offshore Core Samples 13 Sand texture 13 Overall Composition 14 Depth (Relative Age) Trends 15 DISCUSSION 18 Sand Provenance 18 Type 1 and Type 2 Facies Assemblage 20 Linking Sand Provenance to Depositional Environment 22 Origin(s) of the Mixed Provenance Samples 23 Feldspar Sources 24 CONCLUSIONS 25 REFERENCES 27

iv

APPENDIX A: TABLES 33 APPENDIX B: FIGURE CAPTIONS 49 APPENDIX C: FIGURES 53 APPENDIX D: PLATE CAPTIONS 90 APPENDIX E: PLATES 92

v

ABSTRACT

HOLOCENE-PLESITOCENE SAND PROVENANCE IN THE CANTERBURY BASIN, EASTERN SOUTH ISLAND, NEW ZEALAND

BY

Carrie Bender-Whitaker

Master of Science in Geology

Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) Expedition 317 drilled four sites

(U1351, U1352, U1353, and U1354) on a shelf-to-slope transit across the Canterbury

Margin located off the east coast of the South Island, New Zealand. The purpose of this study was to petrographically analyze the Holocene-Pleistocene sandy intervals to determine how sand composition within the offshore Canterbury succession reflects the influence of both south-to-north (shore-parallel) and west-to-east (shore-perpendicular) sediment transport.

Sand samples were obtained from both IODP drill core and onshore settings.

Thirty-eight offshore core samples (10-20 cc) of Holocene-Pleistocene age and nine onshore samples (eight from rivers and one from a beach) were collected and air-dried.

Offshore samples were sieved to separate the bulk sand-size fraction (2.0-0.0625 mm) and the onshore samples were sieved to separate medium, fine, and very-fine sand fractions. A total of 63 thin sections, 38 offshore and 25 onshore, were made and stained for feldspar recognition. Four hundred points (grains) were counted for each sample using the Gazzi-Dickinson method to estimate composition.

Onshore samples range from quartzo-feldspathic (South) to lithic rich

(Central/Northern). Mica and metamorphic lithic fragment proportions allow for further

vi

discrimination. Northern rivers draining mainly Torlesse lithologies are dominated by lower-grade metamorphic lithic fragments. Central rivers, draining the Torlesse to schist

(semi-schist) transition, contain more high-grade metamorphic lithic fragments. The southern rivers are mica rich, having been derived from coarse schist. The differences observed in onshore samples allowed for the provenance classification of offshore samples as: 1) Northern (Torlesse Group), 2) Central (Torlesse-Schist Transition Group),

3) Southern (Schist Group), or 4) Mixed.

The distribution of the sand composition in the shelf and slope sites reflects a complex interaction of different factors. Compositional trends indicate a dynamic system where shore-parallel and shore-perpendicular processes alternate on the shelf, and shore– perpendicular processes dominate on the slope. Mixing processes include: shelf currents, transgressive erosion, bioturbation, and earthquake liquefaction, plus potential drilling disturbances.

vii

Introduction Background The Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) selected the Canterbury Basin, located off of the east coast of South Island, New Zealand, as the focus site for

Expedition 317 (Fig. 1). The objectives of this Expedition were to: 1) understand the late

Miocene-Holocene history of global sea level change (esutasy), and its effect on the continental margin seismic sequences recognized by Lu and Fulthorpe (2004) in this region; 2) characterize sediment sources and uplift history on the Southern Alps, and 3) determine the interplay of along-strike and downslope sediment transport (Fulthorpe, et al., 2011). In post-cruise studies by shipboard scientists, the applications of various techniques are being used to study sequence formations within the Canterbury Basin. My study uses the sand provenance technique on Holocene to Pleistocene sand recovered in

Expedition 317 cores. My main hypothesis is that sand composition in the offshore

Canterbury succession reflects the influence of both south-to-north shore-parallel and west-to-east shore-perpendicular sediment transport. This can be tested by comparing the composition of offshore marine sands with sands from onshore source rivers directly east and further south of the Expedition 317 drill sites. Another hypothesis to be tested is that sand associated with sequence boundaries has distinct compositional signatures.

New Zealand Tectonic Evolution The New Zealand islands are part of a continental fragment that formed as a result of subduction-accretion processes along the Pacific margin side of Gondwana during the

Paleozoic and Mesozoic, known as the Rangitata Orogeny (Cox and Sutherland, 2007).

In the late Early Cretaceous, the convergent tectonic regime was replaced by one of extension and crustal rifting that led to the separation of the New Zealand sub-continent

1

from Australia. Starting in the Eocene a complex transform-convergent plate boundary evolved (Cox and Sutherland, 2007). Today, New Zealand lies on the boundary that separates the Pacific and Australian tectonic plates known as the Alpine Fault (Fig. 1), a dextral strike-slip zone with 500 km displacement since the earliest Miocene (23Ma)

(Kamp and Filzgerald, 1987). This fault connects two subduction zones: the Hikurangi

Trough to the north and the Puysegeur Trench to the south.

Geology of South Island New Zealand The South Island can be divided into two geological provinces separated by a long–lived (ca. 375-110 Ma) subduction-related Median Batholith (Cox and Sutherland,

2007). The western province basement is composed of Late Cambrian to Late

Ordovician terranes that have undergone regional metamorphism, whereas the Eastern

Province Brook Street, Murihiku, Matai, Caples, Bay of Islands (part of the former

Waipapa), Rakaia (older Torlesse) and Pahau (younger Torlesse) terranes are most pertinent to this study. These are dominated by lithic and feldspathic metagreywackes, including volcanic, intrusive and ophiolitic rocks that were accreted to the Gondwana margin (Cox and Sutherland, 2007). The two major groups that make up the Eastern

Province are the Torlesse terrane and its metamorphic equivalent, the Otago/Haast Schist

(Fig. 2).

Mortimer (2004) describes the Rakaia terranes (older Torlesse) as being dominated by a turbiditic submarine sandstone-mudstone association, exhibiting features that are consistent with deformation in an accretionary wedge, however it is unknown whether the depositional environment occurred at a passive or active margin. Fossils found within the Rakaia subterrane are of Permian, middle Triassic, and late Triassic age

2

(MacKinnon, 1983). The Torlesse terranes are dominated by quartzofeldspathic sandstone with minor amounts of argillite and conglomerate. Older Torlesse (Rakaia) terrane greywackes have a range of sand detrital modes (Q 24-40%, F 43-50%, and L17-

26%) with lithic fragments being dominantly silicic volcanic rocks; in contrast, most of the Caples terrane greywackes have a more lithic-dominated range of detrital modes (Q

10-35%, F15-20%, and L50-75%) with lithic clasts including mafic, intermediate and felsic volcanic rocks (Mortimer and Roser, 1992).

During the Jurassic to Early Cretaceous, significant regional metamorphism overprinted areas within the Rakaia and Caples Terranes producing a major metamorphic belt, the Haast Schist (Cox and Sutherland, 2007) which includes the Rees, Kaimanawa,

Marlborough, Alpine, Otago, and Chatham schists (Grindley et al., 1959; Hay et al.,

1970). The Otago Schist has been described as a metamorphic welt, which overprints the

Caples and Torlesses tectonostratigraphic terranes (Coombs et al., 1976). In the southern

South Island, the Otago Schist forms a 150 km-wide north-west-trending structural anticlinorium (Cox and Sutherland, 2007). The Otago Schist is predominantly psammitic

(medium size) and pelitic (fine size) grayschist with minor amounts of greenschist

(widely distributed in 1-100m thick bands) with a lower grade semi-schist (prehnite- pumpellyite facies) (Mortimer, 1993).

In the South Island, New Zealand there is a regional unconformity that divides the hard, underlying metamorphosed basement rocks of the Rangitata Synthem, and the overlying less consolidated Cretaceous-Cenozoic rocks of the Kaikoura Synthem

(Browne and Carter, 2011). Carter (1988) divided the Kaikoura Synthem into five

3

subgroups and these are summarized in Table 1. These are present in the Canterbury

Basin (Fig. 2).

Canterbury Basin Geology and Sequence Stratigraphy The Canterbury Margin is a passive margin on the eastern margin of South Island,

New Zealand that developed as a small, extensional syn-rift basin prior to the break-up of the eastern Gondwana margin at ~80 Ma (Cox and Sutherland, 2007; Weissel et al.,

1977). The Canterbury Basin sits at the landward edge of the rifted continental fragment and underlies the present-day onshore Canterbury Plains and offshore continental shelf.

It contains Cretaceous to Cenozoic strata that crop out along the foothills of the Southern

Alps (Cox and Sutherland, 2007; Field and Brown, 1989).

The Canterbury Basin is part of the Eastern New Zealand Oceanic Sedimentary

System (ENZOSS; Carter and Carter, 1996). The distal component of ENZOSS was drilled by Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Leg 181 (Shipboard Scientific Party, 1999).

The more proximal components in the offshore Canterbury Basin have been explored since 1970, with 10 petroleum exploration wells (>500 m) drilled to date, several of which were testing Cretaceous sandstone reservoir targets (Sutherland and Browne,

2003). More recently, in 2009/2010, Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP)

Expedition 317 drilled four sites (1351-1354) along a transit of the Canterbury Margin

(Fulthorpe et al., 2011) to test seismic sequence models developed for the region.

Nineteen sequence-bounding unconformities were identified on high resolution seismic lines across this margin by Lu and Fulthorpe (2004). They attributed the sequence geometries and unconformity morphologies to competing influences of eustasy, contour currents, rates of sediment supply, and seafloor morphology. The 19 middle

4

Miocene to Holocene age regional unconformities numbered U1 through U19 define basinwide regional sequences that were penetrated on Expedition 317 (Fig. 3).

The sediment cores recovered from Expedition 317 range in age from early

Eocene to Holocene (Fulthorpe et al., 2011). Shipboard scientists described the stratigraphy of each site (U1351-U1354) dividing it into two major units (I and II) and several subunits (Fig. 4; Table 2). Unit I contains a wide variety of facies with mainly green marl or calcareous beds with sharp or bioturbated bases. On the shelf, Unit II sediments are dominated by mud or muddy sand with a lower percentage of carbonate components and less frequent greenish calcareous beds. In contrast, occasional sandy beds represent this unit; most of the recovered sediment on the slope is some type of mud

(e.g., sandy mud; calcareous mud, etc.). Of the cores that were recovered on Expedition

317, only the Holocene-Pleistocene intervals of Unit I are part of this study (Fig. 4). The sequence boundaries that are of concern for this study are U19, U18, and U17, with estimated ages of 0.113 Ma, 0.252-0.277 Ma and 0.74 Ma respectively based on ties to

ODP Site 1119. More recently post cruise studies by Kobayashi et al. (2012) suggest that these ages be modified to 0.13Ma, 0.50 Ma, and 0.62 Ma.

Modern South Island Sediment Sources There are several potential modern sources of terrigenous sediment in the

Canterbury Basin: river(s) that cross the Canterbury Plains from the Alpine Fault, as well as, and/or along strike fed sediment, sourced from onshore river(s) located to the south and transported northward via the wind-driven littoral shelf currents or slope-parallel contour currents off the shelf edge (Fig. 2). The lithological assemblages that are dissected by onshore rivers vary in their degree of metamorphism from non-

5

metamorphosed sedimentary rock, to low-grade metamorphic rocks to semi-schist, to schist (Figs. 1 and 2). Current day onshore rivers carry sediments whose composition reflects surrounding lithologies exposed in their drainage basins. For example, the

Rangitata and Rakaia rivers, located to the north, drain mainly Torlesse rocks. The

Waitaki River has several tributaries that drain both Torlesse, semi-schist and schist, making it the point of transition between Torlesse and schist. The Clutha, located to the south, drains predominantly Otago schist (Figs. 1 and 2). These rivers can be used as rough proxies of paleo-rivers that drained similar lithologies in the past and fed sediment to the shelf and slope areas of the Canterbury Margin cored on expedition 317. A recently published study (Rowan et al., 2012) suggested that the current drainage basins are products of glacial events. Similar stream capture processes have likely modified the proportions and types of lithologies shedding sediment into the Rangitata and Ashburton river systems over time.

Previous Petrologic Work There has been relatively little petrologic work done on the modern sand shed off of South Island, New Zealand. Smale, an expert on New Zealand’s dense mineral assemblages, has published on the petrology of Cretaceous to Cenozoic sandstones (e.g.,

Smale, 1978a,b; 1980; 1982; 1983; 1985a, b, c; 1987; 1988a, b; 1989; 1990; Smale and

Langer, 1980; Smale and Nathan, 1980). Smale (1990) found that the Torlesse sandstone yielded a heavy mineral suite composed of epidote and biotite with minor amounts of titanite, zircon, garnet, chlorite and apatite but provided no insight into the light mineralogy (e.g., quartz, plagioclase, K-feldspar, and mica) of Torlesse sourced sand.

Sandstone detrital modes for the Torlesse sandstone suggest that these rocks should yield minor quartz, moderate feldspar and significant lithic components (Mortimer, 1994). In 6

contrast the Otago Schist includes an assemblage of minerals dominated by quartz, albite, muscovite, and chlorite, with lesser epidote, titantite, and apatite (Kautz and Martin,

2007).

Shapiro et al. (2007) analyzed the sand fractions from Ocean Drilling Program

(ODP) Site 1122 on the Bounty Fan levee, and compared them to onshore river samples.

They outlined two major sand sources: the Torlesse terrane which produces lithic-rich sand, and the Otago Schist, which produces quartzo-feldspathic and distinctly micaceous sand. They concluded that much of the sand in the Bounty Fan levee consists of Otago

Schist detritus sourced from the Clutha River.

7

Methods Samples used for this study were collected from both offshore IODP drill core and onshore sites (Fig. 2). Thirty-eight sandy core samples (10-20 cc) of Pleistocene –

Holocene age were collected shipboard on IODP Expedition 317 (Fig. 5). Onshore river samples were collected by Dr. Kathleen Marsaglia between the years of 2001-2011.

Eight onshore rivers were selected based on the distributions of lithologies in their drainage basins (Fig. 2). A single beach sample (NZ-11-06) was collected north of

Dunedin because of its proximity to volcanic outcrops.

Onshore samples were air dried and then sieved into sand size fractions (very coarse, coarse, medium, fine, and very fine). Unconsolidated core sediment samples were air dried and then sieved to separate the bulk sand-sized fraction (2.0-0.0625 mm).

The latter were not further separated into size fractions owing to their generally small volumes (10-20 cc). A total of 63 thin sections, 38 offshore and 25 onshore, were made.

All of the thin sections were stained for potassium and calcium feldspar using the method outlined in Marsaglia and Tazaki (1992).

Point count data was collected using an Olympus BX51 microscope and Prior model G automatic stage data collection system. After preliminary petrographic analysis, only the very-fine, fine, and medium sand fractions for the eight onshore samples, the bulk sand fraction from the ninth onshore sample, and the terrigenous sand-bearing core samples were point counted. Four hundred points were counted for each sample and grains were categorized according to Table 3. The Gazzi-Dickinson method of point counting was used for modal analysis (Ingersoll et al., 1984). The Gazzi-Dickinson method of point counting categorizes sand-sized mineral grains in a

8

monominerlic/polymineralic rock fragment as individual grains to minimize compositional dependence on grain size.

Quartz grains were classified as monominerlic (Qm) or polymineralic (Qp) with the latter subdivided into textures associated by degree of source-rock metamorphism: polycrystalline quartz grains exhibiting subgrain elongated (Qpse), subgrain rectangle

(Qpsr), and dislocation subgrain (Qpd) textures (Plate. 1; Passchier and Trouw, 2005).

Feldspar types were easily separated by the presence (Ca, K) or absence (Na) of stain

(Plate 2), as well as degree of alteration.

Lithic grains are a major grain assemblage within both the onshore river and offshore core samples. A grain classification scheme (Table 3; Plates 3, 4, and 5) was modified from that of Garzanti and Vezzoli (2003), Shapiro (2004) and Shapiro et al.

(2007) to ensure an accurate and consistent identification of lithic grains including volcanic, sedimentary and metamorphic varieties. Major sedimentary and metasedimentary lithic categories were divided based on mineral assemblages, grain size and degree of metamorphism. With increased metamorphism, siltstone lithic fragments

(Lsi) grade into silty argillite or pelite (Lmsip), and argillite fragments (Lsa) grade into slate (Lmp1) then into polycrystalline mica (Lmm) (Plate 3). Sand-bearing metasiltstone fragments are categorized as Lmf0.5 or Lmf1 or Lmf1.5 depending on the degree of cleavage formation and recrystallization, increasing from 0.5 to 1.5 (see Table 3 and Plate

4). Higher-grade metamorphism of rocks with Lmf and Lsi textures produces quartz- mica-tectonite (Lmt) metamorphic lithic fragments. Quartz-mica-tectonite grains exhibit foliated fabric, and are subdivded based on mineral assemblages (Plate 5): quartz- muscovite tectonite (Lmtm), quartz-biotite tectonite (Lmtb), quartz - chlorite tectonite

9

(Lmtc), or simply as Lmt (undifferentiated) where non-quartz minerals could not be identified because they were too fine or altered. Other micaceous metamorphic lithics include: quartz-mica tectonite with pale green non-micaceous metamorphic minerals

(Lmtpg), and quartz-mica tectonite with dark green non-micaceous metamorphic minerals (Lmtdg).

Other counted grain types included dense minerals (epidote (De), garnet (Dg), clinozoisite (Dcz), zoisite (Dz), and other dense minerals (Do)), mica (muscovite, biotite, and chlorite) and bioclasts (Table 3). The latter were subdivided according to bioclast types when possible: Globigerinid foram (Bf1), biserial foram (Bf2), miliolid foram

(Bf3), hyaline evolute foram (Bfh), echinoid fragment (Be), arthropod barnacle fragment

(Bab), brachiopod fragment (Bpb), mollusk gastropod (Bmg), mollusk undifferentiated

(Bmu), sponge spicules (siliceous) (Spong), and other bioclasts of unknown origin (Other

Bio).

Raw and recalculated parameters were determined using Excel (Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7), and results were plotted on various ternary diagrams and depth plots for analysis.

10

Results Onshore Rivers and Beach Samples Only the medium to very fine sand fractions for all onshore river and beach samples were petrographically examined in this study (Tables 4 and 6), as no coarse sand beds were present offshore. Onshore river sand ranges from angular to sub- rounded. Quartz and feldspar grains have a tendency to be more rounded than the lithic fragments. Most of the quartz grains observed in the onshore samples are monocrystalline quartz with wavy extinction. Other quartz types observed are chert and polycrystalline quartz, with some polycrystalline quartz grains exhibiting subgrain elongated, subgrain rectangle, and dislocation subgrain grain boundaries (Plate 1). These quartz types make up a minor amount of the quartz total, but were subdivided and counted to potentially help determine the degree of source-rock metamorphism.

Feldspar observed includes K-feldspar, altered K-feldspar, unstained feldspar

(Na), altered unstained feldspar (Na), plagioclase and altered plagioclase, which are seen as both lone grains and crystals within lithic fragments (Plate 2). Dense minerals such as epidote, garnet, clinozoisite, zoisite and opaques are common (<25%Total grains).

Muscovite, biotite, and chlorite grains are rare within the onshore samples (<5% Total grains). Lithic fragments make up a large percentage of the onshore samples (≤71%

Total grains), depending on sample locations (Table 6). The most common types of lithic fragments are quartz-mica tectonite undifferentiated (Lmt), quartz-muscovite tectonite

(Lmtm), quartz-biotite tectonite (Lmtb), sandy siltstone with rough cleavage (Lmf1.0), and argillite (Lsa) less common lithic fragments observed are quartz-mica aggregate

(LmaQ+M), silty argillite or pelite (Lmsip), and victric volcanic (Lvv) (Table 4).

11

Despite use of the Gazzi-Dickinson method to minimize the effects of grain size on detrital modes, there does appear to be some grain size effects as seen in Figures 6, 7, and 8. Very-fine sand fractions tend to have a higher percentage of QFL%F (Fig. 6) than the fine and medium sand fractions. Medium sand fractions have a higher percentage of

QmKP%Qm, that decreases with grain size (Fig. 7). There is no trend observed in sand fractions within the southern rivers, although very-fine grain fractions sampled from the central and northern rivers have a higher percentage of LmLvLs%Lm (Fig. 8). Very fine- grained sand fractions contain higher amounts of MBChl%M (Fig. 9).

Analysis of onshore river samples on ternary plots reveals that there is a regional difference between river sand compositions (Fig. 6). The southern rivers (Clutha and

Kakanui) and the Brighton Beach samples range from feldspathic arenite to lithic arenite compositions and are dominated by quartz grains, with minor amounts of lithic fragments and lesser amounts of feldspar (Fig. 6). The Clutha River contains the highest amount of quartz and feldspar. The central rivers (north, south and main Waitaki River as well as it’s tributaries) are lithic arenite in composition, dominated by both sedimentary and metamorphic lithic fragments with minor amounts of quartz and lesser amounts of feldspar (Fig. 6). Northern rivers (Pareora, Rangitata, and Rakaia) are lithic arenite in composition, dominated by metamorphic lithic fragments with minor amounts of quartz and trace amounts of feldspar (Fig. 6). The northern rivers have higher lithic percentages and size fractions tend to cluster. The QFL percentages for the central and southern rivers tend to become more scattered to the south (Fig. 6).

The range of QmKP percentages are similar from north to south with the northern rivers showing subequal percentages of potassium feldspar and plagioclase (Fig. 7). In

12

general the Clutha River has the lowest K-feldspar content. Northern rivers have a lower overall percentage of quartz, but a higher proportion of monocrystalline quartz.

The LmLvLs%Lm percentages (Fig. 8) remain rather constant from north to south, although volcanic lithics are more prominent within the Clutha River. In general, the very fine sand fractions tend to have a higher percentage of metamorphic lithics than the fine and medium sand fractions. Sedimentary lithic proportions show no distinct trends.

In terms of micaeous lithic (Low grade-LG, High grade-HG) and mica proportions, there is a compositional change from north to south; northern rivers contain higher proportions of MicaLGHG%LG, within the very-fine fractions containing more

MicaLGHG%HG than the other size fractions (Fig. 10). The central rivers have a higher percentage of MicaLGHG%HG and tend to cluster. The southern rivers are higher in

MicaLGHG%Mica with the very-fine fractions containing the highest amount of mica

(Fig. 10). The MBChl proportions are variable and show no distinct differences among rivers; however the Clutha River has a higher percentage of chlorite (Fig. 9). The

Waitaki River has a higher proportion of muscovite, but this is based on a small number of grains (Table 4). MBChl proportions show no relationships to grain size (Fig. 9).

Overall mica percentages are higher in the Clutha River samples.

Offshore Core Samples Sand Texture Grain size for offshore sand samples ranges from very fine-grained to medium- grained. The average grain size increases from inner shelf (very fine to fine) to outer shelf (fine to medium) to slope (medium) (Table 8). Grain size varies within each site, exhibiting no distinct relationship with depth (age) or composition (Table 8). Offshore samples range from poorly (1) to well (5) sorted (Table 9). There are no apparent

13

relationships between sorting and composition or depth (Table 8). Offshore sand ranges from angular to sub-rounded. The average rounding varies from site to site, with the most angular grains being found on the inner and outer shelf sites (1353 and 1351), and the more sub-rounded grains found on the middle shelf and slope sites (1354 and 1352).

There are no apparent relationships between rounding and composition or depth (Table

10).

Overall Composition The predominant quartz type observed in the offshore core samples is monocrystalline quartz with wavy extinction (Tables 5 and 7). Other minor quartz types observed are chert and polycrystalline quartz with subgrain elongated, subgrain rectangle, and dislocation subgrain grain boundaries. The feldspar types observed include K- feldspar, unstained feldspar, altered unstained feldspar, and plagioclase, which are seen as both single grains and crystals within lithic fragments. Dense minerals such as epidote, garnet, clinozoisite, zoisite and opaques are common but less than 15% of the total grains.

Muscovite, biotite, and chlorite percentages vary from site to site, however all samples contain less than 10% of micaceous minerals (Table 5). Lithic fragments range from

15% to 60% of the total grains and these proportions exhibit no distinct relationship to site location or depth (Table 7). The most common lithic fragments are quartz-mica tectonite (Lmt), sandy siltstone lithic fragments with rough cleavage (Lmf1.0), and argillite fragments (Lsa); less common lithic fragments are quartz-mica aggregate lithics

(Lma Q+M) and plagioclase-mica aggregate lithics (Lma P+M) (Table 5).

QFL plots for the offshore sites are indiscriminant, showing subequal proportions of Q, F and L (Fig. 11). Mean values for each site cluster, however sites closer to the shore (U1353 and U1354) have a higher percentage of feldspar than the more distal sites

14

(U1351 and U1352) (Fig. 11). QmKP proportions are relatively uniform (Fig. 12); samples from all sites are predominantly monocrystalline quartz and plagioclase. Mean values show that the shelf samples are more plagioclase rich (U1353) and the slope samples are more enriched in monocrystalline quartz (U1352) (Fig.12).

Lithic (LmLvLs) proportions for all offshore samples are relativity similar, although some samples from the more proximal sites contain more sedimentary lithics, than the more distal site U1352 (Fig.13). Mica and metamorphic lithic proportions

(MicaLGHG; Fig. 14) show no distinct trends among sites. The average percentage of volcanic lithics and mica proportions (MBChl; Fig. 15) remain the same for each site.

On average, the outer shelf to slope sites are more enriched in mica.

Depth (Relative Age) Trends In terms of temporal trends in sand composition with depth, there are no consistent changes among sites, although there are changes that occur within cored intervals at any given site. I first discuss each site individually using detailed stratigraphic columns produced by shipboard scientists for the shelf sites, and then compare site results across the shelf to the slope.

At Site U1353 (Fig. 16) there is an increase in feldspar (QFL%F) and a decrease in lithics (QFL%L) up-section. Quartz however is relatively constant (Fig. 16). There are no general trends observed in QmKP percentages with depth (Fig. 17), and the proportion of metamorphic lithics, the predominant lithic type within this site, increases up-section

(Fig. 18). There is a slight increase in mica up-section, with variable higher and lower grade metamorphic lithic proportions up-section (Fig. 19).

The QFL compositional percentages for U1354 show an increase in quartz and a decrease in lithics upsection from Core 8H (Fig. 20). Similarly, QmKP data show an

15

increase in monocrystalline quartz and a decrease in plagioclase up-section from Core 8H

(Fig. 21). The K-feldspar percentage stays relatively low throughout the section except for a spike that occurs within Core 7H (Fig. 21). The dominant lithic type is metamorphic and there is an increase in LmLsLv%Lm at the expense of LmLsLv%Ls going up-section. There are no volcanic lithics, except in one sample in Core 6H above sequence boundary U18 (Fig. 22). Higher grade metamorphic lithics are dominant (Fig.

23) and they increase up-section, at the expense of lower grade metamorphic lithics. The percentage of mica grains fluctuates up-section (Fig. 23).

QFL and QmKP data for site U1351 exhibits no distinct trends up-section (Figs. 24 and 25), however there is a significant shift between metamorphic and sedimentary lithic percentages (Fig. 26). The percentage of volcanic lithics is low throughout most of the section, except for one sample in core 5H (Fig. 26), which also exhibits traces of K- feldspar (Fig. 25). There are major changes that occur in site U1351, in terms of

MicaLGHG percentages, both the higher and lower grade metamorphic lithic fluctuate dramatically up-section, whereas mica percentages decrease up-section (Fig. 27).

There does not appear to be any distinctive trends in the QFL or QmKP percentages

(Figs. 28 and 29) with depth at site U1352. However there is a significant spike in K- feldspar below the sequence boundary U19 (Fig. 29). Metamorphic lithics are the most dominant lithic type except at the base of the section, when the lithic fraction becomes mainly sedimentary (Fig. 30). The percentage of volcanic lithics is low throughout most of the section, except for a spike that occurs at sequence boundary U19 (Fig. 30). There are no distinct down hole trends that can been seen in terms of MicaLGHG percentages

(Fig. 31).

16

Figures 28, 29, 30 and 31 demonstrate the lack of common down-hole trends among sites. Each site shows somewhat unique compositional patterns. There are no distinct trends in bioclast percentages up-section (Fig. 5). A common compositional anomaly is seen at all four sites; a slight increase in K-feldspar and volcanic lithic content (Fig. 29) that occurs around sequence boundary U18 for the three shelf sites (U1353, U1354, and

U1351) and below sequence boundary U19 for the slope site (1352).

17

Discussion Sand Provenance Of the standard QFL, QmKP, and LmLvLs plots (Figs. 6, 7, and 8), only the QFL plot shows a difference between the southern and northern rivers, however it does not discriminate between the rivers draining Torlesse (e.g. Rangitata), and those draining the

Torlesse-Schist Transition (e.g. Waitaki River). Since there is a difference in the grade of metamorphism between the different lithologies, using the degree of metamorphic recrystallization within lithic fragment populations should allow for discrimination among the three river systems: the low grade meta-sedimentary Torlesse rocks (north), transition from Torlesse to semi-schist and lower schist grade rocks (central) with slightly higher (medium) grade, and then into higher grade Otago schist (south) (Fig. 10).

Multiple ternary plots were constructed using the various proportions of metamorphic lithic fragment types, however only one of these plots worked in discriminating between the Torlesse, Torlesse-Schist Transition, and Schist sand provenances (Fig. 10). It was created by separating lithic fragments based on grade of metamorphism (higher vs. lower grade) using the Garzanti and Vezzoli lithic scheme and percent mica (derived from mainly coarse schist). Using the QFL and MicaLGHG ternary plots (Fig. 6 and 10), river sediments derived from the different lithologies can be best distinguished, but there is still some overlap among the size fractions. The fine and very fine sand tends to have a higher percentage of higher-grade metamorphic lithic fragments. Since the offshore samples consist of mostly fine and very fine sand, it is important to compare similar grain size fractions when evaluating their likely provenance.

Ternary plots of offshore sands show that the range of sand compositions and site mean values are fairly similar across the margin, from site to site (Figs.11, 12, 13, and

18

14). In terms of QFL proportions, the offshore sites are more enriched in feldspar than the rivers (Fig. 11) and this extra feldspar is mainly plagioclase as shown in Figure 12. In terms of lithic proportions, the offshore sites are more enriched in metamorphic and sedimentary lithic fragments (Fig. 13). In terms of mica proportions, offshore samples, on average, have a higher percentage of mica (Fig.14), and the more proximal sites

(U1353-U1354) have higher percentages of higher-grade lithic fragments than the more distal sites (U1351-U1352). All of the sites exhibit sand fractions with somewhat mixed proportion of mica and metamorphic lithic fragments. Using the MicaLGHG proportions of four modern rivers as guides (Fig. 32), I classified offshore samples as being more similar to: 1) Torlesse (lower grade>> higher grade metamorphic lithic fragments), 2)

Torlesse-Schist Transition (higher grade >>lower grade metamorphic lithic fragments, 3)

Schist (high mica, low lithics), 4) or Mixed (all micaLGHG percentages generally between 20-45%) (Figs. 19, 23, and 27).

These classified samples are summarized in Figure 31. Each of the shelf sites differs in down-hole patterns and proportions of sands with specific (Torlesse, Torlesse/

Schist Transition, Schist, or Mixed) provenance (Fig. 31). In shelf sites, subequal proportions of Torlesse, Torlesse/ Schist Transition, and Mixed samples are observed.

Each of the shelf sites has a higher proportion of Mixed samples at the bottom of the section. Of the shelf samples, 12 samples are classified as Mixed, six samples appear to have a Torlesse-Schist Transition provenance, and two samples appear to have a Torlesse provenance. In contrast, the slope site U1352 has a higher proportion of non-mixed samples than mixed samples (Fig. 32). The lowermost sample analyzed at site U1352

19

appears to have a Schist provenance, whereas overlying samples transition from a

Torlesse to a Torlesse-Schist Transition provenance (Fig. 31).

Type 1 and Type 2 Facies Assemblages. Owing to the lack of sedimentary structures in the cores and the ambiguity of their contained benthic foraminifers as paleowater depth indicators, Shipboard Scientists found it difficult to determine depositional environments of the Unit I shelf sediments (e.g. nonmarine, transitional marine to shelf; Fulthorpe et al., 2011). However, they were able to recognize (Fig. 33) two distinct facies assemblages (Type 1 and Type 2). The base of the Type 1 assemblage is rich in shell fragments and contains centimeter-to decimeter thick shell hash beds mixed with siliciclastic material (fine to medium sand) that fines upward into overlying sandy silt at the top of the assemblage. The Type 1 facies assemblages are described as up to several meters in thickness, and consist of sandy mud

(silt-dominated) with scattered common shell fragments of gastropods and bivalves

(Tawera). The Type 1 facies assemblage likely represents a transgressive-lag deposit that the Shipboard Scientists attributed to frequent erosion, in turn overlain by a maximum flooding surface (Fig. 33).

The Type 1 facies assemblage is the basal part of the Type 2 assemblage (Fig.33) which is overlain by series of greenish gray, shelly, bioturbated mud beds with a sharp lower contact, followed by a transition up-hole into dark gray, micaceous very fine sandy mud with color banding and alternations of sand and mud that coarsen upward into sand

(Fig. 33). In the Type 2 assemblage, the transgressive system tract passes into a highstand system tract, followed by a subsequent regressive event with intervals representing rapid flood events. The uppermost Type 2 sand unit possibly indicates an

20

inner shelf, high-energy coastal environment, which may represent the offshore progradation of the coastline (Expedition 317 Scientists, 2010; Fig. 33).

Site U1351 is the only site that contains the two facies assemblages in continuous section (Type 1 and Type 2). A series of samples was collected across one Type 2 cycle at site U1351 from Core 8H to Core 5H (Figs. 34). Petrographic analysis of these samples shows that the samples located within the basal and middle part of the facies assemblage have a Mixed provenance signature. The Mixed samples (Core 8-Section 2-1 cm, Core 7-Section 4- 2 cm, Core 6-Section 1-80 cm, and Core 5-Section 2-109 cm) are fine to medium grained, poorly to moderately sorted muddy sands (Table 5). In contrast, the uppermost sand unit in this Type 2 facies, sample Core 5-Section 2-8 cm, is medium grained and moderately well sorted, with a very strong Torlesse-Schist Transition provenance signature (Table 5). There does not appear to be any difference in rounding between the Mixed and Torlesse-Schist Transition samples (Table 5). Comparing the

Type 2 cycle to cycles observed by Naish and Kamp (1997) along the margins of the eastern Wanganui Basin, North Island, New Zealand, samples exhibiting a Torlesse-

Schist Transition provenance signature can be interpreted as having been deposited between a regressive and lowstand event (Fig. 34), while the underlying samples were deposited during transgressive and highstand events.

If the compositional trends from the Type 1 and Type 2 facies assemblages at site

U1351 are applied to the rest of the samples, perhaps every Torlesse-Schist Transition provenance signature observed in sites U1353, U1354, and U1352, may indicate the presence of one of the uppermost sand units in a Type 2 assemblage. Samples containing a strong Torlesse provenance signature are more prominent in the slope site (U1352) than

21

the shelf sites (U1353, U1354, and U1351) (Fig. 31). These samples vary in grain size, sorting and rounding (Table 5).

Linking Sand Provenance to Depositional Environment The lack of sedimentary structures, paleowater depth indicators, and oxygen isotope data in the Expedition 317 cores examined in this study, makes interpretation of sea level change difficult. However, the presence of marine bioclasts in many of the sandy intervals implies deposition in a marine environment on the shelf, whereas other bioclast-free samples may indicate shelf exposure (see tabulations by provenance group in Figure 35). The Torlesse-Schist Transition samples tend to have a lower percent of bioclasts and with the assumption these beds are the uppermost sand unit of a Type 2 assemblage from my detailed analysis of site U1351 Type 2 facies assemblage, this infers that these samples where either deposited during lowstand conditions or deposited quickly, not permitting a suitable environment for marine organisms to live in or be reworked by transgressive mixing. Mixed samples have a higher percentage of bioclasts and could be interpreted as being sediments from a Type 1 assemblage (base of a Type 2 assemblage) inferring that these samples were deposited during marine shelf (highstand?) conditions. Given their high bioclast content, Torlesse provenance samples may have been deposited under similar conditions as the Mixed samples.

Using the above assumptions, I created a series of snap shots of the depositional environment through time (Fig. 36). Interpretation of paleo-shorelines in these snap shots was based on the percentages of bioclasts within sand samples at various time intervals using sequence boundaries as rough guides to correlate among sites. Estimated ages of the sequence boundaries are based on both Lu and Fulthorpe (2004) and Kobayashi et al.

22

(2012). The only sample with a Schist provenance occurs at the base of the studied interval at site U1352, in the deepest water facies included in this study according to the shipboard scientists (Expedition 317 Scientists, 2010). This is consistent with Schist detrital input as a result of along slope currents, not of direct shelf-perpendicular fluvial input. Thus sediment provenance signatures are influenced by multiple factors at any given time frame in this system, some more strongly by fluvial input and sea-level change. The changes in sea level are thought to be a result of climate and not a result of tectonic influence.

Origin(s) of the Mixed Provenance Samples The Mixed provenance signature is the more prominent type observed among the shelf samples. There are a number of ways to produce samples with Mixed provenance

(Fig. 37). Mixed signals may be a result of onshore processes, such as: 1) drainage capture resulting from glacial events as discussed by Rowan et al. (2012); 2) exposure and erosion of either underlying or multiple lithologies draining into a single river system; or 3) derivation from a distinct, but as yet unidentified river source. Mixed signal samples may also be a result of marine processes such as transgressive mixing by wind and wave driven currents. Once deposited, mixing of sand beds with different provenance could also be accomplished by liquefaction or bioturbation. Lastly, there is also the possibility that compositions were mixed during drilling. For example, sample

1351B-5H-3 was thought to have been overprinted and or masked by drilling disturbance

(cave-in) at the top of the core (Expedition 317 Scientists, 2010). The compositional trends seen within the shelf samples (predominantly Mixed provenance signature), suggest that transgressive mixing by wave and wind-driven littoral currents is the dominant mixing process (e.g., Warrick and Barnard, 2012). 23

Feldspar Sources The percentage of feldspar that is present within the offshore samples does not match the amount of feldspar contained in the modern onshore rivers (Figs. 8 and 13).

There must be another source for the large amount of sand-sized feldspar, specifically plagioclase, that is present within the offshore samples. The onshore LmLvLs ternary plot shows that river samples contain higher percentage of volcanic lithic fragments than the offshore sites (Figs. 8 and 13). The onshore QFL and QmKP ternary plots show that the percentage of feldspar and plagioclase is higher in offshore samples than in onshore samples. This may imply that in the past, the volcanic outcrop onshore was more extensive and what are observed now are mainly the eroded remnants. Volcanic glass would be preferentially weathered or dissolved, leaving only feldspar. This is a possible explanation as to why there is an increase in plagioclase and a decrease in volcanic lithic fragments. There are also increases in LmLvLs%Lv and QmKP%K around U18 sequence boundary within the shelf sites (U1353-U1531) and U19 at the slope (U1352) site as shown in Figure 30. This may be linked to some distinct volcanic event.

24

Conclusions The onshore geology of the Canterbury Basin is reflected within the composition of associated stream sand. River sand compositions define three major sand provenances:

Torlesse, Torlesse-Schist Transition, and Schist. These onshore provenance groups can be discriminated using QFL ternary plots to some degree, but there is overlap of the

Torlesse and Torlesse-Schist Transition groups. The best discriminator among all three groups is the proportion of mica, lower grade, and higher grade metamorphic lithics: 1)

Torlesse (lower grade >> higher grade metamorphic lithics fragments), 2) Torlesse-Schist

Transition (higher grade >> lower grade metamorphic lithics fragments), and 3) Schist

(high mica, low total lithics but mainly higher grade varieties).

Most of the offshore sand from Expedition 317 Sites on the shelf and slope can be classified into one of these categories, but with the addition of a new Mixed category characterized by MicaLGHG with percentages generally between 20-45%. Shelf sites

(U1353, U1354, and U1351) have a higher proportion of Mixed provenance samples, while the slope sites (U1352) have a higher proportion of Torlesse and Torlesse-Schist

Transition samples and the only sample with a distinct Schist signature.

The application of this sediment provenance model to sand beds from the two facies assemblages (Type 1 and Type 2) observed at site U1351 reveals that the uppermost Type 2 sand unit exhibits a very strong Torlesse-Schist Transition provenance signature, while the basal facies (Type 1) has a Mixed provenance signature. Applying this compositional trend to the rest of the core samples suggests that perhaps samples with a Torlesse-Schist Transition signature may be the uppermost sand units in Type 2 assemblages.

25

Samples containing no or trace amounts of bioclasts (mainly Torlesse-Schist

Transition provenance) are interpreted to have been deposited during lowstand events, when fluvial processes dominated (?) the shelf. Samples containing bioclasts are interpreted to have been deposited in marginal marine-to-marine conditions during transgression or highstands. The latter tend to show Torlesse or Mixed sand provenance signatures. Mixed provenance was potentially influenced by multiple pre-depositional and post-depositional factors such as transgressive erosion, mixing by wind-driven littoral currents and long shore drift, as well as compositional changes associated with evolution of the drainage basins of the rivers that fed sediment to the coast and shelf. The origin(s) of the Mixed provenance signal is equivocal along with the high feldspar content of the offshore sands. This will be the topic of future work including additional data from older sections, as well as the integration of different data sets (e.g., bulk mineralogy, mud/clay size fractions, and seismic).

26

References Browne, G.H., and Carter, R.M., 2011. The geology of the Canterbury Basin-outcrop analogiues of sediment and related rocks drilled in the Canterbury Bight during IODP

Expedition 317, GNS Science Consultancy Report 2011/282 42p.

Carter, R.M., 1988. Post-breakup stratigraphy of the Kaikoura Synthem (Cretaceous-

Cenozoic), continental margin, southeastern New Zealand: New Zealand Journal of

Geology and Geophysics, v.31, p.405-429.

Carter, R.M., and Carter, L., 1996. The abyssal Bounty Fan and lower Bounty Channel:

Evolution of a rifted-margin sedimentary system: Marine Geology, v. 130, p.181-202.

Coombs, D.S., Landis, C.A., Norris, R.J., Sinton, J.M., Borns, D.J. and Craw, D.,1976.

The Dun Mountain ophiolite belt, New Zealand, its tectonic setting, constitution and origin, with special reference to the southern portion: American Journal of Science, v.276, p. 561-603.

Cox, S., and Sutherland, R., 2007. Regional geological framework of South Island, New

Zealand, and its significance for understanding the active plate boundary: Geophysical

Monograph, v.175, p. 19-46.

Expedition 317 Scientists, 2010. Canterbury Basin sea level: global and local controls on continental margin stratigraphy, IODP Preliminary Report, 317, doi:10.2204/iodp.pr.317.2020

Field, B.D., and Browne, G.H., 1989. Cretaceous and Cenozoic sedimentary basins and geological evolution of the Canterbury Region, South Island, New Zealand: New Zealand

Geology Survey Bulletin, v. 2, p. 94.

27

Fulthorpe, C.S., Hoyanagi, K., Blum, P., and the IODP Expedition 317 Scientists, 2011.

IODP Expedition 317: Exploring the Record of sea-level change off New Zealand. doi:10.2204/ iodp.proc.317.2011

Garzanti, E., and Vezzoli, G., 2003. A Classification of metamorphic grains in sands based on their composition and grade: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 73, p. 830-

837.

Grindley, G.W., Harrington, H.J., Wood, B.L., 1959. The geological map of New

Zealand, 1:2,000,000., Wellington, Government Print, p. 66.

Hay, R.F., Mutch. A.R., and Watters, W.A. 1970. Geology of Chatham Islands.,

Wellington, Government Print, 85p.

Ingersoll, R.V., Fullard, T. F., Ford, R. L., Grimm, J. P., Pickle, J. D., and Sares, S. W.,

1984. The effect of grain size on detrital modes: a test of the Gazzi-Dickinson point- counting method: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v.54, p.103-116.

Kamp, P.J.J.and Fitzgerald, G. F., 1987. Geological constraints on the Cenozoic

Antarctica-Australia-Pacific relative plate motion circuit: Geology, v. 15, p. 694-697.

Kautz, Q.C., and Martin, E.C., 2007. Chemical and physical weathering in New

Zealand’s Southern Alps monitored by bedload sediment major element composition:

Applied Geochemistry, v.22, p. 1715-1735.

Kobayashi, Y., Koto, S., Seki, M., Hoyanagi, K., 2012. Fluctuation of stable carbon isotope ratio in organic matter: example from IODP Site U1352 offshore Canterbury,

New Zealand: International Geological Congress, 34th, Brisbane, Australia.

28

Lu, H., and Fulthorpe, C. S., 2004. Controls on sequence stratigraphy of middle Miocene-

Holocene, current-swept, passive margin: Offshore Canterbury Basin New Zealand:

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v.116, p. 1345-1366.

MacKinnon, T. C., 1983. Origin of the Torlesse Terrane and Coeval Rocks, South Island,

New Zealand: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v.94, p. 967-985

Marsaglia, K. M., and Tazaki, K., 1992. Diagenetic trends in ODP Leg 126sandstones:

Proceedings on the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results, v. 126, p. 125-138.

Mortimer, N., 1993. Geology of the Otago Schist and adjacent Rocks: Institute of

Geological & Nuclear Science Geological Map 7, 1, sheet, scale 1:500,000.

Mortimer, N., 1994. Origin of the Torlesse Terrane and coeval rocks, North Island, New

Zealand: International Geology Review, v.36, p. 891-910.

Mortimer, N., 2004. New Zealand’s Geological Foundations: Gondwana Research, v. 7, p.

261-272.

Mortimer, N., and Roser, B.P., 1992. Geochemical evidence for the position of the

Caples-Torlesse boundary in the Otago Schist, New Zealand: Journal of the Geological

Society, v. 149, p.967-977.

Naish, T., and Kamp, P., 1997. Sequence Stratigraphy of sixth-order (41 k.y.) Pliocene –

Pleistocene cyclothems, Wanganui Basin, New Zealand: A case for the regressive systems tract: Geological Society of America, v. 109, p. 979-999.

New Zealand Geological Survey, 1972. North Island (1st Ed) “Geological Map of New

Zealand 1:1,000,000” Department of Scientific and Industrial Reseach, Wellington, New

Zealand.

29

Passchier, C.W., and Trouw, R.A.J., 2005. Micro-tectonics, New York, Springer, 2nd

Edition, 366p.

Rowan, A.V., Plummer, M.A., Brocklehurst, M.H., Jones, M.A., and Schultz, D.M., 2012,

Drainage capture and discharge variation driven by glaciation in the Southern Alps, New

Zealand: Geology, doi:10.1130/G33829.1

Shapiro, S.A., 2004, Sand provenance of the Bounty submarine fan off the eastern coast of Shout Island, New Zealand [M.S. thesis]: Northridge, California State University, 90p.

Shapiro, S., Marsaglia, K., and Cater, L., 2007. The petrology and provenance of sand in the Bounty submarine fan, New Zealand: GSA Special Paper, 420, p. 277-296.

Shipboard Scientific Party, 1999. Leg 181 summary: Southwest Pacific paleogeography.

In Carter, R.M., McCave, I.N., Richter, C., Carter, L., et al., Proc. ODP Initial Reports., v.181, College Station, TX (Ocean Drilling Program), p. 1-80.

Smale, D., 1978a. Petrology of some Mawheranui Group rocks. New Zealand Geological

Survey report, G25, 12p.

Smale, D., 1978b. The composition of a Torlesse conglomerate-Ethelton, North

Canterbury: New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, v. 21, p. 699-711.

Smale, D., 1980. Petrology of some Tertiary sandstones from Murchison: New Zealand

Geological Survey Report, G 35, 7p.

Smale, D., 1982. Heavy minerals from Cape Poulwind, New Zealand Geological Survey

Report, G55, 7p.

Smale, D., 1983. Heavy minerals from Cretaceous and Tertiary sandstone, Waipara and

Oxford, North Canterbury: New Zealand Geological Survey Report, SL5, 20p.

30

Smale,D., 1985a. Waiau Basin Cretaceous-Tertiary heavy minerals, New Zealand

Geological Survey Report, SL12, 23p.

Smale, D., 1985b. Heavy minerals in Tertiary sandstones of the Te Anau Basin,New

Zealand: Geological Survey Report, SL13, 16p.

Smale, D., 1985c. Heavy minerals in Cretaceous sandstones in Marlborough: New

Zealand Geological Survey Report, SL14, 29p.

Smale, D., 1987. Heavy minerals in Cretaceous-Cenozoic sandstones in Canterbury: New

Zealand Geological Survey Report SL17, 62p.

Smale, D., 1988a. Heavy mineral in Cretaceous and Tertiary sandstones from Northland:

New Zealand Geological Survey Report, SL18, 41p.

Smale, D., 1988b. Detrital pumpellyite and epidote group minerals in Cretaceous and

Teriary sandstone in the Southern Island, New Zealand, Journal of Sedimentary

Petrology, v. 58, p. 985-991.

Smale, D., 1989. The heavy mineral sequence around the post-Torlesse unconformity in the Ohuriawa Gorge area, Waipara River, North Canterbury: Journal of Sedimentary

Petrology, v. 6, p.1011-1021.

Smale, D., 1990. Heavy minerals from south-west Fiordland: New Zealand Geological

Survey report, SL22.

Smale, D., and Langer, H. J., 1980. Heavy minerals in upper Certaceous and Tertiary sediments of the West Coast of the South Island: New Zealand Geological Survey Report,

G43, 24p.

Smale, D., and Nathan, S., 1980. Heavy minerals in the pre-Tertiary rocks of the Paparoa

Range, West Coast, South Island: New Zealand Geological Survey Report, G36, 11p.

31

Sutherland, R., and Browne, G., 2003. Canterbury Basin offers potential on South Island,

New Zealand: Oil & Gas Journal, v. 101, p. 45-49.

Youngson, H.J., and Craw, D., 1996. Recycling and chemical mobility of alluvial gold in

Tertiary and Quaternary sediments, Central and East Otago, New Zealand: New Zealand

Journal of Geology and Geophysics, v. 39, p. 493-508.

Warrick, J.A., and Barnard, P.L., 2012. The offshore export of sand during exceptional discharge from California rivers: Geology, v. 40, p. 787-790.

Weissel, J.K., Hayes, D.E., and Harron, E.M., 1977. Plate tectonic synthesis: the displacement between Australia, New Zealand and Antarctica since the Late Cretaceous:

Marine Geology, v. 25, p. 231-277.

32

Table 1: Kaikoura Synthem Subgroups from Carter (1988) and Youngson and Craw (1996) Age Group Name Description Interpretation Late Cretaceous Matakea Group Terrestrial breccia- conglomerate, Synorogenic and immediately conglomerate and immature sand, shale, postorogenic fanglomerate fluvial and coal. sediment deposited in basement grabens during initial rifting of the continental margin. Late Cretaceous –Early Oligocene Onekakara Group Cosatal plain coal measures followed by Paralic and shallow shelf and ramp shallow marine and often glauconitic sediment deposited during a Late sandstone-siltstone- shale, marl, and Cretaceous-Oligocene marine biopelagic chalk. transgression, cause by flexural subsidence of the eastern New Zealand margin during post-rift cooling.

Late Oligocene –Early Miocene Kekenodon Group Blanket-like terrigenous clastic-poor The Marshall Unconformity, represent an greensand and glauconitic calcarenite, extended pause in sedimentation often with large-scale cross bedding and coincident. The Kekenodon group calcitic brachiopod-echinoderm-pectinid comprises detritus deposited on a macrofauna . shallow oceanic platform swept by erosive bottom currents. Early Miocene –Recent Otakou Group Terrigenous, noncalcareous silt and sand Otakou Group represents a continental with offshore to intertidal marine faunas, shelf and slope wedge which prograde overlain by coastal fluvial and coal eastwards it was fed with sediment from measure sequences. Locally, an erosional the Southern Alps Early Miocene unconformity may occur between the onwards Otakou Group and underlying strata.

Miocene-Recent Pliocene Maniototo Conglomerate Nonmarine breccia-conglomerate, Transform plate boundary activity conglomerate and related fluvial sand- commenced in western South Island shale sequences, including loess. during the Late Oligocene-Early Miocene. Rising mountains shed copious quantities of coarse-grained molasse from the Miocene onwards, with finer grained sediment being bypassed eastward for deposition in the Otakou Group shelf wedge.

33

Table 2. Lithologies of the Units and Subunits of IODP Expedition 317, Expedition 317 Scientists (2010)

1353

Lithology Age Interval Depth (m) Lithologies unit (decreasing order of importance) I Holocene to early U1353A-1H though 8H 0-56.03 Mud sandy mud, sandy marl, very fine sand, shell Pliocene U1353B-1H though 0-151.36 hash. 28H-2 II Early Pliocene to middle U1353B-28H-2 though 151-604.65 Mud, very fine to fine sand, muddy shell hash, to early Miocene 98X-CC sandy mud, sandstone pebble

1354

Lithology Age Interval Depth (m) Lithologies units (decreasing order of importance) IA Holocene to early U1354A-1H through 85.43 TD Mud, sandy mud, marl, shell hash, very fine sand, Pliocene 19H marl, muddy sand U1354B-1H though 77.52 TD 15H U1354C-1H to 12X-1, 0-145.80 110 cm IB Early Pliocene to mid- U1354C-12X-1, 110 145.80-250.81 Mud, marl, very fine sand, sandy mud, muddy Pliocene cm, to 23X-CC, 20 cm sand, clay II Early Pliocene U1354C-23X-CC, 20 250.81-375.38 Mud, sandy mud cm, through 36X-CC

34

Table 2 (continued) 1351 Lithiology Age Interval Depth (m) Lithologies units (decreasing order of importance) I Holocene-Pleistocene to U1351-1H through 6H 0-28.1 Mud, sandy mud, shell hash, sand, muddy sand early Pliocene U1351B-1H through 0-262* transition zone I/II Early Pliocene U1351B-29X-CC, 33 247-300 Transition zone cm, to 36X-1, 0 cm II Early Pliocene to late Transition zone to 262*-1024.4 Sandy mud, muddy sand, mud, sand (sandstone), Miocene U1352B-116X-CC, 44 shell hash (limestone) cm

1352 Lithology Age Interval Depth (m) Lithogies units (decreasing order of importance) IA U1352A-1H though 5H 0-43.11 (TD) Mud, interbedded sand and mud, interbedded Holocene to Pleistocene U1352B-1H to 11H-4, 0-98.41 clay and mud, sandy mud, interbedded silt and 23 cm mud, muddy sand U1352D-1H to 11H-4 0-98.63 13 cm IB U1352B-11H-4, 23cm, 98.41-446.88 Pleistocene to 53X-1, 18 cm Mud, marl, sandy mud, muddy sand, interbedded U1352D-11H-4, 13 cm, 93.63-127.66 sand and mud though 14H (TD) U1352B-53X-1, 18 cm, 574.70-709.32 IC Pleistocene to middle though 81X (base) Mud, marl, marlstone, sandy mud, muddy sand, Pliocene U1352C-2R to 11R-1, 446.88-710.78 muddy sandstone 92 cm

35

Table 2 (continued)

IIA U1352B-81X (base) 710.78-822.13 Middle Pliocene to early though 94X (TD) Marlstone, sandy mud, mud, muddy sand, marls, Pliocene U1352C-11R-1, 92 cm, 709.32- muddy sandstone, chalk to 61R-1, 30 cm 1189.30 IIB Early Pliocene to late U1352C-61R-1, 30 cm, 1189.30- Marlstone, marl, sandy mudstone, mudstone, early Miocene to 123R-1, 142 cm 1693.92 muddy sandstone, very fine to fine sandstone, medium to coarse sandstone IIC Early Miocene U1352C-123R-1, 142 1693.92- Limestone, marlstone, mudstone, very fine to fine cm, to 140R-2, 47 cm 1852.63 sandstone III Oligocene to Eocene U1352C-140R-2, 47 1852.63- Limestone, mudstone, chert cm, to base 148R (TD 1924.31

36

Table 3. Counted and Recalculated Parameters Qm Monocrystalline quartz Qp Polycrystalline quartz Qpse Polycrystalline quartz subgrain enlongated Qpsr Polycrystalline quartz subgrain rectangle Qpd Dislocation subgrain Qpgbm Grain boundary migration Qpgbar Grain boundary area reduction Qpche Chert P Plagioclase Palt Plagioclase altered Fu Unstained (unknown) feldspar Falt Feldspar altered K Potassium feldspar Kalt Potassium feldspar altered Lmt Quartz-mica tectonite Lmtm Quartz-muscovite tectonite Lmtb Quartz-biotite tectonite Lmtc Quartz-chlorite tectonite Lmtpg Quartz-mica tectonite (unknown pale green) Lmtdg Quartz-mica tectonite (unknown dark green) Lmf0.5 Sandy siltstone lithic fragment with cleavage Lmf1.0 Metasiltstone lithic fragment with rough cleavage Lmf1.5 Quartz-sericite lithic fragment eith medium cleavage Lmp1 Slate Lmm Polycrystalline mica Lma Q+D Quartz-dense aggregate lithic Lma Q+M Quartz-mica aggregate lithic Lma P+D Plagioclase- dense aggregate lithic Lma P+M Plagioclase-mica aggregate lithic Lma K+D Potassium feldspar -dense aggregate lithic Lma K+M Potassium feldspar -mica aggregate lithic Lvv Victric volcanic lithic fragment Lvo alt Volcanic altered lithic fragment Lsi Siltstone lithic Lmsip Silty argillite or Pelite Lsa Argillite fragment M Muscovite B Biotite Chl Chlorite De Epidote Dg Garnet Dcz Clinozoisite Dz Zoisite Do Other dense minerals Op Opaque Glau Glauconite Carb Carbonate Unk Unknown grain Bf1 Globigerinid foram Bf2 Biserial foram Bf3 Milioloid foram Bfh Hyaline evolute foram Be Echinoid fragment Bab Arthropod barnacles Bbp Brachiopod fragmant Bmg Mollusk gastropod Bmu Mollusk undifferentiated Spong Sponge spicules (siliceous) Other Bio Other bioclast of unknown origin

37

Table 3. Counted and Recalculated Parameters (continued)

Q= Qm+Qp+Qpse+Qpsr+Qdp+Qpgbm+Qpgbar+Qpche Lma = (Lma Q+D)+(Lma Q+M)+(Lma P+D)+(Lma P+M)+(Lma K+M)+(Lma K+D) Lv = Lvv+Lvoalt Lmtfp = Lmt+Lmtm+Lmtb+Lmtc+Lmtpg+Lmtdg+Lmf0.5+Lmf1.0+Lmf1.5+Lmp Lm = Lma+Lmt+Lmm+Lmtfp Ls = Lsi+Lsp+Las F = P+Palt+Fu+Falt+K+Kalt L = Lm+Ls+Lv P=P+Palt+Fu+Falt K=K=+Kalt Mica= M + B + Chl Lower Grade (LG)= Lmf0.5+Lmf1.0+Lmf1.5+Lmp Higher Grade (HG) = Lmt+Lmtm+Lmtb+Lmtc+Lmtpg+Lmtdg+Lmm

QFL%Q = 100 * Q/(Q+F+L) QFL%F = 100 * F/(Q+F+L) QLF%L = 100 * L/(Q+F+L) QmKP%Qm = 100 * Qm/(Qm+K+P) QmKP%K = 100 * K/(Qm+K+P) QmKP%P = 100 * P/(Qm+K+P) LmLvLs%Lm = 100 * Lm/(Lm+Lv+Ls) LmLvLs%Lv = 100 * Lv/(Lm+Lv+Ls) LmLvLs%Ls = 100 * Ls/(Lm+Lv+Ls) MuscoviteBiotiteChlorite%Muscovite = 100 * Muscovite/(M+B+Chl) MuscoviteBiotiteChlorite%Biotite = 100 * Biotite/(M+B+Chl) MuscoviteBiotiteChlorite%Muscovite = 100 * Chlorite/(M+B+Chl) MicaLGHG%Mica = 100 * Mica/(Mica+LG+HG) MicaLGHG%LG = 100 * LG/(Mica+LG+HG) MicaLGHG%HG = 100 * HG/(Mica+LG+HG) Total%Bioclast = 100 * (Bf1+Bf2+Bf3+Bfh+Be+Bab+Bbp+Bmg+Bmu+Spong+Other/400)

38

39

40

41

42

*Key

Grain Size Very Coarse grain: 5 Coarse grain: 4 Medium grain: 3 Fine grain: 2 Very Fine grain: 1 Sorting Well sorted: 5 Moderately well sorted: 4 Moderately sorted: 3 Poorly to moderately sorted: 2 Poorly sorted: 1 Rounding Rounded: 4 Subrounded: 3 Subangular: 2 Angular: 1

43

44

45

46

47

48

APPENDIX B: FIGURE CAPTIONS Figure 1. Study area and geology of eastern margin of South Island New Zealand. Locations of IODP Expedition 317 sites and fluival drainage basins (sediment sources) are outlined. Southwest to northeast flowing currents , local and large scale, are indicated, as well as the large scale Southland Front (Courtesy of John Jaeger). Figure 2. Simplifed Geological map based on New Zealand Geologoical Survey (1972) map, emphasing lithologies as well as the different grades of metamorphic rocks. Major rivers (black lines) and their drainage basins (lighter overlay) are also indicated. Sample locations and Expedition site 317 locals are show with black circles. Figure 3. A) Uninterrupted multichannel seismic (MCS) dip Profile EW00-01-66, showing the location of sites U1351, U1353, and U1354 along the shelf. Red lines correspond to actual penetration, and yellow lines correspond to proposed penetration. The underlying interpretation shows seismic sequence boundaries and areas of onlap, truncation, and downlap. Red box shows where cores sampled for this study are located. B) Uninterrupted dip profile EW00-01-60 across the slope. The adjacent interpretation shows seismic sequence boundaries and selected locations of reflector truncation. Red box show where coreS sampled for this study are located.

Figure 4. Lithologies and unit boundaries for Expedition 317 sites. Ages were determined from biostratigraphy (Expedition 317 Scientists, 2010). Figure 5. Schematic of offshorecore sample locations in Expedition 317 sites. Samples are labeled based on their provenance signature, indicated by (T) Torlesse, (TST) Torlesse/ Schist Transition, (S) Schist, or (M) Mixed, as well as precentage of total bioclasts within the sample. See text for discussion of T, TST, S and M. Figure 6. QFL ternary plots for onshore samples. Plots are in order from south to north. Medium, fine and very fine fractions have been circled for end member samples. Figure 7. QmKP ternary plots of onshore samples. Plots are in order from south to north. Medium, fine and very fine fractions have been circled for end member samples. Figure 8. LmLvLs ternary plots of onshore samples. Plots are in order from south to north. Medium, fine and very fine fractions have been circled for end member samples.

49

Figure 9. MBChl ternary plots of onshore samples. Plots are in order from north to south. Medium, fine and very fine fractions have been circled for end member samples. Figure 10. MicaLGHG ternary plots of onshore samples. Plots are in order from north (below) to south (top). Medium, fine and very fine fractions have been circled for end member samples. Figure 11. QFL ternary plots of offshore core samples. Plots are in order from shelf to slope. Mean values for each site have been calculated and plotted. Locations of major onshore rivers have been added for comparsion. Data points with black circles have a low total of QFL grains. Figure 12. QmKP ternary plots of offshore core samples. Plots are in order from slope to shelf. Mean values for each site have been calculated and plotted. Locations of major onshore rivers have been added for comparsion. Data points with black circles have a low total of QmKP grains. Figure 13. LmLvLs ternary plots of offshore core samples. Plots are in order from shelf to slope. Mean values for each site have been calculated and plotted. Locations of major onshore rivers have been added for comparsion. Figure 14. MicaLGHG ternary plots of offshore core samples. Plots are in order from slope (Top) to shelf (Bottom). Mean values for each site have been calculated and plotted. Locations of major onshore rivers have been added for comparsion. Data points with black circles have a low total of MicaLGHG grains. Figure 15. MBChl ternary plots of offshore core samples. Plots are in order form shelf to slope. Mean values for each site have been calculated and plotted. Locations of major onshore rivers have been added for comparsion. Figure 16. Temporal plot of QFL sand composition versus depth for site U1353. Figure 17. Temporal plot of QmKP sand composition versus depth for site U1353. Figure 18. Temporal plot of LmLsLv sand composition versus depth for site U1353. Figure 19. Temporal plot of MicaLGHG sand composition versus depth for site U1353. Samples have been classified as either Torlesse (Blue-T), Torlesse-Schist Transition (Pink-TST) or Mixed based on the precentage of MicaLGHG within each sample. No samples how a schist provenance at this site. Figure 20. Temporal plot of QFL sand composition versus depth for site U1354. Figure 21. Temporal plot of QmKP sand composition versus depth for site U1354. Figure 22. Temporal plot of LmLvLs sand composition versus depth for site U1354.

50

Figure 23. Temporal plot of MicaLGHG sand composition versus depth for site U1354. Samples have been classified as either Torlesse (Blue-T), Torlesse-Schist Transition (Pink-TST) or Mixed based on the precentage of MicaLGHG within each samples. Where mixed samples are transitional to TST, they have been highlighted in Pink. No samples show a Schist provenance at this site. Figure 24. Temporal plot of QFL sand composition versus depth for site U1351. Figure 25. Temporal plot of QmKP sand composition versus depth for site U1351. Figure 26. Temporal plot of LmLvLs sand composition versus depth for site U1351. Figure 27. Temporal plot of MicaLGHG sand composition versus depth for site U1351. Samples have been classified as either Torlesse (Blue-T), Torlesse-Schist Transition (Pink-TST) or Mixed based on the precentage of MicaLGHG within each samples. Where mixed samples are transitional, they have been highlighted with blue (T) or pink (TST). No samples show a Schist provenance at this sites. Figure 28. Temporal plot of QFL sand composition versus depth for all sites. Dashed lines are seismic sequence boundaries. Figure 29. Temporal plot of QmKP sand composition versus depth for all sites. Dashed lines are seismic sequence boundaries. Figure 30. Temporal plot of LmLvLs sand composition versus depth for all sites. Dashed lines are seismic sequence boundaries. Figure 31. Temporal plot of MicaLGHG sand composition versus depth for all sites. Dashed lines are seismic sequence boundaries. Figure 32. MicaLGHG ternary plot for onshore river end member samples. This plot defines the Torlesse (Blue-T), Torlesse-Schist Transition (Pink-TST), Schist (Purple-S), and Mixed provenance groups. Figure 33. Schematic model of the repetitive facies assemblages that were described by shipboard scientists as characteristic of lithologic Unit 1. (A) Type 1 facies assmeblage. (B) Type 2 facies assemblage (Expedition 317 Scientists, 2010).

Figure 34. (A) Level of sea-level during the time of deposition of stratal surfaces and system tracts with respect to a simplifed glacioeustatic and relative sea-level curve outlined by Naish and Kamp (1997) for Rangitikei cyclothem motif (B). (C) Plot of petrographic analysis of the samples collected down along the Type 2 facies assemblage within Site U1351. (D) Schematic provenance model for a Type 2 assemblage. Figure 35. A) Total percent Bioclast histogram for offshore samples. X-axis is calculated at 10 % intervals (except 0-1.5%, 1.5-5% and 5-10%). Y-axis is number of samples within each percentage interval. Samples have been classified based on their provenance signature (Torlesse, Torlesse/ Schist Transition, Schist, 51

and Mixed). B) Scatter plot for Averages of total percent of BioclastS with standard deviation error bars for each of the provenance groups (Torlesse, Torlesse/ Schist Transition, Schist, and Mixed). Figure 36. Snap shots showing temporal changes in sedimentary provenance (A and E). Time slices occur either above or below sequence boundaries with ages of sequence boundaries based on Shipboard Scientific Party (1999) and Kobayashi et al. (2012)): A-Above U17; B-Below U18; C-Above U18; D- Below U19; and E-Above U19. Interpreted paleo-shoreline is based on bioclast precentages. Sites are classified based on the MicaLGHG precentages (Blue-Torlesse, Pink- Torlesse-Schist Transition, Purple- Schist, Black- Mixed), Open circle- indicates no sample from that site of that age. Figure 37: Cartoon illustrating several factors that may result in Mixed provenance samples: A) Transgressive mixing; river sediments (Source A) mixing with coastal and shelf sediments (Source B) by wind-driven littoral cell (A+B). B) Mixing by the unroofing, exposure and erosion of the underlying lithological unit during drainage system evolution. C) Stream capture results in Mixed signatures. Time 1: Two hypothetical drainage basins (A and B) each draining different lithologies. Time 2: Two hypothetical drainage basin A and B, during a glacial event causing drainage B to capture some of drainage A resulting in the mixture of sediment from A and B. D) A hypothetical river with three tributaries that drain three different lithological units (A, B, and C). Mixing of lithologies within a drainage basin (A+B+C), and E) (Time 1) Figure showing sand beds A and B with distinct provenance signatures, follwed by (Time 2) mixing of lithological units by bioturbation or liquefaction.

52

Figure 1

53

171° E 172° E 169° E 170° E

Tasman Sea

01-28

R a 44° S k aia R. 01-29

R angit

a ta R 11-15 . Pa Canterbury Basin reo ra R. 01-38 Pacific

1353 Ocean 11-23 11-18 1354 1352 W 1351 45° S aita k 11-17 i R. K ak anui R. Key to Lithologies Quaternary Alluvium Greywacke and Argillite Garnet -Oligclase zone

11-06 Biotite Zone quartzo- feldspathic schist Cholrite Zone quartzo-feldspathic semi-schist and schist

46° S Cholrite Sub-zones II and III:

Cholrite Sub-zone IV 01-48 Greywacke and argilite, minor chert, 40 Km volcanics, limestone C lutha R. Basalt, tuff Sample locations Figure 2

54

A

B

Figure 3

55

Figure 4

56

Hole U1353B Hole U1354B Hole U1351B Hole U1352B

M 1.8%

U19TST 29% U19 M 0.5% M 22% TST 0.5% TST 1.5% TST 0.5% TST 1.5% T 41% TST 0.5% TST 0.3% TST 0% U18 U18 M 34% TST 0.3% M 3% U19 M 13% TST 0.8% TST 4.3% M 52% M 4% M 21% M 11% TST 0% T 30% M 22% M 27% U17 U17 M 42% M 31%

T 36% T 76% T 20% Scale TST 0% 0 T 51% 10

20 m T 17% U18

Point Counted Samples T - Torlesse TST - Torlesse/ Schist Transition S - Schist T 75% M - Mixed % Total Bioclasts

M 65%

U17

T 49%

S 41%

Figure 5

57

NZ-01-28 Rakaia River Q Q Q Sand Fractions: NZ-01-29 Rangitata River (RR) Medium NZ-11-25 Pareora River Fine Very Fine NZ-11-23 Main Waitaki River (WR) NZ-01-38 Waitaki River North Tributary NZ--11-18Waitaki River South Tributary

NZ-11-17 Kakanui River NZ-11-06 Brighton Beach NZ-01-48 Clutha River (CR) CR

WR

RR

F South North L

Figure 6

58

NZ-01-28 Rakaia River Sand Fractions: NZ-01-29 Rangitata River (RR) Medium NZ-11-25 Pareora River Qm Qm Qm Fine Very Fine NZ-11-23 Main Waitaki River (WR) NZ-01-38 Waitaki River North Tributary NZ--11-18Waitaki River South Tributary RR

NZ-11-17 Kakanui River NZ-11-06 Brighton Beach WR NZ-01-48 Clutha River (CR) CR

South North K P

Figure 7

59

NZ-01-28 Rakaia River Sand Fractions: NZ-01-29 RangitataRiver (RR) Lm Lm Lm Medium NZ-11-25 Pareora River Fine Very Fine NZ-11-23 Main Waitaki River (WR) NZ-01-38 Waitaki River North Tributary NZ--11-18Waitaki River South Tributary

NZ-11-17 Kakanui River NZ-11-06 Brighton Beach RR NZ-01-48 Clutha River (CR) CR WR

North Lv South Ls

Figure 8 60

NZ-01-28 Rakaia River NZ-01-29 Rangitata River (RR) NZ-11-25 Pareora River M M M Sand Fractions: Medium NZ-11-23 Main Waitaki River (WR) Fine NZ-01-38 Waitaki River North Tributary Very Fine NZ--11-18Waitaki River South Tributary

NZ-11-17 Kakanui River NZ-11-06 Brighton Beach WR NZ-01-48 Clutha River (CR)

CR

RR B Chl North South

Figure 9

61

Mica NZ-01-28 Rakaia River Sand Fractions: Medium NZ-01-29 Rangitata River (RR) Fine NZ-11-25 Pareora River Very Fine NZ-11-23 Main Waitaki River (WR) NZ-01-38 Waitaki River North Tributary NZ--11-18Waitaki River South Tributary NZ-11-17 Kakanui River CR NZ-11-06 Brighton Beach

NZ-01-48 Clutha River (CR)

LG HG South

WR LG HG

RR LG HG North

Figure 10 62

Rangitata River (RR) Waitaki River (WR) Samples with fewer than 64 grains Clutha River (CR) Q Q Q Q Q

Means CR for each CR CR CR site WR WR WR WR

RR RR RR RR Site Site Site Site U1353 U1354 U1351 U1352 F L Shelf Slope

Figure 11

63

Qm Qm Qm Qm Qm Samples with fewer than 64 grains Rangitata River (RR) Waitaki River (WR) Clutha River (CR) RR Site Site Site 1352 U1351 U1354 U1353 CR WR Means for each Site site U1352

K P Slope Shelf

Figure 12

64

Lm

Rangitata River (RR) Waitaki River (WR) RR Clutha River (CR) WR

CR

Site Site Site Site U1353 U1354 U1351 U1352

Lv Ls Shelf Slope

Figure 13 65

Mica

Rangitata River (RR) Samples with fewer than 40 grains Waitaki River (WR) Clutha River (CR)

CR Mica

Site RR Slope U1352 LG Mica HG WR

Site Mica LG U1351 HG

Site LG U1354 HG

Site LG U1353 HG Shelf

Means for each LG site HG

Figure 14

66

M Rangitata River (RR) M M M M Waitaki River (WR) Clutha River (CR)

Means WR for each site Site Site Site U1354 Site U1353 CR U1351 U1352

B RR Chl Shelf Slope

Figure 15

67

Site U1353 QFL% e r o epth 0 20 40 60 C Lithology D (m CSF) Key 1H Sample locations 5 QFL% Quartz QFL% Feldspar

10 QFL% Lithics

U 19 - 2H (C) - S1- 15

(C) 20 3H

25

U18 - 4H (C) -S2-

30 5H (C)

35

6H 40 (C)

(C) 45 7H

50

8H (C) 55

U17 - -S3- M Very Cl Fine sandSilt edium sand ay ! ne sand

Grain size

Figure 16

68

Site U1353 QmKP% e r o epth 0 20 40 60 80 C Lithology D (m CSF) Key 1H Sample locations 5 QmKP% Monocystalline Quartz QmKP% K-Feldspar

10 QmKP% Plagioclase U 19 - 2H - S1-

15

20 3H

25

U18 - 4H -S2-

30 5H

35

6H 40

45 7H

50

8H

55

U17 - -S3-

M Cl FineVery sandSilt edium sand ay ! ne sand

Grain size

Figure 17

69

Site U1353 LmLsLv% e r o epth 0 20 40 60 80 100 C Lithology D (m CSF)

1H Key 5 Sample locations LmLsLv% Lm

10 LmLsLv% Ls U 19 - LmLsLv% Lv 2H - S1-

15

20 3H

25

U18 - 4H -S2-

30 5H

35

6H 40

45 7H

50

8H

55

U17 - -S3-

M Very fineCl sand Fine sandSilt edium sand ay

Grain size

Figure 18

70

Site U1353 MicaLGHG% e r o epth 0 20 40 60 80 100 C Lithology D (m CSF)

Key Sample locations 1H MicaLGHG% Mica 5 MicaLGHG% Lower grade MicaLGHG% Higher grade T- Torlesse 10 TST - Torlesse/Schist Transition S -Schist U 19 - 2H - S1- TST 15 TST

20 3H

25 MIXED U18 - 4H -S2- MIXED

30 5H TST

35

6H 40 MIXED

45 7H T

50

8H MIXED 55

U17 - -S3-

60 MediumFineVery sand sandSilt fineClay sand

Figure 19

71

Site U1354 QFL% e r epth o

D (m CSF) Lithology 0 20 40 C 60

1H

5 2H

10 U 19 - - S1- 3H

4H 15

5H 20 -S2- 6H U18 -

7H 25

8H 30

35

9H

40

Key 45 Sample locations 10H QFL% Quartz QFL% Feldspar QFL% Lithic U17 - 50 -S3- CoarseMedium sandFineVery sandSilt Cl ay !ne sand

Figure 20

72

Site U1354 QmKP%

epth 0 20 40 60 Core D (m CSF) Lithology 80

1H

5 2H

10 U 19 - - S1- 3H

4H 15

5H -S2- 20 6H U18 -

7H 25

8H 30

35

9H

40

45 10H Key U17 - 50 -S3- Sample locations CoarseMedium sandFineVery sandSilt Cl ay QmKP% Monocrystalline Quartz !ne sand QmKP% K-Feldspar QmKP% Plagioclase

Figure 20 Figure 21

73

Site U1354 LmLvLs% e r epth o D (m CSF) Lithology C 0 20 40 60 80 100

1H Key 5 2H Sample locations LmLvLs% Lm 10 LmLvLs% Ls U 19 - - S1- 3H LmLvLs% Lv-

4H 15

5H 20 6H U18 - - S2-

7H 25

8H 30

35

9H

40

45 10H

U17 - 50 - S3- CoarseMedium sandFineVery sandSilt Cl ay !ne sand

Figure 22

74

Site U1354 MicaLGHG% epth Core D (m CSF) Lithology 0 20 40 60 80 100

1H MIXED 5 2H

10 TST U 19 - - S1- 3H MIXED

4H 15

5H 20 6H TST U18 - - S2-

7H 25 TST

8H 30 MIXED

35

9H MIXED 40 Key Sample locations 45 MicaLGHG% Mica 10H MicaLGHG% Lower grade MIXED MicaLGHG% Higher grade

U17 - 50 - S3- T- Torlesse CoarseMedium sandFineVery sandSilt Cl TST - Torlesse/Schist Transition ay !ne sand S -Schist

Figure 23

75

Site U1351 QFL% e r epth o C D (m CSF) Lithology 0 20 40 60

* Key 1H 5 Sample locations QFL% Quartz QFL% Feldspar 10 OFL% Lithic

2H *

15 U 19 - - S1- *

3H 20

* * 25 4H

*

? U18 - 30 -S2- 5H #

35 6H

40

7H

45

50 U17 - -S3-

V M F e Silt Cl ediumine sand sandry fine sanday

Figure 24

76

Site U1351 QmKP% e r epth o (m CSF) Lithology C D 0 20 40 60

* Key 1H 5 Sample locations QmKP% Monocrystalline Quartz QmKP% K-Feldspar 10 QmKP% Plagioclase

2H *

15 U 19 - - S1- *

3H 20

* * 25 4H

*

? U18 - 30 5H # -S2-

35 6H

? 40

7H

45

50 U17 - -S3-

V M F e Silt Cl ediumine sand sandry fine sanday

Figure 25

77

Site U1351 LmLvLs% e r epth o

C D (m CSF) Lithology 0 20 40 60 80 100

* 1H Key 5 Sample locations LmLvLs% Lm

10 LmLvLs% Ls LmLvLs% Lv 2H *

15 U 19 - - S1- *

3H 20

* * 25 4H

*

? U18 - 30 5H # -S2-

35 6H

40

7H

45

50 U17 - -S3-

V M F e Silt Cl ediumine sand sandry fine sanday

Figure 26

78

Site U1351 MicaLGHG% e r epth o C D (m CSF) Lithology 0 20 40 60 80 100

Key * 1H Sample locations 5 MicaLGHG% Mica MicaLGHG% Lower grade MicaLGHG% Higher grade T- Torlesse 10 TST - Torlesse/Schist transition S -Schist 2H *

15 U 19 - - S1- T *

3H 20

* * 25 4H

*

? TST U18 - 30 # 5H -S2- MIXED MIXED

35 6H

40

7H

45 MIXED

MIXED 50 U17 - -S3-

V M F e Silt Cl ediumine sand sandry fine sanday

Figure 27

79

Site U1353 Site U1354 Site U1351 Site U1352 QFL% QFL% QFL% QFL%

0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 80

2.5 1.5 3.5 5 5 5 15 2.5 2.5

10 10 2.5 30 U19 10 1.5 1.5 2.5 15 15 45 1.5 15 1.5

20 20 60 2.5 or 1.5 20 1.5 o 1.5 2.5 25 U18 1.5 25 75 2.5 25 w seafl 2.5 2.5 o 30 30 1.5 90 el 1.5 30 1.5 b 2.5

35 35 ers 105 t 35 e

M 2.5 40 40 1.5 120 40

45 2.5 45 1.5 1 135 2.5 45

50 50 1.5 150 50 2.5 1.5 55 165 U17 Key 180 2.5 Rounding QFL% Quartz Note Change Rounded: 4 QFL% Feldspar in scale for 195 2.5 Subrounded: 3 QFL% Lithics site U1352 Subangular: 2 Sample Locations Angular: 1

Figure 28

80

Site U1353 Site U1354 Site U1351 Site U1352 QmKP% QmKP% QmKP% QmKP% 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 80 2.5 3.5 1.5 2.5 5 5 15 2.5 5 2.5

10 10 2.5 30 U19 1.5 10 1.5 2.5 15 15 45 1.5 15 1.5 - S1-

20 1.5 1.5 20 60 20 1.5 or 2.5 o 25 2.5 25 1.5 2.5 75 U18 2.5 25

1.5 30 2.5

30 1.5 90 w seafl 2.5 30 o 1.5 -S2- 2.5 35 el 1.5

b 35 105 2.5 35 40 ers t 40 120

e 1.5 45 40

M 2.5 2.5 45 1.5 1 135 50 45

150 50 1.5 50 2.5 1.5 165 55 U17

180 Note Change 2.5 Key in scale for Rounding QmKP% Monocystalline quartz site U1352 195 2.5 Rounded: 4 QmKP% K-Feldspar Subrounded: 3 QmKP% Plagioclase Subangular: 2 Sample Locations Angular: 1

Figure 29

81

Site U1353 Site U1354 Site U1353 Site U1352 LmLvLs% LmLvLs% LmLvLs% LmLvLs% 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

2.5 5 5 2.5 5 15 2.5 2.5 2.5 10 10 2.5 30 U19 1.5 10 1.5 15 15 45 15 2.5 1.5 1.5 - S1- oor 20 20 60 1.5 20 ! 2.5 2.5 1.5 25 25 75 2.5 2.5 25 U18 1.5 -S2- 2.5 30 2.5 30 1.5 1.5 90 30 1.5 2.5 1.5 35 35 105 35 2.5 40 120 40 1.5 40

45 1.5 45 135 2.5 1 2.5

Meters below sea Meters below 45

50 50 150 1.5 50 2.5 1.5 55 165 U17

Note Change 180 2.5 in scale for Key 195 Rounding site U1352 2.5 LmLvLs% Metamorphic Lithic Fragments Rounded: 4 LmLvLs% Sedimentary lithic Fragments Subrounded: 3 LmLvLs% Volcanic Lithic Fragments Subangular: 2 Sample locations Angular: 1

Figure 30

82

Site U1353 Site U1354 Site U1351 Site U1352 MicaLGHG% MicaLGHG% MicaLGHG% MicaLGHG% 20 0 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 2.5 3.5MIXED 2.5 MIXED 2.5 5 5 5 15 K 2.5 2.5

10 10 2.5 30 U19 10 TST 1.5 TST 1.5 2.5 15 TST 15 45 1.5 15 1.5 T oor 2.5 20 20 60 MIXED ! 1.5 20 1.5 Lv TST 1.5 T Lv 2.5 TST 25 1.5 25 75 U18 MIXED K 2.5 TST 25 1.5 K 2.5 MIXED K 2.5 30 1.5 30 TST 90 30 1.5 2.5 TST 1.5 MIXED (K&Lv) 1.5 T 35 35 MIXED 105 35 2.5 MIXED 40 MIXED 1.5 40 120 40

45 1.5 45 MIXED 135 2.5 T 2.5 1

Meters below sea Meters below MIXED 45

50 50 150 1.5 MIXED 50 2.5 MIXED MIXED 1.5 55 165 U17

60 Note Change 180 2.5 T Rounding Key in scale for Sample locations 195 S Rounded: 4 site U1352 2.5 Subrounded: 3 MicaLGHG% Mica Subangular: 2 MicaLGHG% Lower grade Angular: 1 MicaLGHG% Higher grade Higher Lv (~0-8% LmLvLs%Lv) T- Torlesse Higher K ( ~1-20% QmKP%K) TST - Torlesse/Schist transition S -Schist

Figure 31

83

Mica NZ-01-28 Rakaia River Sand Size NZ-01-29 Rangitata River VF F M NZ-11-23 Main Waitaki River NZ-01-48 Clutha River

Schist

MIXED

Torlesse-Schist Torlesse Transition LG HG

Figure 32 84

Type 1 facies assemblage Type 2 facies assemblage

Gray (more silicic) Coarseing up-ward with shell fragments and bioturbation interbedded very !ne sand and mud 10 m 10 m Color banding or dark gray Green (calcareous) mud/light gray clayey bed Fining-upward Gray (more silicic) Sharp bundary

Shell fragments and Silt

Clay Clay bioturbation ne sand ! Fine sand Fine Coarse sand Coarse Medium sand Very Very Fining-upward Very coasre sand coasre Very Sharp boundary Silt Clay Clay ne sand ! Fine sand Fine Coarse sand Coarse Medium sand Very Very Very coasre sand coasre Very

Figure 33

85

(A) (B) (C) (D) U1351B Facies Observed Assemblage Provenance Core-Section-cm Provenance * 2-6-23 Torlesse Moderate rate of basin subsidence (1-2 m/ka) Rangitikei cyclothem motif ? late Pliocene, eastern Wanganui Basin U18 Torlesse-Schist 3 4 5-2-8 Transition SS TSE DLS * A Surfaces * 5-2-109 MIXED * 6-1-80 MIXED B Systems tracts HST-RST LST TST HST C Sea-level 2 curve 2 relative sea 1 level 2 20m 7-4-2 MIXED 3 4 * 10 8-2-1 Extent of subaerial 1 U17 MIXED D exposure * E Extent marine 0 3 4 erosion Torlesse-Schist Torlesse Accommodation vs. Mixed S>A F sediment supply S>>A SA Transition y a Silt Cl e sand r ine sand F oas oarse sand c edium sand C y M r e V

Figure 34

86

Bioclast Precentage 12

10

8

6

4 Number of samples

2

0 0-1.5% 1.5-5% 5-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-70% 70-80% Total % Bioclast

Provenance group Torlesse Torlesse/ Schist Transion Schist Mixed

Averages of Bioclasts 15

10

5

Number of samples 0 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Total % Bioclast Provenance group Torlesse Torlesse/ Schist Transion Schist Mixed

Figure 35

87

A B Modern Modern coast coast Torlesse Torlesse reline o-sho reline ted pale -sho pre o ter In ed pale ret erp Shelf Int Shelf Slope Slope Break Break

B 31% B 4.3% B 22% B 0.3% B 41% B 42% B 52% B 65% Transition Transition Torlesse-Schist Torlesse-Schist Schist Above U17 Below U18 ~ 140 km Est. Age in years Est. Age in years To south 620,000-700,000 ш! 252,000-500,000

C D Modern Modern coast coast Torlesse Torlesse reline o-sho reline -sho ted pale o pre ter ed pale In ret erp Int Shelf Shelf Slope Slope eak Br Break

B 3% B 1.5% B 0.3% B 22% Not preserved (?) B 0.8% B 75% B 36% Transition Transition Torlesse-Schist Above U18 Torlesse-Schist Below U19 Est. Age in years Est. Age in years ч!252,000-500,000! ш!113,000-130,000 Key E Interpreted paleo-shoreline Modern coast Modern Shelf-Slope Break Torlesse Modern Coast Torlesse-Schist Transition provenance

? Torlesse provenance ? Shelf Slope ? reak reline B Schist provenance ? o-sho ed pale ? ret erp Mixed Sources (?) B 29% Int

? B 41% No Samples B 0-0.5% B Percentage of Bioclasts Transition Above U19 Torlesse-Schist ? Est. Age in years ч!113,000-130,000! Figure 36

88

A Source B B Coastal B Transgressive Source A B Mixing River A A+B Littoral cell Long shore Drift B+A B Coastline

B x-section Previously depositied sediment with B provenance A Time 1 Time 2 C B D A B A B A C A

A+B+C A B+A Coastline Coastline A B Coastline

E Time 1 Time 2

Sea floor

B A+B 1 meter A Before After (two sandbeds with discrete sources A and B) Bioturbation or Liquefaction (mixed A and B)

Figure 37

89

APPENDIX D: PLATE CAPTIONS

Plate 1

A) Photomicrographs of quartzose components. Monocrystalline quartz (Qm) in plane light (sample NZ-48AM). B) Same field of view as in A, monocrystalline quartz (Qm) with nicols crossed. C) Polycrystalline quartz subgrain elongated (Qpse), similar characteristics as polycrystalline quartz, in addition to long ribbons of undulose extinction (sample NZ-11-06M). D) Same field of view as in C, polycrystalline quartz subgrain elongated (Qpse) with nicols crossed. E) Dislocation subgrain (Qpd) in plane light (sample NZ-48A-M). F) Same field of view as in E, dislocation subgrain (Qpd) with nicols crossed.

Plate 2

A) Photomicrographs of feldspar and dense components. Plagioclase (P), in plane light. It is Ca-rich and stained pink (sample NZ-11-06M). B) Same field of view as in A, plagioclase (P) with nicols crossed. C) Potassium feldspar (K), It is potassium-rich and stained yellow (sample NZ-11-06M). D) Potassium feldspar (K) with nicols crossed. E) Zoisite (Dz) in plane light, small elongated crystal with high relief (sample NZ-11-06VF). F) Same field of view as in E, zoisite (Dz) with nicols crossed. G) Clinozoisite (Dcz), in plane light, grain has high relief, low birefringence (sample NZ-01-48VF). H) Same field of view as in G, clinozoisite (Dcz) with low birefringence and varies in color with nicols crossed.

Plate 3

A) Photomicrographs of sedimentary to metamorphic lithic fragments. Siltstone Lithic (Lsi), brown matrix, with various mineral assemblages (sample NZ-01-38). B) Same field of view as in A, siltstones lithic (Lsi) with nicols cross. C) Silty argillite or pelite lithic (Lmsip), brown clayey fine-grained sedimentary rock fragment in plane light. Not that if it is sand-bearing then it is quartz-sericite

lithic fragment with medium cleavage (Lmf 1.5) (sample NZ-11-17BM). D) Same field of view as in C, pelite (Lmsip), with nicols crossed. E) Argillite fragment (Lsa), clay size lithic rock fragment in plane light (sample NZ-01-28M). F) Same field of view as in E, Argillite fragment (Lsa) with nicols crossed. G) Slate (Lmp1), higher metamorphic muddy-fine grained sedimentary lithic (sample NZ- 01-38). H) Slate (Lmp1) same field of view as in G, with nicols crossed.

Plate 4

A) Photomicrographs of sedimentary to metamorphic lithic components Sandy

siltstone lithic fragment with cleavage (Lmf 0.5) in plane light, siltstone matrix

90

with sand grains, which varies in compositions (Sample NZ-11-17BM). B) Sandy

siltstone lithic fragment with cleavage (Lmf 0.5) same field of view as in A, with

nicols crossed. C) Metasiltstone lithic fragment with rough cleavage (Lmf 1.0), Sandstone with metamorphic matrix, in plane light (sample NZ-01-38). D)

Metasiltstone lithic fragment with rough cleavage (Lmf 1.0), same field of view as in C, with nicols crossed. E) Polycrystalline mica (Lmm), high-metamorphic micaceous rock fragment in plane light (sample NZ-11-18-AM). F) Polycrystalline mica (Lmm) same field of the view as in G with nicols crossed.

Plate 5

B) Photomicrographs of metamorphic components. Quartz- Mica tectonic (Lmt), moderate to higher-metamorphic rock fragment, consisting of elongated ribbons of quartz along with an unidentifiable micaceous mineral(s) (sample NZ-11- 18AM). B) Same field of view as in A, quartz- mica tectonic (Lmt) with nicols crossed. C) Quartz-mica tectonic muscovite (Lmtm), moderate to higher- metamorphic rock fragment, consisting of elongated ribbons of quartz and muscovite (sample NZ-11-06M). D) Same field of view as in C, quartz-mica tectonic muscovite (Lmtm), with nicols crossed. E) Quartz-mica tectonic biotite (Lmtb), moderate to higher-metamorphic rock fragment, consisting of elongated ribbons of quartz and biotite (sample NZ-11-18AM). F) Same field of view as in E, quartz-mica tectonic biotite (Lmtb), with nicols crossed. G) Quartz-mica tectonic chlorite (Lmtc), moderate to high-metamorphic rock fragment, consisting of elongated ribbons of quartz and chlorite (sample NZ-11-06M). Same field of view as in G, quartz-mica tectonic chlorite (Lmtc), with nicols crossed.

91

92

93

94

95

96