DOCSLIB.ORG

Technical Note: Comments on the Use of Groundwater and River Flow Models, Focused on the Candover Stream Simulation in the Test and Itchen Model

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Technical Note: Comments on the Use of Groundwater and River Flow Models, Focused on the Candover Stream Simulation in the Test and Itchen Model 1 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited Technical Note: Comments on the use of groundwater and river flow models, focused on the Candover Stream simulation in the Test and Itchen Model Background and comments from World Wildlife Fund (UK) Scope, author and reviewer Rob Soley at Amec Foster Wheeler was asked by Southern Water Services to compile this Technical Note in response to comments made by WWF on the use of the Test and Itchen Groundwater (and River Flow) Model to support the assessment of flow impacts on the Candover Stream (sometimes named as the Candover Brook). Rob has led the development and use of groundwater and river flow models across many of the Chalk catchments in Southern and Eastern England. He has also worked closely with the Environment Agency and other regulators over the last 16 years to design and improve the water resource assessment and environmental flow screening approaches used in Catchment Abstraction Management Strategies, and in support of EU Habitats Directive and Water Framework Directive objectives across the UK. The note has been reviewed by Tim Power at Amec Foster Wheeler who has carried out or managed all of the groundwater and river flow modelling for the Test and Itchen. (Within the appendices to this report, there is reference to work carried out by Entec UK Ltd and AMEC E&I UK Ltd – both of which are predecessor companies to Amec Foster Wheeler E&I UK Ltd). Comments from WWF (UK) A joint letter from Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust (Chief Executive Debbie Tann) and WWF (Rose O’Neill) to Matthew Wright (CEO Southern Water) and James Humphreys (Environment Agency Area Manager, Solent and South Downs), dated 17 December 2014, included the sentence: “We do not believe that the groundwater models used to assess the impacts of increased pumping from groundwater for stream augmentation are sufficiently accurate to enable reliable assessment of groundwater level, resultant stream flow and ecological responses to episodic pumping during low flow spells.” Some parts of a note entitled ‘Use of groundwater model outputs for water resources decision making’ (written by Rob Soley in 2008 as input to an Atkins project undertaken for the Environment Agency Solent and South Downs Area) were shared in response to this sentence, and WWF were asked for their reaction and further comments at a subsequent meeting of the Augmentation Technical Working Group of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group. WWF duly circulated a further paper, reference WWF-UK/CF/10/06/2015, accepting that the points made in the ‘Use of GW models’ note and conclusions drawn are fair ‘insofar as they go’, but listing the points summarised below: July 2015 Doc Ref: 29388tn568 2 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited 1. Groundwater models perform best when used: a. to compare prediction between runs; b. for considering changes or impacts over larger areas; c. for defining impacts close to measurement points; d. for defining changes in aggregate flows rather than at individual groundwater levels; and e. for defining changes over the long term, and/or on average. 2. Conversely, groundwater models are not at their best: a. for absolute comparisons with water levels/heads; b. for impact predictions over small areas; c. for defining impacts further from measurement points; d. for defining impacts at specific places; and e. for defining impacts at specific points or during specific periods. 3. Because of these limitations it is an over-statement to claim that “groundwater models are particularly good at deriving groundwater abstraction impacts” with regards to localised and specific time predictions. 4. Models (in general) which have been calibrated against some of the available data, and verified or validated against other data (not used in the calibration) can be viewed with more confidence than those where no data have been held back for verification. The Test and Itchen groundwater and river flow model does not appear to have been verified or validated in this way, as part of determining its ‘fitness for purpose’. 5. Groundwater models can and do provide insight and understanding of aquifer-stream interactions in the round, across the piece and over the long run, but impacts on particular sites, at particular times or conditions are of most concern for environmental protection, so WWF continue to be concerned by the risks of placing too much trust in model predictions. They may be ‘best available’ but they are not sufficient. 6. Stating that the degree of uncertainty associated with groundwater model predictions of flow impacts is often dwarfed by the uncertainty of the hydro-ecological consequences of those flow impacts provides ‘nothing but cold comfort’. 7. So groundwater model results are useful, but not wholly trustworthy. Aim and contents of this note This note is intended to address WWFs comments directly (Section 2), and (in Section 3) to introduce some further documents (provided as appendices) which: expand on the ‘eyes open’ use of groundwater and river flow models (wherever they exist); emphasise why effective groundwater abstraction management and environmental protection needs to continue to refer to them as part of the assessment tool kit; and provide further documentation of the update/verification and subsequent localised refinement of the Test and Itchen Groundwater Model, including in the Candover Stream catchment. The note and associated documents are to be circulated to the ‘Augmentation Technical Working Group’ members in advance of the next meeting in July 2015. The aim is to establish a consensus understanding of the way in which model predictions can be referred to and used, so that discussion time in future can be more focussed on interpretation of the available evidence (including model outputs) to inform regulatory decisions. July 2015 Doc Ref: 29388tn568 3 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited Summary response to WWF comments In summary, Amec Foster Wheeler do not disagree strongly with many elements of the points raised by WWF, taken at face value. We welcome the recognition that groundwater models provide insight into patterns of groundwater abstraction impacts, and would certainly agree with the conclusion that ‘model results are useful but not wholly trustworthy’. We would not claim otherwise - emphasising that field measurements are also important in establishing the conceptual understanding on which the model is based, but come with their own problems and limitations, particularly when trying to characterise the impacts of groundwater abstraction on ephemeral winterbournes, upstream of flow gauging stations. The best decisions often have to be based on an ‘eyes open’ combination of field observation, model predictions and judgement – with the emphasis on how to most effectively realise environmental benefits. We would argue, however, that groundwater and river flow models in general can provide more insight into the local and time specific patterns of abstraction impact than implied by some of the WWF comments, which could be read to suggest they can only be reliably referred to for ‘long-term’, ‘average’ impact predictions ‘across the piece’. The purpose and design intent underpinning these models is focused on understanding how patterns of groundwater abstraction impacts vary - both spatially and in time - in the context of a naturally fluctuating and regionally distributed water table, and its changing relationship with the surface water drainage network. As such, they are uniquely well placed to predict patterns of flow impacts during lower groundwater level/ river flow times, and to compare these with impacts when groundwater levels and river flows are higher - they are not just for ‘long term average’ assessment. This is valuable for hydro-ecological interpretation because it integrates impacts across the full flow range in a way which can focus on predictions during specific dry summer months (for which ecological data are available), or can be collated across longer term flow duration curve summaries, for comparison with flow screening standards. ‘What the flow would be without groundwater abstraction’ is not readily measureable. Distributed, transient groundwater and river flow models are better designed to make predictions in this regard than any other modelling or calculation approaches which assume more fixed and linear relationships between the ground and surface water systems. They are, indeed the ‘best available’ tool for this purpose because they attempt to represent real processes of groundwater flow, storage and stream interaction. Nonetheless, we agree that model predictions should never be viewed with ‘blind faith’. We would also contend that, in the absence of better information, model predictions between reasonably calibrated data points (e.g. gauged flows) can still be said to be ‘consistent with available data’, and therefore have some value. Interpolation and extrapolation are part of any model’s purpose, given that it is not possible or feasible to measure everything, everywhere, all the time (and even if it were, this still is not ‘measuring flow impacts’). So models can provide useful insight into impacts at particular places and particular times beyond available measurements. These impact predictions should not be presented as, or expected to be, ‘exactly correct’, but neither should they be discounted. Even where model calibration compared with measured groundwater levels is not perfect (which can often be the case because of the scale contrast between regional model cell size and the local layering and fissure connections which may be influencing observation borehole records), it is often possible and reasonable to add further interpretation or translation of model outputs - to make them more locally relevant. More discussion is provided in the documents referred to from Section 3. The need to separate the use of data for model calibration/ refinement from that used for verification/ validation is a fair point to make regarding current groundwater modelling practice in the UK generally.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Solent & South Downs Fish Monitoring Report 2015
    Solent & South Downs fish monitoring report 2015 We are the Environment Agency. We protect and improve the environment and make it a better place for people and wildlife. We operate at the place where environmental change has its greatest impact on people’s lives. We reduce the risks to people and properties from flooding; make sure there is enough water for people and wildlife; protect and improve air, land and water quality and apply the environmental standards within which industry can operate. Acting to reduce climate change and helping people and wildlife adapt to its consequences are at the heart of all that we do. We cannot do this alone. We work closely with a wide range of partners including government, business, local authorities, other agencies, civil society groups and the communities we serve. Authors: P. Rudd & L. Swift Published by: Environment Agency Further copies of this report are available Horizon house, Deanery Road, from our publications catalogue: Bristol BS1 5AH www.gov.uk/government/publications Email: [email protected] or our National Customer Contact Centre: www.gov.uk/environment-agency T: 03708 506506 Email: [email protected]. © Environment Agency 2014 All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced with prior permission of the Environment Agency. 2 of 77 Foreword Welcome to the annual fish report for the Solent and South Downs area for 2015. This report covers all of the fisheries surveys we have carried out in Hampshire and West & East Sussex in 2015 and is the ninth annual report we have produced in succession.
    [Show full text]
  • LAND at GRANBY GARDENS, LUDGERSHALL Transport Assessment
    LAND AT GRANBY GARDENS, LUDGERSHALL Transport Assessment 06/12/2012 Confidentiality: Public Quality Management Issue/revision Issue 1 Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3 Remarks Date 6th December 2012 Prepared by Grace Blizard Signature Checked by Stuart Morton Signature Authorised by Rhod Macleod Signature Project number 11790116 Report number File reference J:\11790116 - Granby Gardens - Ludgershall\TEXT\REPORTS\Transport Assessment (Nov2012)\Transport Assessment (181 dwellings) - Nov12.docx Project number: 11790116 Dated: 06/12/2012 2 | 53 Revised: LAND AT GRANBY GARDENS, LUDGERSHALL Transport Assessment 06/12/2012 Client Foreman Homes Group Unit 1 Station Industrial Park Duncan Road Park Gate Hampshire SO31 1BX Consultant WSP Group Limited Regus House Southampton SO18 2RZ UK Tel: +44 (0)23 8030 2529 Fax: +44 (0)23 8030 2001 www.wspgroup.co.uk Registered Address WSP UK Limited 01383511 WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF WSP Contacts Rhod MacLeod 02380 302568 [email protected] Stuart Morton 02380 302556 [email protected] 3 | 53 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................... 5 2 Policy Context ........................................................................... 7 3 Existing Conditions.................................................................. 12 4 Accessibility ............................................................................ 22 5 Development Proposals .......................................................... 25 6 Development
    [Show full text]
  • South East River Basin District Flood Risk Management Plan 2015 - 2021 PART B: Sub Areas in the South East River Basin District
    South East River Basin District Flood Risk Management Plan 2015 - 2021 PART B: Sub Areas in the South East river basin district March 2016 Published by: Environment Agency Further copies of this report are available Horizon house, Deanery Road, from our publications catalogue: Bristol BS1 5AH www.gov.uk/government/publications Email: [email protected] or our National Customer Contact Centre: www.gov.uk/environment-agency T: 03708 506506 Email: [email protected]. © Environment Agency 2016 All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced with prior permission of the Environment Agency. Contents Glossary and abbreviations ......................................................................................................... 5 The layout of this document ........................................................................................................ 7 1 Sub-areas in the South East river basin district .............................................................. 9 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 9 Flood Risk Areas ......................................................................................................................... 9 Management catchments ............................................................................................................ 9 2 Conclusions, objectives and measures to manage risk for the Brighton and Hove Flood Risk Area..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • South Hampshire: Integrated Water Management Strategy
    South Hampshire: Integrated Water Management Strategy Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) December 2008 Client: PUSH South Hampshire Integrated Water Management Strategy Note This document has been produced by ATKINS for PUSH solely for the purpose of the Integrated Water Management Strategy for South Hampshire. It may not be used by any person for any other purpose other than that specified without the express written permission of ATKINS. Any liability arising out of use by a third party of this document for purposes not wholly connected with the above shall be the responsibility of that party who shall indemnify ATKINS against all claims costs damages and losses arising out of such use. Atkins Limited Document History JOB NUMBER: 5056925 DOCUMENT REF: 5056925 / 70 / DG / 23 05 Final for Distribution PS ED HR PS 2/12/08 04 Final PS RH HR PS 4/11/08 03 External Draft for Review HR/JS/PS AB BSP PS 02 Internal draft review HR/JS/PS AB AB PS 01 Draft in progress HR/JS/PS ED BP PS Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date Revision Purpose Description Client: PUSH South Hampshire Integrated Water Management Strategy Acknowledgements The Atkins team would like to thank the Steering Committee for its advice and support throughout the project. The technical specialists in the Environment Agency have also been very supportive. We would like to thank Tony Burch from the Environment Agency who has provided detailed comments and recommendations for improved flood risk management which we have included within this document. Susanne Grigsby, David Lowthian and Tim Sykes have also provided important advice which has helped to steer the project with respect to water quality and understanding the methodology and conclusions of the Review of Consents investigations.
    [Show full text]
  • Streams, Ditches and Wetlands in the Chichester District. by Dr
    Streams, Ditches and Wetlands in the Chichester District. By Dr. Carolyn Cobbold, BSc Mech Eng., FRSA Richard C J Pratt, BA(Hons), PGCE, MSc (Arch), FRGS Despite the ‘duty of cooperation’ set out in the National Planning Policy Framework1, there is mounting evidence that aspects of the failure to deliver actual cooperation have been overlooked in the recent White Paper2. Within the subregion surrounding the Solent, it is increasingly apparent that the development pressures are such that we risk losing sight of the natural features that underscore not only the attractiveness of the area but also the area’s natural health itself. This paper seeks to focus on the aquatic connections which maintain the sub-region’s biological health, connections which are currently threatened by overdevelopment. The waters of this sub-region sustain not only the viability of natural habitat but also the human economy of employment, tourism, recreation, leisure, and livelihoods. All are at risk. The paper is a plea for greater cooperation across the administrative boundaries of specifically the eastern Solent area. The paper is divided in the following way. 1. Highlands and Lowlands in our estimation of worth 2. The Flow of Water from Downs to Sea 3. Wetlands and Their Global Significance 4. Farmland and Fishing 5. 2011-2013: Medmerry Realignment Scheme 6. The Protection and Enhancement of Natural Capital in The Land ‘In Between’ 7. The Challenge to Species in The District’s Wildlife Corridors 8. Water Quality 9. Habitat Protection and Enhancement at the Sub-Regional Level 10. The policy restraints on the destruction of natural capital 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Solent and South Downs: Fish Monitoring Report 2017
    Solent and South Downs: Fish monitoring report 2017 We are the Environment Agency. We protect and improve the environment. We help people and wildlife adapt to climate change and reduce its impacts, including flooding, drought, sea level rise and coastal erosion. We improve the quality of our water, land and air by tackling pollution. We work with businesses to help them comply with environmental regulations. A healthy and diverse environment enhances people's lives and contributes to economic growth. We can’t do this alone. We work as part of the Defra group (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs), with the rest of government, local councils, businesses, civil society groups and local communities to create a better place for people and wildlife. Author: Georgina Busst Published by: Environment Agency Further copies of this report are available Horizon House, Deanery Road, from our publications catalogue: Bristol BS1 5AH www.gov.uk/government/publications Email: [email protected] or our National Customer Contact Centre: www.gov.uk/environment-agency T: 03708 506506 Email: [email protected]. © Environment Agency 2018 All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced with prior permission of the Environment Agency. 2 of 92 Foreword Welcome to the 2017 annual fish report for Solent and South Downs. This report covers all of the fisheries surveys carried out by the Environment Agency in Hampshire and East and West Sussex in 2017. This is the eleventh annual report we have produced. In 2017, our fisheries monitoring programme mainly focussed on Eel Index surveys which were carried out at 10 sites on the River Itchen and the River Ouse.
    [Show full text]
  • Needs Analysis for Wiltshire and Swindon
    Needs Analysis for Wiltshire and Swindon January 2021 Contents Population profile ..................................................................................................... 4 Deprivation ............................................................................................................. 19 Economy ................................................................................................................. 42 Education, skills and training ................................................................................. 49 Health, wellbeing and disability ........................................................................... 64 Housing ................................................................................................................... 82 Children and young people ................................................................................. 91 Older people ........................................................................................................ 114 Community strength ............................................................................................ 125 Accessibility and isolation ................................................................................... 137 Covid-19 ................................................................................................................ 150 Appendix A – Indicators used in this report ....................................................... 167 2 Needs Analysis for Wiltshire and Swindon 2021 Introduction This report,
    [Show full text]
  • Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation Sincs Hampshire.Pdf
    Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) within Hampshire © Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre No part of this documentHBIC may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recoding or otherwise without the prior permission of the Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre Central Grid SINC Ref District SINC Name Ref. SINC Criteria Area (ha) BD0001 Basingstoke & Deane Straits Copse, St. Mary Bourne SU38905040 1A 2.14 BD0002 Basingstoke & Deane Lee's Wood SU39005080 1A 1.99 BD0003 Basingstoke & Deane Great Wallop Hill Copse SU39005200 1A/1B 21.07 BD0004 Basingstoke & Deane Hackwood Copse SU39504950 1A 11.74 BD0005 Basingstoke & Deane Stokehill Farm Down SU39605130 2A 4.02 BD0006 Basingstoke & Deane Juniper Rough SU39605289 2D 1.16 BD0007 Basingstoke & Deane Leafy Grove Copse SU39685080 1A 1.83 BD0008 Basingstoke & Deane Trinley Wood SU39804900 1A 6.58 BD0009 Basingstoke & Deane East Woodhay Down SU39806040 2A 29.57 BD0010 Basingstoke & Deane Ten Acre Brow (East) SU39965580 1A 0.55 BD0011 Basingstoke & Deane Berries Copse SU40106240 1A 2.93 BD0012 Basingstoke & Deane Sidley Wood North SU40305590 1A 3.63 BD0013 Basingstoke & Deane The Oaks Grassland SU40405920 2A 1.12 BD0014 Basingstoke & Deane Sidley Wood South SU40505520 1B 1.87 BD0015 Basingstoke & Deane West Of Codley Copse SU40505680 2D/6A 0.68 BD0016 Basingstoke & Deane Hitchen Copse SU40505850 1A 13.91 BD0017 Basingstoke & Deane Pilot Hill: Field To The South-East SU40505900 2A/6A 4.62
    [Show full text]
  • Saxon Charters and Landscape Evolution in the South-Central Hampshire Basin
    ProcHampsh Field Club ArchaeolSoc 50, 1994, 103-25 SAXON CHARTERS AND LANDSCAPE EVOLUTION IN THE SOUTH-CENTRAL HAMPSHIRE BASIN By CHRISTOPHER K CURRIE ABSTRACT THE CHARTER EVIDENCE Landscape study of the South Central Hampshire Basin north of Methodology Southampton has identified evidence for organised land use, based on diverse agricultural, pastoral and woodland land uses in the The methods used to eludicate the bounds of the Saxon period. Combined study of the topographic, cartographiccharter s discussed below are based on a long­ and charter evidence has revealed that the basis for settlement standing knowledge of the areas under patterns had largely developed by the tenth century. Highly consideration. This was combined with organised common pasturing is identified within gated areas as topographical information given on the earliest being the origin of English commons in the later historic period.Ordnanc e Survey map (one inch, 1810 edition, Evidence for possible river engineering is discussed. sheet XI), particularly with regard to the parish Charter evidence suggests that this developed landscape, boundaries shown thereon. In some cases this was underwent reorganisation in the Late Saxon period, with ecclesiastical bodies at Winchester being the major beneficiaries.supporte d by knowledge of earlier documents. It Although dealing with a small geographical area, this study is accepted that much of the boundaries of these raises implications for the nation-wide study of the origin of estates will be conjectural. Where the boundary land-use traditions and settlement in England. appears to follow close to the earliest known parish boundary, it has been assumed this is the course of die charter bounds, unless there is good INTRODUCTION reason to think otherwise.
    [Show full text]
  • Abbots Worthy Fishery River Itchen, Hampshire
    Abbots Worthy Fishery River Itchen, Hampshire Abbots Worthy Fishery River Itchen, Hampshire Winchester 3 miles (London Waterloo 57 mins), Alresford 6 miles and Stockbridge 10 miles. Syndicate membership for the Abbots Worthy beat on the Itchen Introduction The River Itchen is considered to be one of the finest English chalk streams by anglers worldwide. Rising from the Hampshire chalk downland near New Cheriton, the river has a reported catchment area of 280 miles from its source where it is known as the Titchbourne Stream. The river is approximately 28 miles long and flows north to New Alresford where it is joined by two spring fed streams, the Erle and the Candover Brook, becoming the River Itchen flowing west past Ovington and Itchen Abbot, east to Abbots Worthy and south to Winchester and Southampton where the river becomes tidal and joins the reaches of the River Test on Southampton Water. The river is highly sought after for its quality of water and fly fishing and almost completely wild trout population. Situation The Abbots Worthy beat on the Upper Itchen is located on the edge of the village of Abbots Worthy approximately 3 miles to the north of the cathedral city of Winchester. Within Abbots Worthy and the adjacent Kings Worthy there are everyday conveniences including shops, post office and public house. Winchester provides a comprehensive range of shops, cultural and recreational facilities and a wide choice of restaurants and wine bars. Travel and communications are excellent with the A33, A34 and M3 adjacent giving access to both London and the south coast, Oxford, the north and the A303 for the west country.
    [Show full text]
  • Curdridge Lane, Waltham Chase
    N FERRY HOUSE, CANUTE ROAD, SOUTHAMPTON, HAMPSHIRE, S014 3FJ T: +44 (0)23 80335228 F: +44 (0)23 80632886 E: [email protected] CONTRACTORS MUST CHECK ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE, ONLY FIGURED DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE WORKED FROM DISCREPANCIES MUST BE REPORTED TO THE ARCHITECT BEFORE PROCEEDING E DRAWING WAS PREPARED IN MICROSTATION FORMAT. DRAWINGS EXPORTED IN OTHER FORMATS MAY DIFFER, REFER TO ORIGINAL DRAWING FOR TRUE FORMAT. THIS DRAWING IS COPYRIGHT C U S Residential Development, Site Plan S I Sandy Lane, Waltham Chase. Figure Ground G N I N N IMPORTANT NOTE FOR USE OF THIS DRAWING: THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PRODUCED SPECIFICALLY FOR USE ON THIS PROJECT. POPE PRIESTLEY ARCHITECTS CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR RE-USE OF THIS SCALE BAR = 10mm INTERVALS AT TRUE SCALE A SCALE @ A3 DATE AUTHOR CHECK DRAWING NO. REVISION INFORMATION BY OTHERS FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN FOR WHICH IT IS SPECIFICALLY INTENDED. THIS DRAWING REFLECTS STANDARDS AGREED FOR THIS PROJECT AND CURRENT AT THE TIME OF L 1: 2000 MAY2015 VL DP PRODUCTION AND WILL NOT BE UPDATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHANGING LEGISLATION AND/ OR OTHER REQUIREMENTS. P PP1162/ 116-00 P1 Highway and Transportation Consultants SANDY LANE WALTHAM CHASE TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT on behalf of Linden Homes ITR/MT/4593/TA.3 October 2015 GD Bellamy BSc CEng MICE IT Roberts MCIHT Bellamy Roberts LLP (trading as Bellamy Roberts) is a Limited Liability Partnership registered in England. Reg No OC303725. Registered Office: Clover House, Western Lane, Odiham, Hampshire RG29 1TU CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .……………………………………………………………….. 1 2.0 SITE LOCATION …………………………………….......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Addyman, PV, and DH Hill, Saxon Southamp- Ton: a Review of The
    INDEX Addyman, P. V., and D. H. Hill, Saxon Southamp­ Berwick Down, 32 ton: A Review of the Evidence Part II: Industry, Bishops Waltham Road, 163 Trade and Everyday Life, 61-96 Blacksmiths Bridge, 116 Aldershot-Hartley Wintney, Road, 166 Blackwater-Co. boundary, Road, 159 Alton Road, 159, 160 Blake, P. H., 19 Alton-Co. boundary, Road, 165 Boddington, Mrs. C, 21 Alton-Hill Brow, Road, 166 Boldre, Hampshire, 57 Alton-Liphook, Road, 166 Bordon-Co. boundary, Road, 166 Andover, 23, 137 Bone objects from Balksbury Camp, 4.9 Andover and Redbridge Railway Company, 149 Bone working, Saxon, 75 Andover-Basingstoke, Road, 171 Bordier, Claude, 138, 147 Andover By-Pass, ai, 26 Boscombe Down East, South Wiltshire, 13, 14 Andover Canal, 149 Botley-Corhampton, Road, 167 Andover Canal Company, 149 Botley Road, 164, 167 Andover Road, 163, 165 Bournemouth Road, 162 Andover-Southampton, Road, 170 Bramshott, 137 Andover Town Railway Station, 149 Briard,J., 19 Anna River, 23, 24, 50 Brockenhurst Road, 164 Antler working, 75 Bromfield, Arthur, 140 Anton River, 23, 24, 149 Bromfield, Henry, 139, 140 ApSimon, A. M., 14 Bromham, 16 Austen, Rev. J. H., 61 Bronze working, 66 Burgess of Southampton, 138 Bagsbury, 23 Bury Hill, 23, 50, 52 Bakeleresbury, 23 Baker, John, 143 Cadnam-Christchurch, Road, 164 Balksbury Camp, Andover, Hants, The Excava­ Cadnam-Co. boundary, Road, 170 tion of, by G.J. Wainwright, 21-55 Cadnam-Totton, Road, 164 Bargate, Southampton, 86 Calkin, J. B., 57 Barillon, 145 Calshot-Totton, Road, 167 Barksbury Camp, 23 Cameron, L. C, 157 Barleywood Farm, 114 Candevere, John de, 118 Barnes, Isle of Wight, urn from, 13, 14 Candovers, 114, 126 Barron, B.
    [Show full text]