Franklin’s Reclaimed Foreshore
© Ruth Young, April, 2014
© Ruth Young, April, 2014
The reclamation of Franklin’s foreshore was part of an ambitious plan, first flagged in 1906, [1] for the dredging of the Huon River between Shipwright’s Point and Mosquito Point, to enable interstate steamers to ship cargoes of fruit from growers in that area, direct to the Australian mainland, eliminating the freight cost of transshipment at Hobart.
In the early 20th century, the Huon River was a wilder river, subject to flooding after snow melts and heavy rain, which resulted in shifting sand and mud banks. The shoals thus created snagged trees, uprooted by flooding from the river banks further upstream. Negotiating the mud banks required care and skill. Ships frequently ran aground, delaying the delivery of supplies and the collection of fruit for markets. Thus, the creation of a safe, deep channel by dredging was widely supported.
In spite of the hazards, about 20 ships regularly traded up and down the Huon River.[2] Franklin was a rapidly growing river port and the commercial centre of the Huon Valley. Most of its river foreshore was swamp land, generally considered an eyesore, unhealthy and a breeding ground for disease. Flat ground was limited to a narrow strip of land along the waterfront, behind which steep hills rose for several miles.
Access to shipping was initially gained by digging canals through the swamp land and later, by the erection of a series of straggling jetties across it. In 1909, the main navigation channel opposite Franklin was about 6ft deep at low tide. This was separated by a long mud bank from an inner navigation channel, which was about 5 feet deep. The proposal to dredge the Huon River involved the abandonment of the inner channel of the river at Franklin and the creation of a single channel 200 feet wide, about 8 feet deep at low tide and 14 feet deep at high tide.[3]
Jetties at Franklin prior to reclamation. [TAHO NS869/1/310]
As well as deepening and straightening the Franklin channel, dredging also presented the opportunity of reclaiming 64 acres of flat land, by pumping the dredged spoil from the river directly on to the town’s swampy foreshore.[4] The reclaimed land would have deep water frontage, envisaged as a continuous wharf, creating the “best and largest pier in Tasmania”,[5] with a lengthy promenade, and ample land for packing sheds and cool stores, shops, residences and recreation. The sale of the reclaimed land would recoup the costs of reclamation.
The mud bank separating the inner and outer channels at Franklin. [TAHO AUTAS0016125144097]
This scheme for dredging and reclamation was what we would call today a “project of State significance” and it was considered at the State and local government levels as a work that was “of the utmost importance and ... essential to the welfare and progress of the Huon”.[6]
In reality, the story of the reclamation reads as a litany of delays, mishaps, misfortune, waste and incompetence. It generated mountains of correspondence and was the subject of at least 15 Public Works Department Reports and several Parliamentary inquiries in the years to come.
Parliament allocated £5,000 for initial dredging in 1909, but the dredging did not begin until 1914. By this time, only the areas where steamers were known to regularly go aground between Shipwright’s Point and Franklin were recommended for dredging.[7] [Hand-drawn coloured chart showing shoals] The idea of dredging to Mosquito Point had been abandoned by 1914. The most northerly target was now Ironstone Creek, below Huonville Bridge.[8] The area to be reclaimed at Franklin had shrunk from 64 acres to 24 acres, about 100 yards deep, for a distance of about half a mile, from Kennedy’s jetty in the south to Howard’s jetty in the north. [9]
Money was diverted from dredging to erect a breastwork of piling to retain the spoil dredged from the river off Franklin town. This work was to be carried out at the same time as dredging began further south, so that the piling wall would be ready to contain the spoil when the dredge worked its way north to Franklin. Dredging commenced at Castle Forbes Bay in January 1914, using a “suction” or “sand” steam dredge, which sucked up silt and pumped it through long hoses on to higher ground. [10]
The Public Works Department put the work of erecting the sheath piling wall out to tender, but thought the offers it received were too expensive and instead opted for the use of “day labour”. [11] The first pile was driven at Franklin, amid much fanfare and celebration, on 26th September 1914, just weeks after the beginning of World War I.
Invitation to celebrate the start of the reclamation works. Huon Newspaper Co. Ltd. [TAHO NS1295/1/375]
The piling wall consisted of three hundred and eighty-seven 18” piles, about 35’ long, placed 10’ apart and driven into the river bed. The spaces between the piles were filled with about one million feet of sheath piles 12” x 6”, 25’ long and also driven. The whole breastwork structure was to be braced together and strengthened by two lines of heavy horizontal timbers (walings). Every third pile was connected to an 18” anchor pile, driven into more solid ground about 25’ inland. Ties between the front pile and the anchor pile were 12” x 6’ x 25’ hardwood and fastened to the piles at each end by two ⅞” screw bolts with nuts and washers. [12]
Tests were conducted to ascertain the nature of the riverbed off Franklin and arrive at an estimate of how much fill could be obtained. The Dredge Master, George Davidson, found a reef of loose rubble and large stones extending for about 200 feet south of the northern jetty. A test near the mud bank, between the inner and outer channels, revealed a “stiff sticky mud”. He concluded that, although most of the material available was clean sand and there was enough fill to reclaim 24 acres, the suction dredge could not deal with the reef, the clay and submerged logs without costly adaptation and would possibly be unable to get down to the required depths. [13]
A Priestman or “grab” dredge was then taken to Franklin at the end of 1914 to make a channel which was deep enough to float a pile driver, along the line of piling, through the mud bank separating the two navigation channels. The pile driver could then follow the dredge through and float itself whilst laying the sheath piling for the reclamation in that area. That was the theory. However, the soft elements of the silt on top of the clay that the dredge shifted kept falling back into the channel it created and trapping the dredge in the channel. Work stopped whilst wooden chutes were constructed to carry the silt further away from the dredge. But at low tide, the gradient was such that the ends sank into the mud, choking the chutes. The Priestman dredge was forced to work back and forth over the same area for many weeks so that the installation of the piling could continue. [14]
A Priestman steam dredge, similar to the one used to dredge a channel through the mud flats at Franklin. The dredge pictured is reclaiming mud flats at Cook’s River, Botany Bay, and demonstrates the use of a wooden chute. [Australian Town and Country Journal, 29 September 1888, p.650, State Library of New South Wales.]
By mid 1915, most of the piling was in place. Gaps were left so that ships could continue to travel in and out of the piling wall to load and land cargo. Then tragedy struck. Nineteen year old Warwick Braithwaite, a deckhand on his first voyage aboard ss Waldemar, lost his balance and drowned. He was handling the ship’s mooring lines in the dark and stepped from the wharf onto the sheath piling, imagining it to be much broader than in fact it was. [15]
Dredging ceased whilst the Public Works Department sought a suitable dredge to complete the reclamation. The Marine Board of Hobart offered its suction dredge for sale to the Government, considering that if adapted, it would be suitable for most of the government’s dredging works, but the price was considered too high. Extensive and time-consuming enquiries were made overseas and interstate to locate a dredge that could do the work. [16]
Pile driver laying sheath piling in the cut in the mud bank between Franklin’s inner and outer pre- reclamation navigation channels. [Cato Collection]
It was not until mid-1917 that a solution was found. The Marine Board agreed to lease the suction dredge, the same dredge that had been used in 1914 to dredge the Huon River, to a contractor, Andrew Currie. Currie had designed special cutters, fitted to the mouth of the suction pipe. These could cut through heavy clay and agitate it so that it could pass through the suction pipe. The cutters could also deal with partly decomposed logs in the same manner. [17]
Currie began work dredging at Franklin in July 1918. Once again, a ceremony was arranged to celebrate the occasion. The dredge, bedecked with flags and bunting, was turned on in front of a large cheering crowd and “a huge volume of mud and water was emitted across the sheath piling from the dredge”. [18] Within three months, about 4 acres had been successfully reclaimed, mostly with coarse, clean river sand. [19] The people of Franklin could see positive progress and imagine their continuous wharf and their stately promenade on the foreshore. In anticipation of an exciting future, "the sand”, as the reclamation was locally known, became a place of entertainment. Several carnivals were held there. The bandstand, which had been removed temporarily, was restored and people gathered on the sand to enjoy concerts by Franklin Brass Band. [20] Once the dredge had proved successful, the gaps in the piling, left to allow ships to enter and leave, were filled in by a contractor, Albert Ward. [21]
Pile driver working at the northern end of Franklin [TAHO PH30/1/5420]
In November 1918, the structure of the northern section of the piling wall collapsed, bulging out about 6 feet into the river for a length of 60 feet, depositing much of the silt and sand back into the river. This resulted in a Parliamentary Inquiry of the Public Works Committee.
The Inquiry revealed that the day labour contracted to erect the piling wall in 1914 had not fastened the structure together with screw bolts, nuts and washers, specified in the plans and supplied by the Public Works Department. Instead, the bolts had been cut, the ends fashioned into spikes, which were then driven in only about 4 inches from each side. Under the lateral pressure exerted by the dredged material and the water behind the piling, the anchor beams and anchor piles, which were not through bolted, had parted, causing the structure to give way. In his evidence to the enquiry, Andrew Currie remarked that “he could not understand anyone who was sane putting in the bolts in such a manner ... it was what he called “dummying” of the worst nature with the intention to deceive.” The Public Works Department agreed. The spikes had been arranged so as to give the impression of through bolting, carefully lined up to create the appearance of a head on one side and the end of the same bolt on the other side, work that took as long, if not longer, than simply boring holes through the whole structure and using screw bolts, nuts and washers.
The Inquiry also revealed that some of the sheath piling, specified to be 25 feet long, which filled the spaces between the main piles, had been docked before being driven, and these piles were driven only a few feet into the river bed, weakening the entire structure. The Public Works Department also admitted that, although additional staff had been requested, largely as a consequence of the war no staff could be spared to properly supervise the construction of the piling wall. [22]
So much money had already been spent on the reclamation and dredging that there was no gain in discontinuing it, so the work of re-fastening the entire breastwork began and new piles were driven in many sections of the wall, replacing the docked piles driven in 1914. A second collapse of the piling structure occurred in February 1919, depositing sand on the outside of the piling and creating a hole inside it. This time the piling moved out 2-3 feet for a distance of about 90 feet. Additional piles were driven and the whole structure stayed with iron bars.
The photograph shows the second bulging of the piling wall in 1919. Despite the poor quality of the picture, some detail of the structure of the piling wall is clearly visible. [Tasmanian Mail, 27 February 1919, p.20]
By July 1919, repairs to the piling were almost complete, but the dredge had ceased work because of a shortage of coal, partly the result of a maritime workers’ strike. At the same time, the sewers of about 20 houses in Franklin were running into a giant cesspool on the reclamation in the centre of the town because the Public Works Department was unwilling to spend money to construct trestles to hold drainage pipes. The cheaper solution was to install the pipes when the reclamation was completely filled. Other waste pipes became blocked with sand and backed up, the waste emerging on the main street outside shops and houses, creating a dreadful smell and real fears of an outbreak of serious disease. As Huon Councillor Cuthbert remarked:
If the Council were actually asking for tenders for some horrible fever – for something to come along and wipe out half the people – the situation could not be worse”. [23]
If the Council were actually asking for tenders for some horrible fever – for something to come along and wipe out half the people – the situation could not be worse”. [23]
The photo shows a drain laid and the steam dredge operating. [Tasmanian Mail 10/10/1918].
Andrew Currie had undertaken to lease the dredge for a period of two years. Unable to continue the heavy work of dredging at Franklin, which required the power generated by coal, Currie had to keep the dredge working somehow to feed himself and his family. He removed the dredge from Franklin to perform the lighter work of cutting a channel through the Southport bar, a job for which he could use firewood for fuel [24]. He was back at Franklin, ready to dredge in October 1919, but the repairs to the northern section of the piling wall were incomplete, so Currie began dredging at the southern end of the town. Early in January 1920, Ward was instructed to place an additional 30 piles, with an outward slant, outside the piling at the northern end. This strengthened the area where the breach had occurred in 1918, but meant that steamers could not actually come alongside the wall in that area. Drainage work began on the reclamation, but just as Ward completed his work in February 1919, Currie contracted bronchitis. By April, he was so seriously ill that he voluntarily surrendered his dredging contract, leaving the reclamation unfinished. [25]
The Public Works Department took over the lease of the dredge so that work could continue. Eventually the government purchased the dredge from the Marine Board and the cutters from Currie, and continued the reclamation at a frenetic pace using day labour, working two shifts for 16 hours a day. [26]
Franklin reclamation was officially declared “complete” in May 1922. The cost had ballooned to almost double the original estimate. The people of Franklin had waited 10 years for the extension of their town. Buildings and boat sheds had been removed or raised, gardens surrendered, trees cut down and what stood before them was a vast area of sand. Within a very short time, thousands of tons of this sand were blown back into the river by winter gales, since the sand was not dressed in any way. [27]
In April 1924, nineteen building blocks on the reclamation were offered for sale. Each had 60 feet of road frontage with depths varying from 120 to 150 feet, priced between £150 and £250, except for one lot on the corner opposite New Road, for which the price was £450. Not a single bid was made for any of the blocks at that auction. In 1924 the locals considered the land overpriced at what amounted to about £800 per acre, which was more than good arable land nearby. They were wary of building on sand. They also felt that the fact that the reclamation blocks were about 5 feet below the road should have made them cheaper, rather than more expensive. [28] By 1931 the only reclaimed land that had sold was a strip along the main road and other lots along the road to the northern jetty. Huon Council was given 6 acres of land for a recreation ground and esplanade. The streets into the reclamation took up about 5 acres, leaving about 11 acres to sell. Total sales were valued at £3834. The value of the land, including that given to Council, was about £12,000 for an area of land that finally cost £24,000 to create and repair. [29] By the mid-1930s, Franklin was well served by road transport. The river was never dredged as far as Ironstone Creek. Instead, a deep water port was created at Port Huon.
The area of the reclamation close to the shore continued to present problems for many years, mainly because of sand drift through the sheath piling, which shrank as it aged. Large holes developed near the northern jetty because the screws of steamers caused such agitation that they drew sand from under the lower waling of the wall. By 1935 so much sand had been lost that the level of the reclamation ranged from 1 foot to 3 feet below the top waling of the wall. At the southern end, the sand was the same level inside as outside the sheathing. This sand drift extended over time to form a sand shoal in the river. The depth of water outside the sheathing had been 14 feet at high water after reclamation; by 1935, it was 8 feet at high water. By 1963 it was about 5 feet deep and, particularly in the northern section, it was shallower than it had been prior to dredging.[30]
Huon Council pestered the Public Works Department on a regular basis, asking for site inspections and reports about the deterioration of the piling wall. If no action resulted, the political tactic of direct communication with the relevant Minister was employed. This strategy worked for some time, resulting in many reports and piecemeal repairs to the wall. For 40 years, various remedies were tried to stop sand drift. Waste wood shavings from Gordon Smith’s “wood wool” factory were used to fill the large holes at the northern end. Parts of the area near the recreation ground were excavated and packed with tea-tree branches. The cracks and gaps in the sheathing were covered with battens. Holes were filled with gravel, bags of clay and large rocks, but none of these solutions worked. One short section was retained by a rigid stone and cement wall, but this was quickly undermined by the tide. Willows were planted on the riverbank, in the hope that by the time the wooden structure had disappeared, their root systems would hold the bank together, but the willows either did not thrive or were vandalised. Alternate plantings of Wattles and Black Gums were also suggested.
Only two of the many remedies of the past were successful for a reasonable period of time. The first was the planting of trees, not at the river bank, but further back into the reclamation, where they could establish a root system away from the ravages of tide and salt water. The second was the use of corrugated iron sheeting. A trench was excavated and overlapping sheets of corrugated iron, laid lengthwise, were fastened to each other and the remains of the piling, and the trench then filled in. This was the most effective of all the solutions attempted between 1922 and 1964. [31] Eventually however, much of the corrugated iron rusted and the piling wall rotted away.
Finally, in 1964, Mr B Monks, the Hydraulic Engineer of the Public Works Department, took the time to read all the reports and correspondence and familiarised himself with the whole sad history of the reclamation. He presented a report “on a matter which the State was ill advised to support in the first place”.[32] Monks’ recommendation was that:
Huon Council be informed that the reclamation land has not now any advantage to the
State ... it brings benefit only to Franklin; this being so, the Council has a responsibility
towards protecting it. Though the State Government might make some grant, it has no
obligation to do so. [33]
State ... it brings benefit only to Franklin; this being so, the Council has a responsibility
towards protecting it. Though the State Government might make some grant, it has no
obligation to do so. [33]
The Monks Report effectively absolved the Government of any responsibility for Franklin reclamation. The only exception was the area of the Recreation Ground, but what responsibility the Government took for this was confined to Council’s eligibility for Government grants. Apart from that, “[Huon Council] has the sole responsibility for any protective measures considered necessary”.[34] In 1964, G. Knight, Clerk of Huon Council, accepted, presumably on the authority of Council, the Monks Report and with it, a final grant of £300 on a £1 for £1 basis with Council for remedial works on the piling area near Franklin Recreation Ground. Using this grant and a further £600 of its own, Council constructed new boat ways for the Rowing Club, cleared the river bank of rubbish, levelled off an area near the Club and provided parking facilities. [35]
The reclamation was described by one correspondent to the Huon Times as a monument to “waste and apathy”.[36] Despite this view, in both the short and long run, the reclamation proved to be a very real asset for Franklin, not only for housing, but also for recreation, eventually including the oval, the Bowls Club, tennis courts, a cycle track, camping ground and rowing and swimming clubs. Franklin’s destiny was to become a sporting Mecca for 30 years after World War II, as a result of the reclamation and the facilities that were built there, partly funded by Council, and partly by the Franklin community.
Most of the reclamation has now largely stabilised. What prevents the land from slipping into the river is the fact that there is as much fill outside the remains of the piling wall as there is inside them. The continued existence of the buried anchor piles, which extend 25 ft into the reclaimed area, also prevent the area from coming away in large chunks. However the same area that always was a source of trouble – near the water’s edge over the whole reclaimed length – is still subject to erosion. This is caused by tidal action to some extent, but also by the wash created by vessels using the river. It has left Franklin with a problem that will become worse if it is not addressed. Sea levels are expected to rise and if nothing is done, a considerable amount of recreational land will be lost. In 1963, this loss, if no further action was taken, was estimated to be 20’ back from the remains of the piling. [37]
Since the end of the 20th century, the relationship between Franklin and the river that is the reason for its existence has changed. Where once large steamers plied up and down competing for a berth, a growing number of smaller vessels of generally shallower draft now make regular use of it. A forest of masts greets the eye at the northern entrance to the town, and a marina provides berths for up to 30 local vessels. Franklin has reverted to its status of a river port, but in the context of a growing recreational boating and tourist industry, rather than the fruit industry. This can be expected to provide substantial future employment opportunities.
Technology has also advanced. Wooden plies have been replaced by hard plastic piling that can be rapidly driven into river silt, as shown by its recent use to protect a water pipe crossing from the land on the reclamation to the river. A program of progressive plastic pile replacement, driven from north to south, over time as funds allowed, would almost certainly halt the present process of continuous erosion of the river banks. The use of new technology would retain the reclamation as a municipal asset and, by retarding further land loss, it would allow future generations to exercise choice about the direction in which they might like their town to develop in the 21st century.
Footnotes
1. TAHO AA774/1/197, 1 of 2, Under Treasurer to Master Warden, 10 October 1906.
2. TAHO AA774/1/197, 1 of 2, Master Warden to Treasurer, 30 March 1905.
3. TAHO AA774/1/197 1of 2, Harbour Master to Master Warden, 4 October 1909.
4. TAHO AA774/1/197 1of 2, Harbour Master, Government Assistant Engineer and Engineer to Master Warden, 17 April 1913.
5. The Mercury, 2 April 1914, p.2.
6. Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, Report on the Franklin Reclamation Works Completion Proposal, No. 53, 11 December 1918.
7. TAHO AA774/1/197 1 of 2, Harbour Master to Marine Board of Hobart, 9 May 1913.
8. The Mercury, 27 November 1913, p.2
9. The Mercury, 11 February 1914, p.5.
10. TAHO AA774/1/197 1of 2, 22 January 1914.
11. TAHO AA774/1/197 1of 2, Minister for Lands and Works to Master Warden, 23 March 1914.
12. Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, Report on the Franklin Reclamation Works Completion Proposal, No. 53, 11 December 1918; The Mercury, 28 September 1914, p.3.
13. TAHO AA774/1/197 1of 2, Dredge Master Davidson to Master Warden, 1 July 1914, 10 July 1914.
14. TAHO AA774/1/197 1of 2, Dredge Master Cook to Secretary, Marine Board of Hobart, 23 December 1914; 31st December 1914; 9 January 1915; 13 January 1915.
15. The Mercury, 7 May 1915, p.4.
16. The Mercury, 9 September 1915, p.8; Huon Times, 4 December 1915, p.2; 23 November 1917, p.5.
17. The Mercury, 4 April 1918, p.4; Huon Times, 10 September 1918, p.2.
18. Huon Times, 30 July 1918, p.3.
19. The Mercury, 12 October 1918, p.6.
20. Huon Times, 3 December 1918, p.3; 8 September 1922, p.2.
21. Huon Times, 10 September 1918, p.2.
22. Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, Report on the Franklin Reclamation Works Completion Proposal, No. 53, 11 December 1918; The Mercury, 26 November 1918, p.2; 27 November 1918, p.2.
23. The Mercury, 13 August 1919, p.5.
24. The Mercury, 26 August 1919, p.4.
25. Huon Times, 3 February 1920 p.2; 13 February 1920, p.2; 17 February 1920 p.2; The Mercury, 20 April 1920, p.6.
26. The Mercury, 15 December 1920, p.8;
27. Huon Times, 16 May 1922, p.3; 6 October 1922, p.2.
28. The Mercury, 9 April 1924, p.9.
29. TAHO PWD35/1/1528,1 of 2, 24 August 1931.
30. TAHO PWD35/1/1528, 2 of 2, 10 Jan 1964.
31. TAHO PWD35/1/1528, 2 of 2, B. Monks, Hydraulic Engineer to Chief Engineer, 10 January 1964.
32. Ibid, note at the end by Chief Engineer to Director of Public Works, 15 January, 1964.
33. TAHO PWD35/1/1528, 2 of 2, B. Monks, Hydraulic Engineer to Chief Engineer, 10 January 1964.
34. TAHO PWD35/1/1528, 2 of 2, Memo Director of Public Works to Premier, 20 January 1964.
35. TAHO PWD35/1/1528, 2 of 2, Completion Report, Huon Council to Public Works Department, 25 February 1966.
36. Huon Times, 25 July 1922, p.2.
37. TAHO PWD35/1/1528, 2 of 2, B. Monks, Hydraulic Engineer to Chief Engineer, 10 January 1964.
Bibliography
Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office:
- A 774/1/197, Huon River-dredging, 1 January 1909 – 31 December 1939.
- PWD 35/1/1528, M21/20-7 (VOL 1-2) FRANKLIN RECLAMATION. 1 January 1919 – 31 December 1966.
- PWD 18/1/866, 49 Vic 44 Item 920 - Dredging Bar at Franklin, Huon River, 1 January 1885.
- PWD 164/1/1, Time Book relating to Franklin Reclamation Project, 1 December 1920 – 31 October
1921.
- PWD 18/1/16001, 10 GEO. 5, Item 674 - Franklin Reclamation Works (additional), including Drainage, 1 January 1919.
- Trove, National Library of Australia, records of Huon Times (1910 – 1933) and The Mercury (1909 – 1954).
- Parliament of Tasmania, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, Report on the Franklin Reclamation Works Completion Proposal, No. 53, 11 December 1918.
2. TAHO AA774/1/197, 1 of 2, Master Warden to Treasurer, 30 March 1905.
3. TAHO AA774/1/197 1of 2, Harbour Master to Master Warden, 4 October 1909.
4. TAHO AA774/1/197 1of 2, Harbour Master, Government Assistant Engineer and Engineer to Master Warden, 17 April 1913.
5. The Mercury, 2 April 1914, p.2.
6. Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, Report on the Franklin Reclamation Works Completion Proposal, No. 53, 11 December 1918.
7. TAHO AA774/1/197 1 of 2, Harbour Master to Marine Board of Hobart, 9 May 1913.
8. The Mercury, 27 November 1913, p.2
9. The Mercury, 11 February 1914, p.5.
10. TAHO AA774/1/197 1of 2, 22 January 1914.
11. TAHO AA774/1/197 1of 2, Minister for Lands and Works to Master Warden, 23 March 1914.
12. Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, Report on the Franklin Reclamation Works Completion Proposal, No. 53, 11 December 1918; The Mercury, 28 September 1914, p.3.
13. TAHO AA774/1/197 1of 2, Dredge Master Davidson to Master Warden, 1 July 1914, 10 July 1914.
14. TAHO AA774/1/197 1of 2, Dredge Master Cook to Secretary, Marine Board of Hobart, 23 December 1914; 31st December 1914; 9 January 1915; 13 January 1915.
15. The Mercury, 7 May 1915, p.4.
16. The Mercury, 9 September 1915, p.8; Huon Times, 4 December 1915, p.2; 23 November 1917, p.5.
17. The Mercury, 4 April 1918, p.4; Huon Times, 10 September 1918, p.2.
18. Huon Times, 30 July 1918, p.3.
19. The Mercury, 12 October 1918, p.6.
20. Huon Times, 3 December 1918, p.3; 8 September 1922, p.2.
21. Huon Times, 10 September 1918, p.2.
22. Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, Report on the Franklin Reclamation Works Completion Proposal, No. 53, 11 December 1918; The Mercury, 26 November 1918, p.2; 27 November 1918, p.2.
23. The Mercury, 13 August 1919, p.5.
24. The Mercury, 26 August 1919, p.4.
25. Huon Times, 3 February 1920 p.2; 13 February 1920, p.2; 17 February 1920 p.2; The Mercury, 20 April 1920, p.6.
26. The Mercury, 15 December 1920, p.8;
27. Huon Times, 16 May 1922, p.3; 6 October 1922, p.2.
28. The Mercury, 9 April 1924, p.9.
29. TAHO PWD35/1/1528,1 of 2, 24 August 1931.
30. TAHO PWD35/1/1528, 2 of 2, 10 Jan 1964.
31. TAHO PWD35/1/1528, 2 of 2, B. Monks, Hydraulic Engineer to Chief Engineer, 10 January 1964.
32. Ibid, note at the end by Chief Engineer to Director of Public Works, 15 January, 1964.
33. TAHO PWD35/1/1528, 2 of 2, B. Monks, Hydraulic Engineer to Chief Engineer, 10 January 1964.
34. TAHO PWD35/1/1528, 2 of 2, Memo Director of Public Works to Premier, 20 January 1964.
35. TAHO PWD35/1/1528, 2 of 2, Completion Report, Huon Council to Public Works Department, 25 February 1966.
36. Huon Times, 25 July 1922, p.2.
37. TAHO PWD35/1/1528, 2 of 2, B. Monks, Hydraulic Engineer to Chief Engineer, 10 January 1964.
Bibliography
Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office:
- A 774/1/197, Huon River-dredging, 1 January 1909 – 31 December 1939.
- PWD 35/1/1528, M21/20-7 (VOL 1-2) FRANKLIN RECLAMATION. 1 January 1919 – 31 December 1966.
- PWD 18/1/866, 49 Vic 44 Item 920 - Dredging Bar at Franklin, Huon River, 1 January 1885.
- PWD 164/1/1, Time Book relating to Franklin Reclamation Project, 1 December 1920 – 31 October
1921.
- PWD 18/1/16001, 10 GEO. 5, Item 674 - Franklin Reclamation Works (additional), including Drainage, 1 January 1919.
- Trove, National Library of Australia, records of Huon Times (1910 – 1933) and The Mercury (1909 – 1954).
- Parliament of Tasmania, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, Report on the Franklin Reclamation Works Completion Proposal, No. 53, 11 December 1918.