warmed water on their related ecosystems are in no way comparable, 

 although in fact each gives every evidence oF being admirably suited to 

 its particular situat ion. 



It is not surprising therefore that the overall direction and con- 

 tent of these two studies, riverine and estuarine, are singularly differ- 

 ent. With Connecticut Yankee there was the possibility that the thermal 

 discharge might completely block the passage of valuable anadromous fish 

 such as shad to their spawning grounds and thus eliminate the species 

 from the river in much the same way that salmon were eradicated by dams 

 at the turn into the 19th century. For this reason, and perhaps also 

 because of the predilection of the CY study staff and directors, some 

 two-thirds of the published report on this study is devoted to fishes 

 (Coutant, 1977) . The present work on New Haven Harbor offers a much 

 more balanced treatment of the ecology of the region and related matters. 

 It is also comprehensive, both as to subject matter and detail. For 

 example, apart from the scenarios on plankton, benthos and fishes, there 

 are separate sections on oysters, avifauna , trace metals, etc. As for 

 detail, unusually high numbers of different kinds of organisms were 

 encountered in this work - e.g., over 300 benthic forms in New Haven 

 Harbor. In short, the New Haven Harbor Study is an exhaustive presen- 

 tation that fully documents the ecology of the estuary and provides a 

 solid basis for future comparison. 



In the consideration of these two studies, there is another matter 

 that needs mention. The Connecticut River study was blessed with a 

 remarkable continuity of staff and methodology from its inception in 

 1965 to its completion nine years later. Moreover, its scientific 

 personnel were permanently located in the Essex Marine Laboratory with 

 immediate access to the study area, and this in turn led to the fact 

 that the authors of the summary monograph were all directly involved in 

 the field work from start to finish. The New Haven Harbor study, 1970- 

 1977, was not as fortunate in these several regards. As a consequence a 

 number of additional problems had to be addressed , particularly in 

 interpreting the results of changes in sampling methodology . Let it be 

 said, however, that this Summary Report is meticulous and circumspect in 

 its treatment of the data involved. I raise the subject to emphasize 

 two points: first, that in studies of this sort the initial design of 

 the field work and its consistency are directly related to the success 

 of the project and the return on the investment; and second, that the 

 overall conclusions in this report are in no way impaired by the above- 

 mentioned circumstances . 



The stated purposes of the New Haven Harbor Ecological Studies 

 (Introduction, p, 1-2) were to "evaluate possible impacts of the generating 

 station on the harbor ecosystem," and "to describe the ecology of New Haven 

 Harbor." This Summary Report indicates at every turn that there appear to 

 be no adverse environmental effects of any consequence. As to the descrip- 

 tive ecology, I have already spoken of its detail and scope, and a glance 

 at the various Tables of Contents of the individual sections will bear me 

 out. The information on the fauna and flora that is contained in this 

 report can be looked upon as a sort of data bank, and as such it is 

 extremely valuable. Moreover, as indicated throughout this volume, there 



IV 



