BoatBanter.com - Salty Dog is a liar!

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- ASA (https://www.boatbanter.com/asa/)

- - Salty Dog is a liar! (https://www.boatbanter.com/asa/98284-salty-dog-liar.html)

Salty Dog is a liar!

He claims North Cove was last dredged in the 60's.

The local paper says 1992:

http://www.courant.com/community/new...,6037602.story

"Long term benefit"? The gunkhole silts up every 5 years, not every 50 as
Salty Dog the liar claims.

Caveat: don't believe everything Salty Dog says.

Too bad Dave, who obviously knew this, didn't present the facts.

Shows what pigs slopping at the government trough will stoop to.

Salty Dog is a liar!

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:12:08 -0600, "redbard"
wrote:

He claims North Cove was last dredged in the 60's.

The local paper says 1992:

http://www.courant.com/community/new...,6037602.story

"Long term benefit"? The gunkhole silts up every 5 years, not every 50 as
Salty Dog the liar claims.

Caveat: don't believe everything Salty Dog says.

Too bad Dave, who obviously knew this, didn't present the facts.

Shows what pigs slopping at the government trough will stoop to.

You just pegged the buffoonometer.

Salty Dog is a liar!

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:12:08 -0600, "redbard"
wrote:

He claims North Cove was last dredged in the 60's.

The local paper says 1992:

http://www.courant.com/community/new...,6037602.story

"Long term benefit"? The gunkhole silts up every 5 years, not every 50 as
Salty Dog the liar claims.

Caveat: don't believe everything Salty Dog says.

Too bad Dave, who obviously knew this, didn't present the facts.

Shows what pigs slopping at the government trough will stoop to.

You just pegged the buffoonometer.

Again?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Salty Dog is a liar!

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:12:08 -0600, "redbard"
said:

"Long term benefit"? The gunkhole silts up every 5 years, not every 50 as
Salty Dog the liar claims.

Caveat: don't believe everything Salty Dog says.

Too bad Dave, who obviously knew this, didn't present the facts.

Shows what pigs slopping at the government trough will stoop to.

Sigh....Pity the ignorant.

The 1992 dredging was only a partial dredging, as the current one will be.
(Current one is to go only to 6 ft. depth. Full dredging would take it to
11
ft.) The one prior to 1992 was a full dredging, and lasted some 30 years.

I have no pity for the ignorant:

~And if you are going to calculate the "price per yacht" for the
~dredging, be fair and divided by the number of yachts times the number
~of years (50) between dredgings. And yes, those wealthy *******s DO
~spend a lot of money in the area, and create jobs, making it worth
~dredging every 50 years or so, whether it needs it or not. It is also
~a designated Federal Harbor of refuge.

50 years!

Since it was dredged in 1992 shouldn't it be dredged again in 2042?

And if it was dredged in '92 isn't the required dredging every 25 years?

He's a liar!

Salty Dog is a liar!

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 08:55:07 -0600, "redbard"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:12:08 -0600, "redbard"
said:

"Long term benefit"? The gunkhole silts up every 5 years, not every 50
as
Salty Dog the liar claims.

Caveat: don't believe everything Salty Dog says.

Too bad Dave, who obviously knew this, didn't present the facts.

Shows what pigs slopping at the government trough will stoop to.

Sigh....Pity the ignorant.

The 1992 dredging was only a partial dredging, as the current one will
be.
(Current one is to go only to 6 ft. depth. Full dredging would take it
to
11
ft.) The one prior to 1992 was a full dredging, and lasted some 30
years.

I have no pity for the ignorant:

~And if you are going to calculate the "price per yacht" for the
~dredging, be fair and divided by the number of yachts times the number
~of years (50) between dredgings. And yes, those wealthy *******s DO
~spend a lot of money in the area, and create jobs, making it worth
~dredging every 50 years or so, whether it needs it or not. It is also
~a designated Federal Harbor of refuge.

50 years!

Since it was dredged in 1992 shouldn't it be dredged again in 2042?

And if it was dredged in '92 isn't the required dredging every 25 years?

He's a liar!

Dave spelled it out for you and you still don't have it correctly.

The last full dredging was the one PRIOR to 1992 and lasted 30 years.
Go look at a calendar if it will help you. Thirty years before 1992 it
was... 1962! Dave says it lasted "some 30 years. Do I need to remind
you that it is now 2008, and almost 2009. Do the math, Bob. Looks like
roughly 46, or maybe even a few more years, depending on how accurate
Dave was with the "some 30 years".

AMEN!

PRAISE!

I don't need any help with the math. You, possessing engineering degrees
both mechanical and electrical, should be well versed in the science of
measurement! The point of discussion here is your misrepresentation of the
dredging of the Saybrook Gunkhole. First you say it needs dredging every 50
years, now it's every 30! Then you say it was last dredged 50 years ago, now
it's 16 years ago. Dredging is dredging regardless of depth.

Why do you rely on Dave to correctly present the facts? Can't you? Since you
were the cutting edge reporter on the scene for all those years shouldn't
you be presenting truthful facts in the spirit of what journalism is? Maybe
you were working on the Einiac at the time. You're full of it, you resort
to lies to make a point that doesn't hold water - in fact it silts up in a
matter of hours as soon as one checks the facts.

Since there have been no boats requiring 11 feet of water in the harbor for
at least 30 years, why dredge it to that depth? 60-70 foot sailboats have
about 11' of draft, and 150' power boats draw about the same.

Dredging it deeper will only require more frequent dredgings since the rich
folk of the Connecticut shore will bring in their deep draft yachts.

Can America afford catering to the rich when so many children go to bed
hungry and have no health insurance? The cost of the dredging would provide
10,000 children with health insurance for a year.

Bottom line: Don't take Salty on his word. Check the facts.

Salty Dog is a liar!

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 09:59:14 -0600, "redbard"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 08:55:07 -0600, "redbard"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:12:08 -0600, "redbard"
said:

"Long term benefit"? The gunkhole silts up every 5 years, not every
50
as
Salty Dog the liar claims.

Caveat: don't believe everything Salty Dog says.

Too bad Dave, who obviously knew this, didn't present the facts.

Shows what pigs slopping at the government trough will stoop to.

Sigh....Pity the ignorant.

The 1992 dredging was only a partial dredging, as the current one will
be.
(Current one is to go only to 6 ft. depth. Full dredging would take it
to
11
ft.) The one prior to 1992 was a full dredging, and lasted some 30
years.

I have no pity for the ignorant:

~And if you are going to calculate the "price per yacht" for the
~dredging, be fair and divided by the number of yachts times the number
~of years (50) between dredgings. And yes, those wealthy *******s DO
~spend a lot of money in the area, and create jobs, making it worth
~dredging every 50 years or so, whether it needs it or not. It is also
~a designated Federal Harbor of refuge.

50 years!

Since it was dredged in 1992 shouldn't it be dredged again in 2042?

And if it was dredged in '92 isn't the required dredging every 25 years?

He's a liar!

Dave spelled it out for you and you still don't have it correctly.

The last full dredging was the one PRIOR to 1992 and lasted 30 years.
Go look at a calendar if it will help you. Thirty years before 1992 it
was... 1962! Dave says it lasted "some 30 years. Do I need to remind
you that it is now 2008, and almost 2009. Do the math, Bob. Looks like
roughly 46, or maybe even a few more years, depending on how accurate
Dave was with the "some 30 years".

AMEN!

PRAISE!

I don't need any help with the math. You, possessing engineering degrees
both mechanical and electrical, should be well versed in the science of
measurement! The point of discussion here is your misrepresentation of the
dredging of the Saybrook Gunkhole. First you say it needs dredging every
50
years, now it's every 30! Then you say it was last dredged 50 years ago,
now
it's 16 years ago. Dredging is dredging regardless of depth.

Why do you rely on Dave to correctly present the facts? Can't you? Since
you
were the cutting edge reporter on the scene for all those years shouldn't
you be presenting truthful facts in the spirit of what journalism is?
Maybe
you were working on the Einiac at the time. You're full of it, you resort
to lies to make a point that doesn't hold water - in fact it silts up in a
matter of hours as soon as one checks the facts.

Since there have been no boats requiring 11 feet of water in the harbor
for
at least 30 years, why dredge it to that depth? 60-70 foot sailboats have
about 11' of draft, and 150' power boats draw about the same.

Dredging it deeper will only require more frequent dredgings since the
rich
folk of the Connecticut shore will bring in their deep draft yachts.

Can America afford catering to the rich when so many children go to bed
hungry and have no health insurance? The cost of the dredging would
provide
10,000 children with health insurance for a year.

Bottom line: Don't take Salty on his word. Check the facts.

funny.

completely off the wall, but funny.

FYI: First dredged in 1965 and is NOT a designated Federal Harbor of Refuge!

More lies from you!

I find no humor knowing that 10,000 children are denied health insurance so
the wealthy can moor even larger yachts closer to home.

Salty Dog is a liar!

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:29:34 -0600, "redbard"
wrote:

funny.

completely off the wall, but funny.

FYI: First dredged in 1965 and is NOT a designated Federal Harbor of
Refuge!

Are you absolutely sure? Better check again! You've been wrong on
almost every point so far. You are on a streak!

Almost every point makes a streak? So which points have I been correct on?

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...cfr175.400.htm

" Harbor of safe refuge means a port, inlet, or other body of water

normally sheltered from heavy seas by land and in which a vessel can

navigate and safely moor. The suitability of a location as a harbor of

safe refuge shall be determined by the cognizant Officer in Charge,

Marine Inspection, and varies for each vessel, dependent on the vessel's

size, maneuverability, and mooring gear."

The burden of proof remains upon you to show that it is a Federally
Designated Harbor of Refuge. I'll make it easy for you. Point out the
section he

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...3cfr110.55.htm

TITLE 33--NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS

CHAPTER I--COAST GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

PART 110_ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS--Table of Contents

Subpart A_Special Anchorage Areas

Sec. 110.55 Connecticut River, Conn.

(a) West of Calves Island at Old Saybrook. Beginning at a point

bearing 254[deg]09[min]16[sec], 153 yards, from Calves Island 20 Light;

thence 157[deg], 1,037 yards; thence 175[deg], 150 yards; thence

265[deg], 250 yards; thence 350[deg], 660 yards; thence 337[deg], 460

yards; and thence approximately 67[deg], 135 yards, to the point of

beginning.

(a-1) Area No. 1, at Essex. Beginning at a point on the shore on the

west side of Haydens Point bearing approximately 211[deg], 270 yards,

from Haydens Point Light; thence 270[deg], 160 yards; thence due north,

140 yards; thence 300[deg], 190 yards; thence 330[deg], 400 yards;

thence 90[deg], 60 yards; thence 150[deg], 350 yards; thence 120[deg],

about 434 yards to a point on the shore; thence along the shore

southwesterly to the point of beginning.

(b) Area No. 2, at Essex. Beginning at a point latitude

41[deg]21[min]22[sec], longitude 72[deg]22[min]53[sec]; thence

205[deg]30[min], 375 yards; thence 194[deg]31[min], 100 yards; thence

185[deg]00[min], 440 yards; thence 153[deg]30[min], 80 yards; thence

121[deg]00[min], 220 yards; thence due north approximately 1060 yards to

the point of beginning.

Note: The area will be principally for use by yachts and other

recreational craft. Temporary floats or buoys for marking anchors will

be allowed. Fixed mooring piles or stakes are prohibited. The anchoring

of vessels and the placing of temporary moorings will be under the

jurisdiction and at the discretion of the local Harbor Master.

(c) West of Brockway Island at Essex. That portion of the waters

northwest of a line ranging 238[deg] from latitude

41[deg]22[min]20.7[sec], longitude 72[deg]22[min]49.8[sec] to the

shoreline; southwest of a line connecting a point at latitude

41[deg]22[min]20.7[sec], longitude 72[deg]22[min]49.8[sec] and a point

at latitude 41[deg]22[min]28.2[sec], longitude 72[deg]22[min]56[sec];

and southeast of a line ranging 238[deg] from latitude

41[deg]22[min]28.2[sec], longitude 72[deg]22[min]56[sec] to the

shoreline.

Note: This area is principally for vessels used for a recreational

purpose. A mooring buoy is permitted. Fixed mooring piles or stakes are

prohibited.

(d) Area No. 1, at Eddy Rock Light. Beginning at latitude

41[deg]26[min]38[sec], longitude 72[deg]27[min]37[sec]; thence extending

southeasterly to latitude 41[deg]26[min]12[sec], longitude

72[deg]27[min]18[sec]; thence extending westerly to latitude

41[deg]26[min]11[sec], longitude 72[deg]27[min]22[sec]; thence extending

northwesterly to latitude 41[deg]26[min]23[sec], longitude

72[deg]27[min]42[sec]; thence extending northerly to latitude

41[deg]26[min]36[sec], longitude 72[deg]27[min]43[sec]; thence extending

easterly to the point of beginning.

(e) Area No. 2, at Lord Island. Beginning at latitude

41[deg]26[min]11[sec], longitude 72[deg]27[min]16[sec]; thence extending

south southeasterly to latitude 41[deg]26[min]03[sec], longitude

72[deg]27[min]02[sec]; thence extending southeasterly to latitude

41[deg]25[min]59[sec], longitude 72[deg]26[min]51[sec]; thence extending

southwesterly to latitude 41[deg]25[min]58[sec], longitude

72[deg]26[min]52[sec]; thence extending northwesterly to latitude

41[deg]26[min]05[sec], longitude 72[deg]27[min]11[sec]; thence extending

north northwesterly to latitude 41[deg]26[min]10[sec], longitude

72[deg]27[min]20[sec]; thence extending easterly to the point of

beginning.

Note: The areas designated by paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section

are principally for use by yachts and other recreational craft. Fore and

aft moorings will be allowed. Temporary floats or buoys for marking

anchors in place will be allowed. Fixed mooring piles or stakes are

prohibited. All moorings shall be so placed that no vessel, when

anchored, shall at any time extend beyond the limits of the areas. The

anchoring of vessels and placing of mooring floats or buoys will be

under the jurisdiction, and at the discretion of the local Harbor

Master. Area 2 will not be used during the shad fishing season.

[[Page 424]]

(e-1) Area No. 1 at Chester. Beginning at a point about 600 feet

southeasterly of the entrance of Chester Creek, at latitude

41[deg]24[min]23[sec], longitude 72[deg]25[min]41[sec]; thence due south

about 1,800 feet to latitude 41[deg]24[min]05[sec], longitude

72[deg]25[min]41[sec]; thence due east about 600 feet to latitude

41[deg]24[min]05[sec], longitude 72[deg]25[min]32[sec]; thence due north

about 1,800 feet to latitude 41[deg]24[min]23[sec], longitude

72[deg]25[min]32[sec]; thence due west about 600 feet to the point of

beginning.

Note: The area is principally for use by yachts and other

recreational craft. A mooring buoy is allowed. Fixed mooring piles or

stakes are prohibited.

(e-2) Area No. 2 at Chester. That area south of latitude

41[deg]24[min]43.9[sec], west of longitude 72[deg]25[min]35[sec], north

of latitude 41[deg]24[min]33.4[sec], and east of longitude

72[deg]25[min]40.8[sec].

Note: Area No. 2 may not be used during the shad fishing season,

April 1 to June 15, inclusive. A mooring buoy is permitted at other

times. Fixed mooring piles or stakes are prohibited.

(f) Vicinity of Mouse Island Bar below Portland. On the north side

of the river shoreward of lines described as follows: (1) Beginning at a

point bearing 02[deg], 175 yards, from Mouse Island 73 Light; thence

270[deg], 480 yards; and thence due north, approximately 230 yards, to

the shore. (2) Beginning at the said point bearing 02[deg], 175 yards,

from Mouse Island 73 Light; thence 70[deg], 400 yards; and thence

350[deg], approximately 250 yards, to the shore.

(g) Area at Portland. Beginning at a point on the shore, about 700

feet southeasterly from the easterly end of the New York, New Haven and

Hartford Railroad Company bridge, at latitude 41[deg]33[min]55[sec],

longitude 72[deg]38[min]43[sec]; thence 250[deg] to latitude

41[deg]33[min]54[sec], longitude 72[deg]38[min]46[sec]; thence 160[deg]

to latitude 41[deg]33[min]48[sec], longitude 72[deg]38[min]43[sec];

thence 145[deg] to latitude 41[deg]33[min]44[sec], longitude

72[deg]38[min]39[sec]; thence 55[deg] to a point on the shore at

latitude 41[deg]33[min]47[sec], longitude 72[deg]38[min]32[sec]; thence

along the shore to the point of beginning.

Note: The area will be principally for use by yachts and other

recreational craft. Temporary floats or buoys for marking anchors will

be allowed. Fixed mooring piles or stakes are prohibited. All moorings

shall be so placed that no vessel, when anchored, shall at any time

extend beyond the limit of the area or closer than 50 feet to the

Federal channel limit. The anchoring of vessels and the placing of

temporary moorings will be under the jurisdiction, and at the discretion

of the local Harbor Master.

[CGFR 67-46, 32 FR 17728, Dec. 12, 1967, as amended by CGFR 68-137, 33

FR 18279, Dec. 10, 1968; CGFR 68-139, 33 FR 18437, Dec. 12, 1968]

Does this include North Cove? If so where is the section? Kindly point it
out along with the Federal Safe Harbor of Refuge Designation that you claim
exists.

Salty Dog is a liar!

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:29:36 -0600, "redbard"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:29:34 -0600, "redbard"
wrote:

funny.

completely off the wall, but funny.

FYI: First dredged in 1965 and is NOT a designated Federal Harbor of
Refuge!

Are you absolutely sure? Better check again! You've been wrong on
almost every point so far. You are on a streak!

Almost every point makes a streak? So which points have I been correct
on?

http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/news/ct.pdf

The Army Corps of Engineers seems to think North Cove dredging is a
federal project. Apparently it's considered critical to navigation.
Perhaps because it is, in fact, a harbor of refuge?

NORTH COVE, OLD SAYBROOK - The federal
navigation project includes an 11-foot deep, 100-foot
wide channel from the Connecticut River to an 11-foot
deep anchorage about 12 acres within North Cove, and
then to a 6-foot anchorage about 17 acres. Maintenance
dredging of about 320,000 cubic yards of predominantly
silt/clay material with disposal at the Cornfield Shoals
Disposal Site (CSDS) is proposed to meet the needs of
existing recreational vessels. The material proposed to
be dredged has been tested and found to be suitable for
unconfined open water disposal at the Cornfield Shoals
Disposal Site. A new proposal from CTDEP is under
coordination. This new proposal includes bringing at
least 75,000 cubic yards of material from North Cove to
the Central Long Island Sound Disposal Site (CLIS) to be
used as cap for other dredged materials. Consistency
concurrence with the Connecticut Coastal Zone
Management Program and Water Quality Certification
have been obtained, but additional coordination is under
way due to the new proposed work. Plans and
Update Report for Connecticut Page 3
Specifications, although completed last year, need to be
updated to include the new work and other contract
requirements. The FY 08 budget includes $4,330,000
for the work. While it may not be the full amount of funding
needed for the entire project, we have coordinated with
the local sponsor to prioritize the areas needing to be
dredged and have a plan ready to go. We are completing
coordination with the State's Historic Preservation Office
and assuming we can complete that shortly plan to initiate
advertisement for the work in late July 2008. Assuming
we get successful bids, work would start later this fall. We
are planning to move ahead with the work in FY 09 when
the dredging window opens.

I've already read that article. The Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction
over all navigable waterways in the US, so they are involved in every
dredging operation. Of course it is critical to navigation, don't want those
kids dinghies from NCYC to run aground! It's a harbor of refuge - to any
shallow draft boat that can fit in. Let's see that Federal Designation as
Harbor of Safe Refuge.

Critical to navigation!

Only harbor on the Connecticut coastline!

Not dredged in 50 years!

Federally designated Harbor of Safe Refuge!

Critical infrastructure needs! (Logic: Dredge the CT River deeper so that
when the I-95 bridge collapses into the river boats will still be able to
pass over it!)

If the project is so critical, necessary and important why is it not fully
funded? Don't be surprised if its not dredged to 11 feet - the Wall St
bailout is going up one trillion per week. All in all the bailout and the
Federal budget may well eat up 50% or more of the GDP (right now it's at
about 30%). If one could make green ink and paper out of dredged material,
you may wind up with a 100' dredged depth or even a hole to China.

Salty Dog is a liar!

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:37:10 -0600, "redbard"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:29:36 -0600, "redbard"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:29:34 -0600, "redbard"
wrote:

funny.

completely off the wall, but funny.

FYI: First dredged in 1965 and is NOT a designated Federal Harbor of
Refuge!

Are you absolutely sure? Better check again! You've been wrong on
almost every point so far. You are on a streak!

Almost every point makes a streak? So which points have I been correct
on?

Not enough to make a difference.

Thanks for the laughs, anyway.

So where's the proof of Federal Designation as a Harbor of Safe Refuge as
you claim?

Do we just have to take your word on that?

Not dredged in 50 years!

Federal Harbor of Safe Refuge!

News reporter of authority on this very issue!

Secret submarine base under the third row of mooring buoys!

Nimitz class aircraft carrier hidden in boathouse!

Supertanker unloading platform near the entrance light!

Surely one of your finer hours!

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Liar!

Smackdown!!!

Yes, I agree, you have smacked yourself silly without landing a blow
to anyone else.

Nor has anyone landed a blow to me!

Next time, please leave more room for others to have some fun smacking
you, too.

Can't do it yourself?

All I have to do is merely repeat your claims:

Not dredged in 50 years!

Federal Harbor of Safe Refuge!

News reporter of authority of this very issue!

All the truth, all the time!

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

Salty Dog is a liar!

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:09:02 -0600, "redbard"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:29:36 -0600, "redbard"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:29:34 -0600, "redbard"
wrote:

funny.

completely off the wall, but funny.

FYI: First dredged in 1965 and is NOT a designated Federal Harbor of
Refuge!

Are you absolutely sure? Better check again! You've been wrong on
almost every point so far. You are on a streak!

Almost every point makes a streak? So which points have I been correct
on?

http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/news/ct.pdf

The Army Corps of Engineers seems to think North Cove dredging is a
federal project. Apparently it's considered critical to navigation.
Perhaps because it is, in fact, a harbor of refuge?

NORTH COVE, OLD SAYBROOK - The federal
navigation project includes an 11-foot deep, 100-foot
wide channel from the Connecticut River to an 11-foot
deep anchorage about 12 acres within North Cove, and
then to a 6-foot anchorage about 17 acres. Maintenance
dredging of about 320,000 cubic yards of predominantly
silt/clay material with disposal at the Cornfield Shoals
Disposal Site (CSDS) is proposed to meet the needs of
existing recreational vessels. The material proposed to
be dredged has been tested and found to be suitable for
unconfined open water disposal at the Cornfield Shoals
Disposal Site. A new proposal from CTDEP is under
coordination. This new proposal includes bringing at
least 75,000 cubic yards of material from North Cove to
the Central Long Island Sound Disposal Site (CLIS) to be
used as cap for other dredged materials. Consistency
concurrence with the Connecticut Coastal Zone
Management Program and Water Quality Certification
have been obtained, but additional coordination is under
way due to the new proposed work. Plans and
Update Report for Connecticut Page 3
Specifications, although completed last year, need to be
updated to include the new work and other contract
requirements. The FY 08 budget includes $4,330,000
for the work. While it may not be the full amount of funding
needed for the entire project, we have coordinated with
the local sponsor to prioritize the areas needing to be
dredged and have a plan ready to go. We are completing
coordination with the State's Historic Preservation Office
and assuming we can complete that shortly plan to initiate
advertisement for the work in late July 2008. Assuming
we get successful bids, work would start later this fall. We
are planning to move ahead with the work in FY 09 when
the dredging window opens.

I've already read that article. The Army Corps of Engineers has
jurisdiction
over all navigable waterways in the US, so they are involved in every
dredging operation. Of course it is critical to navigation, don't want
those
kids dinghies from NCYC to run aground! It's a harbor of refuge - to any
shallow draft boat that can fit in. Let's see that Federal Designation as
Harbor of Safe Refuge.

Critical to navigation!

Only harbor on the Connecticut coastline!

Not dredged in 50 years!

Federally designated Harbor of Safe Refuge!

Critical infrastructure needs! (Logic: Dredge the CT River deeper so that
when the I-95 bridge collapses into the river boats will still be able to
pass over it!)

If the project is so critical, necessary and important why is it not fully
funded? Don't be surprised if its not dredged to 11 feet - the Wall St
bailout is going up one trillion per week. All in all the bailout and the
Federal budget may well eat up 50% or more of the GDP (right now it's at
about 30%). If one could make green ink and paper out of dredged material,
you may wind up with a 100' dredged depth or even a hole to China.

LOL. I think you need to switch to the coffee in the green can, there,
Bob.

BTW - the dredged material that will come out of North Cove is so
clean that they plan to use some of it as a cap over material from
other projects.

Yes, the material is clean sand - a carcinogen. In case you didn't know:

http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/s0722.htm

Don't want kids playing in it!

Joe Courtney is also a liar:

http://courtney.house.gov/News/Docum...cumentID=81095

40 years!

Salty Dog is a liar!

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:19:57 -0600, "redbard"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:37:10 -0600, "redbard"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:29:36 -0600, "redbard"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:i1kfd4d9aggnmbccqfkglcqa4p78ciet9p@4ax. com...
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:29:34 -0600, "redbard"

wrote:

funny.

completely off the wall, but funny.

FYI: First dredged in 1965 and is NOT a designated Federal Harbor of
Refuge!

Are you absolutely sure? Better check again! You've been wrong on
almost every point so far. You are on a streak!

Almost every point makes a streak? So which points have I been
correct
on?

Not enough to make a difference.

Thanks for the laughs, anyway.

So where's the proof of Federal Designation as a Harbor of Safe Refuge
as
you claim?

Do we just have to take your word on that?

Not dredged in 50 years!

Federal Harbor of Safe Refuge!

News reporter of authority on this very issue!

Secret submarine base under the third row of mooring buoys!

Nimitz class aircraft carrier hidden in boathouse!

Supertanker unloading platform near the entrance light!

Surely one of your finer hours!

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Liar!

Smackdown!!!

Yes, I agree, you have smacked yourself silly without landing a blow
to anyone else.

Nor has anyone landed a blow to me!

Next time, please leave more room for others to have some fun smacking
you, too.

Can't do it yourself?

All I have to do is merely repeat your claims:

Not dredged in 50 years!

Established as a pretty good approximation.

Yes, if you gave depths corresponding to time. But 1992 is not 1962 or even
close, an error of 46/16 x 100% = 288%.

I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical,
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical,
About binomial theorem I'm teeming with a lot o' news,
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.

Federal Harbor of Safe Refuge!

It's not? Cite, please.

Go to the "Book of Negatives" and look it up. It has all negative facts such
as "screwdrivers are not anueryisms", "DTL logic is not compatible with worm
gears" and a complete list of everything that's not. The one thing I haven't
been able to cite is that "Salty is not an idiot" so then it must be so.
Right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

News reporter of authority of this very issue!

I have never worked as a news reporter,

Certainly fooled me, you had it down pat.

although I employed a lot of
them.

Couldn't cut the lawn yourself?

G