GREAT LAKES FISH
MONITORING AND
SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
TECHNICAL REPORT
£EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
November 2021
EPA 905-R-21-005
Great Lakes „
RESTORATION j
Prepared By:
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO)
supported this work through agreements and contracts with several state, provincial, tribal, academic,
private laboratory, and contractor collaborators including: 1) award agreement GL00E01505 "The Great
Lakes Fish Monitoring and Surveillance Program: Expanding the Boundaries" with Clarkson University,
State University of New York (SUNY) Oswego, SUNY Fredonia, and AEACS, LLC; 2) EPA Contract
No. EP-C-15-012, Water Security Division Mission Support, with CSRA LLC, a General Dynamics
Information Technology company (hereinafter referred to as CSRA) under the direction of Louis Blume,
Contracting Officer's Representative; 3) a CSRA purchase order (under EPA Contract No. EP-C-15-012)
with Aquatec Environmental, Inc., (Aquatec); and 4) agreements with several field sampling teams which
are identified annually. Field sampling teams for this monitoring program include Michigan Department
of Natural Resources Alpena Fisheries Research Station and Charlevoix Fisheries Research Station, U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) Lake Ontario Biological Stations, USGS Great Lakes Science Center, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Green Bay Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, Great Lakes
Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Ohio Department of
Natural Resources Sandusky Fisheries Research Unit, and New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation Lake Erie Fisheries Research Unit.
GLNPO gratefully acknowledge the support of the following team members in the preparation of this
Technical Report:
Affiliation
Team Members
EPA GLNPO
Brian Lenell, Elizabeth Murphy, Louis Blume
Clarkson University
Thomas Holsen
AECS, LLC
Bernard Crimmins
CSRA
Marian Smith, Kenneth Miller
Cover Photo Credit: Brad Ray, Wisconsin DNR (top left, bottom left, bottom right), Bill Mattes,
GLIFWC (top right)
Citation: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2021. Great Lakes Fish Monitoring and Surveillance
Program Technical Report: Status and Trends of Contaminants in Whole Fish through 2017. Publication
No. EPA# 905-R-21-005.
CONTACT INFORMATION
For additional information, questions, or comments about this document, please contact Brian Lenell
(EPA GLNPO) using the contact information provided below.
Brian Lenell
U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
77 West Jackson Boulevard, G-9J
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-353-4891
lenell .brian@epa.gov
NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE | ii
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
Acknowledgments ii
List of Figures iv
List of Tables iv
1 Executive Summary 1
2 Introduction 2
3 Description of Methods 2
3.1 Sample Collection 2
3.1.1 Base Monitoring Program 3
3.1.2 Cooperative Science and Monitoring Initiative (CSMI) / Special Studies 3
3.2 Biological Data Collection and Homogenization 5
3.3 Analysis 5
4 Quality Assurance and Control 6
5 Results 7
5.1 Sample Collection 7
5.1.1 Base Monitoring Program 7
5.1.2 Cooperative Science and Monitoring Initiative (CSMI) / Special Studies 7
5.2 Biological Data Collection and Homogenization 9
5.3 Analysis 10
5.3.1 PCBs 11
5.3.2 PBDEs 13
5.3.3 Mercury 15
5.3.4 HBCDD 17
5.3.5 PFAS 17
5.3.6 Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CECs) 19
References 20
Appendix A - List of Recent GLFMSP Reports A-l
NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE | iii
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: GLFMSP Collection Sites 4
Figure 2: Mean Total PCB Concentration (ppb) in Lake Trout 1991-2017 12
Figure 3: Mean Total PBDE (5 Congeners) Concentration (ppb) in Lake Trout 2001-2017 14
Figure 4: Mean Total Mercury Concentration (ppb) in Lake Trout 1999-2017 16
Figure 5: 2017 Mean Total PFAS and PFOS Concentrations Per Site (±1 standard error) 18
Figure 6: Concentrations of Halogenated Compounds and PCBs in GLFMSP Mega-composite
Samples from 2017 19
Table 1: 2017 Base Monitoring Program Analytical Data Sets 6
Table 2: 2017 Base Monitoring Program Field Data 7
Table 3: 2017 CSMI Lake Trout Field Data 7
Table 4: 2017 CSMI Forage Fish Field Data 8
Table 5: 2017 CSMI R/VLake Guardian Collected Field Data 8
Table 6: 2017 Base Monitoring Program Biological Data 9
Table 7: 2017 CSMI/Special Studies Lake Trout Biological Data 9
Table 8: 2017 Age Data (Base Monitoring Program and CSMI/Special Studies Lake Trout) 10
Table 9: Summary of 2017 Total PCB Site Means and Temporal Trends 11
Table 10: Summary of 2017 Total PBDE (5 congeners) Site Means and Temporal Trends 13
Table 11: Summary of 2017 Total Mercury Site Means and Temporal Trends 15
Table 12: Summary of 2017 Total HBCDD Mega-composite Means 17
Table 13: Summary of 2017 Total PFAS and PFOS Composite Means 18
NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE | iv
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) Great
Lakes Fish Monitoring and Surveillance Program (GLFMSP) is a long-term monitoring program
designed to: 1) collect, analyze, and report contaminant concentrations in Great Lakes top-predator fish
(Lake Trout and Walleye), 2) improve understanding of contaminant cycling throughout food webs in the
Great Lakes, and 3) screen for emerging chemicals in fish tissue to identify priority chemicals warranting
future trend analysis and study. Samples collected for the GLFMSP are screened for emerging chemicals
and analyzed for several different classes of contaminants including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), mercury, hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD), per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), toxaphene, chlordanes, and other organochlorine pesticides (OCPs).
This report presents summarized data and trends for PCBs, PBDEs, mercury, HBCDD, and PFAS in Lake
Trout (Salvelinus namaycash) and contaminants of emerging concern (CEC) screening analyses in Lake
Trout for the five GLFMSP sites sampled in odd years. The analytical results from 2017 are placed into
the context of long-term trends beginning when each contaminant was first subjected to routine
monitoring, with the exception of the Dunkirk, Lake Erie eastern basin site. Collection of Lake Trout in
the eastern basin of Lake Erie began in 2008; therefore, trends from 2008-2017 are reported for Lake
Erie. Trends in the 2017 technical report may differ from trends reported in the 2016 technical report due
to local factors at the different sampling sites within each lake.
An assessment of data through 2017 shows that concentrations of several contaminants are decreasing in
Lake Trout. Key highlights of the concentration trends include:
• Mean total PCB concentrations in Lake Trout have declined at the odd-year sampling sites in
Lakes Huron, Michigan, Superior, and Ontario from 1991 to 2017. Concentrations have also
declined in the eastern basin of Lake Erie since monitoring of Lake Trout began in 2008.
• Mean total PBDE concentrations in Lake Trout have declined at the odd-year sampling sites in
lakes Michigan, Ontario, and Superior since 2001. No significant changes in Lake Trout at the
Port Austin sampling site were found in this timeframe. Concentrations have also declined in
eastern basin of Lake Erie since monitoring of Lake Trout began in 2008.
• Mercury concentrations in Lake Trout have declined at the Port Austin sampling site in Lake
Huron since 2007 and increased at the odd-year sampling site in Lake Ontario and Erie since
2007 and 2008, respectively. Lake Trout collected at the odd-year sampling sites in lakes
Superior and Michigan did not show statistically significant changes in mercury concentrations
from 1999 to 2017. No statistically significant changes occurred at any sampling site since 1999.
The most abundant CEC compound class detected in Lake Trout in 2017 in all Lakes was
halomethoxyphenols. Only 2017 CEC screening results are presented, as there are currently not enough
years of data to evaluate temporal trends for CECs. In 2017, mean total HBCDD in Lake Trout was
highest at Port Austin sampling site in Lake Huron and lowest in eastern basin of Lake Erie. In 2017,
mean concentrations of total PFAS and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) (a PFAS compound) tended
to be highest in Lake Trout in the eastern basin of Lake Erie and lowest at Keweenaw Point in Lake
Superior.
Field and biological data collection results are presented for Lake Trout, forage fish, and invertebrates
that were collected by the GLFMSP in support of the 2017 Lake Huron Cooperative Science and
Monitoring Initiative (CSMI) studies of contaminant cycling in the Lake Huron food web. Analytical
results of the CSMI studies will be presented in future GLFMSP reports.
NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE | 1
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) Great
Lakes Fish Monitoring and Surveillance Program (GLFMSP) is a long-term monitoring program that was
initiated in 1977 and designed to: 1) collect, analyze, and report contaminant concentrations in Great
Lakes top-predator fish (Lake Trout and Walleye), 2) improve understanding of contaminant cycling
throughout food webs in the Great Lakes, and 3) screen for emerging chemicals in fish tissue to identify
priority chemicals warranting future trend analysis and study. Lake Trout and Walleye are targeted by the
GLFMSP for biomonitoring because these top predator fish occupy the highest trophic levels in the Great
Lakes aquatic food web and as such, tend to accumulate higher levels of persistent and bioaccumulative
contaminants (McGoldrick and Murphy. 2016).
The present design of the GLFMSP includes two components: 1) Base Monitoring Program and 2)
Cooperative Science and Monitoring Initiative (CSMI)/Special Studies.
The GLFMSP helps EPA satisfy its statutory requirements under Section 118 of the Clean Water Act to
establish a Great Lakes system-wide surveillance network to monitor the water quality of the Great Lakes
(33 U.S.C. § 1268 et seq.) with a specific emphasis on the monitoring of toxic pollutants. It also helps
satisfy the Agency's obligations under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) to "monitor
environmental conditions so that the Parties may determine the extent to which General Objectives, Lake
Ecosystem Objectives, and Substance Objectives are being achieved," and "undertake monitoring and
surveillance to anticipate the need for further science activities and to address emerging environmental
concerns" (GLWQA 2012). Further, this program allows EPA to meet commitments in the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative (GLRI) Action Plan III to "assess the overall health of the Great Lakes ecosystem
and identify the most significant remaining problems" (GLRI 2019).
This report summarizes chemical and biological data collection results for the 2017 Base Monitoring
Program and CSMI/Special Studies collection efforts and presents the 2017 Base Monitoring Program
analytical results in context with long-term trends.
3 DESCRIPTION OF METHODS
This section summarizes methods for sample collection, biological data collection, homogenization,
and analysis.
3.1 SAMPLE COLLECTION
Field sampling teams perform sample collections every year in the late summer to fall according to
sample collection standard operating procedures (SOPs) (EPA 2012a) and deliver fish to a
homogenization laboratory after collection. A total of seven sampling teams collected fish for the Base
Monitoring Program and CSMI/Special Studies components in 2017 between June and November:
• Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
• Michigan Department of Natural Resources Alpena Fisheries Research Station
• New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Lake Erie Fisheries Research Unit
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Green Bay Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Great Lakes Science Center
• USGS Lake Ontario Biological Station
Detailed information on collection methods can be found in the subsections below.
NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE | 2
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
3.1.1 Base Monitoring Program
Top predator fish are collected at two sites in each of the Great Lakes with sites alternating within each
lake annually (Figure 1) for the Base Monitoring Program. Collection sites are intended to be
representative of offshore conditions in each Lake. Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycash) are collected in all
lakes and Walleye (Sander vitreus) are collected at one site located in the western basin of Lake Erie
which is too shallow to support Lake Trout. As the western basin of Lake Erie is sampled during even
years, Walleye data are not included in this 2017 report. In 2011, after two years (2008 and 2010) of
comparison of contaminant body burden in Lake Trout and Walleye, Lake Trout replaced Walleye as the
GLFMSP target species in the eastern basin of Lake Erie. Lake Trout were found to be more readily
available for collection at the eastern basin site (Dunkirk), and had comparable contaminant burdens to
Walleye. Additionally, this change allowed the GLFMSP to compare contaminants in Lake Trout across
all five Great Lakes. Lake Trout data collected in 2008 and 2010 at Dunkirk for the comparison study are
included in this 2017 report. Lake Trout in the size range of 600-700 mm are targeted and Walleye in the
size range of 400-500 mm are targeted for collection (target number of fish per site = 50). Fish size ranges
were determined with the assumption that they represented specific age ranges, 6-8 years for Lake Trout
and 4-5 years for Walleye. Detailed collection and site information for the GLFMSP Base Monitoring
Program is located in the GLFMSP Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (EPA 2012a).
3.1.2 Cooperative Science and Monitoring Initiative (CSMI) / Special Studies
The Cooperative Science and Monitoring Initiative (CSMI) is a binational effort instituted under the 2012
GLWQA to coordinate science and monitoring activities in one of the five Great Lakes each year to
generate data and information for environmental management agencies. The GLFMSP supports the CSMI
via additional sample collection efforts and analyses to gather information regarding contaminant cycling
throughout food webs in the Great Lakes. During the CSMI field year, fish are collected at both GLFMSP
sites within the CSMI lake; in 2017, the CSMI lake was Lake Huron. Lake Trout in the size and age range
collected as part of the Base Monitoring Program are targeted (target number of fish per site =10). The
top five most abundant species of forage fish in the CSMI lake are also collected at both sites when
available (total target number of fish per site = 110). The GLFMSP cooperators collect sediment, benthic
invertebrates, phytoplankton, zooplankton/seston and water samples in the CSMI lake aboard the
Research Vessel (R/V) Lake Guardian. Detailed collection and site information for the GLFMSP
CSMI/Special Studies component is provided in the GLFMSP QAPP (EPA 2012a).
NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE | 3
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
Keweenaw
Point
Apostle Islands
Rockport
Sturgeon Bay
Huron
Port Austin
Oswego
Lake Ontario
North Hamlin
lichigan
Saugatuck
Middle Bass Island
Stations
Odd Year •
Even Year a
Depth (m)
# #
200 Km
I I
Map Projection: Albers Equal Area
Dunkirk
Lake Erie
Figure 1: GLFMSP Collection Sites.
NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE j 4
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
3.2 BIOLOGICAL DATA COLLECTION AND HOMOGENIZATION
The homogenization laboratory receives fish from the field sampling teams and processes these fish in the
winter to spring time period. In 2017, the homogenization laboratory was Aquatec Environmental, Inc.
(Aquatec). Aquatec follows approved GLFMSP-specific SOPs (Aquatec 2016) when processing samples.
The homogenization laboratory recorded biological data (e.g. length, width, weight) and any
abnormalities (e.g., tumors, fins missing, wounds), collected samples for aging purposes (e.g., scales,
maxillae, coded wire tags [CWTs]), and aged the fish. In 2017, Lake Trout age was determined based on
annuli enumeration of maxillae. CWTs were also used to age Lake Trout when available. Fish age is an
important variable when assessing contaminant trends and as such, the GLFMSP compositing scheme
was amended in 2013 to group fish according to age (rather than by length) prior to homogenization and
chemical analysis. More information on this change can be found in the Journal of Great Lakes Research
publication "Revised fish aging techniques improve fish contaminant trend analyses in the face of
changing Great Lakes food webs" (Murphy et al. 2018) and in the Great Lakes Fish Monitoring and
Surveillance Program Technical Report: Status and Trends through 2016 (EPA 2020). EPA reviewed the
ages for 2017 Lake Trout and assigned fish into five fish per composites (target number of composites per
site = 10) based on age for sites where the target 50 fish were collected. At the Keweenaw Point site, a
total of 42 Lake Trout were collected and one Lake Trout was accidentally discarded prior to being sent to
the homogenization laboratory, so eight composites of five fish and a homogenized sample of one fish
were created. At the Sturgeon Bay site, a total of 49 Lake Trout were collected, so nine composites of five
fish and one composite of four fish were created.
After grouping fish into composites based on EPA's criteria noted above, the homogenization laboratory
processed the whole fish and prepared composites of these samples. In addition, a mega-composite was
prepared (i.e., tissue from all composites from a single site) where applicable for screening of
contaminants of emerging concern. The single fish homogenate from Keweenaw Point was not included
in the mega-composite for this site in 2017. The homogenization laboratory created tissue aliquots and
delivered them to the analytical laboratory cooperator and to EPA's archival facility.
3.3 ANALYSIS
The analytical laboratory cooperator receives fish tissue aliquots from the homogenization laboratory in
the spring of the year following the collection year. The analytical laboratory cooperators that analyzed
the 2017 collected fish tissue were Clarkson University, State University of New York (SUNY) Oswego,
SUNY Fredonia and AEACS, LLC. The 2017 Base Monitoring Program analytical data sets are presented
in Table 1. All analytical data generated to support the GLFMSP are prepared in accordance with an
approved QAPP and SOPs (Clarkson University 2016).
Upon sample receipt, the analytical laboratory cooperator analyzed the homogenized tissue for different
classes of contaminants including PCBs, PBDEs, mercury, HBCDD, PFAS, toxaphene, chlordanes, and
other organochlorine pesticides (OCPs). The analytical laboratory cooperator also utilized mega-
composite samples collected for the Base Monitoring Program to determine the presence of CECs.
Following data review by EPA, the data are used for reporting and made available to the public in the
Great Lakes Environmental Database (GLENDA), and can also be requested from EPA (contact
information is provided on page ii of this report).
NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE | 5
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
Table 1: 2017 Base Monitoring Program Analytical Data Sets
Collection Effort
Analytes
Composites and mega-composites
• Percent Moisture
• Mercury
• PCBs/OCPs/PBDEs/Lipids/Mirex
• Toxaphene
Composites only
• PFAS
Mega-composites only
• Dioxins / Furans & Coplanar PCB congeners
• HBCDD
• CECs
Results generated by all analytical methods were reported on a wet weight basis in accordance with SOPs
(Clarkson University 2016). No mathematical adjustments based on lipid content or fish age were
performed on the 2017 results or as part of the trend analyses presented in this report. Long-term
analytical data in the GLFMSP presented in this report have not been corrected to adjust for fish age the
reason being that fish have only been aged since 2003 as part of the sampling process and historically
were grouped into estimated age composites according to length measurements. To ensure consistency in
how data are reported, publicly available data for GLFMSP are reported as contaminant concentrations
for each composite for a given sampling year at each collection site. Age-corrected data from the 2017
GLFMSP collected fish are presented in Pagano et al. (2018), Zhou et al. (2018), Zhou et al. (2019),
Pagano et al. (2019), Parvizian et al. (2020), and Pagano et al. (2020).
4 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONTROL
The GLFMSP operates under a quality management plan (QMP), a QAPP, and numerous SOPs. The
GLFMSP quality management system is defined in the GLFMSP QMP (EPA 2012b). Quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) activities and procedures associated with the sample collection,
biological data collection, homogenization, and analysis of fish samples are described in the QAPPs and
SOPs identified in Section 3.
Several types of laboratory QC measures including equipment blanks, standard reference materials, blind
duplicates, method blanks, replicate samples and surrogate spikes, are implemented at both the
homogenization laboratory and the analytical laboratory to monitor data quality. These measures assist in
identifying and correcting problems as they occur. They also define the quality of data generated by the
program. QC metrics are tailored to specific sample and analytical processes. The analytical laboratory
cooperator's QAPP provides specific QC requirements to identify background contamination and
extraction efficiency and ensure accurate identification and quantification of targeted analytes. If any QC
criteria are not met, the data are reviewed carefully to identify the cause of the problem and determine the
appropriate corrective action. If reanalysis is not warranted, the data are submitted with QC flags to
indicate the nature of the failure.
To date, no major QA/QC issues have been identified through 2017.
NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE | 6
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
5 RESULTS
This section summarizes results from 2017 sample collection, biological data collection, and analysis, and
presents the 2017 Base Monitoring Program analytical results in context with long-term trends.
5.1 SAMPLE COLLECTION
5.1.1 Base Monitoring Program
A total of 241 Lake Trout were collected in Lakes Erie, Huron, Michigan, Ontario, and Superior in 2017
(Table 2). Due to low availability of Lake Trout in the target size range at two collection sites, a total of
42 Lake Trout were collected at Keweenaw Point and a total of 49 Lake Trout were collected at Sturgeon
Bay instead of the target 50.
Table 2: 2017 Base Monitoring Program Field Data
Lake
Site
Species
Date
Sampling
Depth
(m)
Collection
Method
Field
Length
Range
(mm)
Field Weight
Range (g)
Erie
(n=50)
Dunkirk
Lake
Trout
August 2017
30.5-39.6
Gillnet
582-719
2100-5300
Huron
(n=50)
Port
Austin
Lake
Trout
September,
October 2017
40
Trap Net
570-715
1630-3768
Michigan
(n=49)
Sturgeon
Bay
Lake
Trout
September,
October,
November 2017
6.1-16.2
Gillnet
618-892
2010-6630
Ontario
(n=50)
North
Hamlin
Lake
Trout
September 2017
25-35
Gillnet
550-762
1525-5450
Superior
(n=42)
Keweena
w Point
Lake
Trout
October,
November 2017
7.3-9.1
Gillnet
554-846
1400-5500
5.1.2 Cooperative Science and Monitoring Initiative (CSMI) / Special Studies
In 2017, 20 additional Lake Trout were collected in Lake Huron, from Rockport and Port Austin (Table
3). A total of 490 forage fish were collected from Rockport and Port Austin (Table 4). Sediment, benthic
invertebrates, zooplankton. Mysis, and water samples were also collected from both Lake Huron sites
during a dedicated R/V Lake Guardian CSMI survey (Table 5).
Table 3: 2017 CSMI Lake Trout Field Data
Lake
Site
Date
Depth (m)
Collection
Method
Field Length
Range (mm)
Field Weight
Range (g)
Huron
(n=10)
Rockport
October 2017
10
Gillnet
585-820
2315-4850
Huron
(n=10)
Port Austin
September,
October 2017
40
Trap Net
555-805
1636-5344
NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE | 7
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
Table 4: 2017 CSMI Forage Fish Field Data
Lake
Site
Species Collected
Date
Depth (m)
Collection
Method
Huron
Rockport
• Rainbow Smelt (n=230)
• Bloater (n=39)
• Deepwater Sculpin (n=28)
• Round Goby (n=30)
• Yellow Perch (n=3)
October 2017
9-64
Bottom Trawl
Huron
Port Austin
• Rainbow Smelt (n=90)
• Bloater (n=60)
• Deepwater Sculpin (n=6)
• Round Goby (n=4)
October 2017
18-73
Bottom Trawl
Table 5: 2017 CSMI R/V Lake Guardian Collected Field Data
Lake
Site
KPmmmraiAmaHrTiM
Date
Collection Method
Water (2 m)
June 2017
Surface water (-1000L) was collected using a
submersible and peristaltic pump in series. The
water was then passed through two pentaplates
fitted with nylon (10|im) and glass fiber filters
(0.7|im). respectively, to remove particulate matter.
A tertiary downstream pump was then used to pass
filtered water through resin (Porapak) columns to
collect dissolved phase contaminants.
Huron
Rockport
Zooplankton
(60 m for
Bulk material was size fractionated on the boat
using different mesh size screens (500, 243, 118, 63
vertical/horizontal tows
June 2017
|im). All samples from vertical and horizontal tows
and 28 m for Tucker
for a specific size class were combined to maximize
Trawl)
the mass for analysis.
My sis (63 m)
June 2017
Benthic sled (500 |im net) and Vertical Tow (500
|im net and 250 |im cod end)
Sediment (60 m)
June 2017
Ponar
Mussels (63 m)
June 2017
Benthic sled (500 |im net)
Water (2 m)
June 2017
Pump (see Rockport description)
Zooplankton
(35 mfor
vertical/horizontal tows
Bulk material was size fractionated on the boat
June 2017
using different mesh size screens (500, 243, 118, 63
|im). All samples from vertical and horizontal tows
for a specific size class were combined to maximize
the mass for analysis. Samples were also collected
using a Tucker Trawl (500 |im).
Huron
Port Austin
and 28 m for Tucker
Trawl)
My sis (36 m)
June 2017
Benthic sled (500 |im net) and Vertical Tow (500
|im net and 250 |im cod end)
Sediment (36 m)
June 2017
Ponar
Huron
Rockport
and Port
Austin
(Combined)
Benthic Invertebrates
(36-60m)
June 2017
Benthic sled (500 |im net) and Ponar
NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE | 8
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
5.2 BIOLOGICAL DATA COLLECTION AND HOMOGENIZATION
Tables 6 and 7 provide a summary of biological data measurements (excluding age results which are
included in Table 8) as recorded by the homogenization laboratory for the 2017 Base Monitoring Program
and CSMI/Special Studies samples.
Table 6: 2017 Base Monitoring Program Biological Data
Lake
Site
Species
Lab Length
Range (mm)
Lab Weight
Range (g)
Gender Count
(M,F)
Dominant
Maturity Stage b'c
Erie
(n=50)
Dunkirk
Lake Trout
565-694
2202-5324
25, 25
Gravid (48%),
Mature (50%)
Huron
(n=50)
Port Austin
Lake Trout
553-688
1588-3659
25,25
Gravid (46%),
Mature (50%)
Michigan
(n=49)
Sturgeon Bay
Lake Trout
594-889
1994-6524
41, 8
Mature (84%)
Ontario
(n=50)
North Hamlin
Lake Trout
510-736
1513-5405
32, 18
Mature (58%)
Superior
(n=41)a
Keweenaw
Point
Lake Trout
532-822
1512-4354
37,4
Mature (90%)
a One age-17 Lake Trout was accidentally discarded by the field sampling team prior to being sent to the
homogenization laboratory and therefore not used in the analysis.
b Mature = maturity stage in which fish is sexually mature (egg deposition status is either unknown, unimportant, or
nonapplicable); Gravid = maturity stage in which ovary is full of eggs that are not yet ready for deposition or
fertilization (eggs still contained within ovary wall structure)
c % = percentage out of total number offish collected at each site
Table 7: 2017 CSMI/Special Studies Lake Trout Biological Data
Lake
Site
Species
Lab
Length
Range
(mm)
Lab
Weight
Range (g)
Gender
Count (M,
F)
Dominant
Maturity Stagea'
b
Huron Lake _co
(„=10) Trout 57"88
2244-4618 6,4 Mature (60%)
Port Austin ^3'
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
contaminant concentrations due to longer exposure times (i.e. bioaccumulation) of the environmental
contaminants.
Table 8: 2017 Age Data (Base Monitoring Program and CSMI/Special Studies Lake Trout)
Lake
Site
Species
Age Range
(years)
Dominant
Aging Method
% Fish
Exceeding
Target Age
Range
Erie
(n=50)
Dunkirk
Lake Trout
4-10
Maxilla
26%
Huron
(n=60)
Port Austin
Lake Trout
5-20
CWT, Maxilla
18%
Huron
(n=10)
Rockport
Lake Trout
6-19
Maxilla
80%
Michigan
(n=49)
Sturgeon Bay
Lake Trout
5-22
Maxilla
63%
Ontario
(n=50)
North Hamlin
Lake Trout
3-9
CWT
6%
Superior
(n=41)a
Keweenaw Point
Lake Trout
7-15
Maxilla
44%
° One age-17 Lake Trout was accidentally discarded by the field sampling team prior to being sent to the
homogenization laboratory and therefore not used in the analysis.
5.3 ANALYSIS
The sections below summarize results for five contaminants (PCBs, PBDEs, mercury, HBCDD, and
PFAS) in fish collected for the Base Monitoring Program in 2017, places these results in context with
long-term trends for the odd-year sampling sites, and present results from the CEC screening analyses
performed on these samples. The 2017 CSMI/Special Studies Program analytical results will be presented
in future GLFMSP reports.
Ten-year (2007-2017) trends as well as longer term trends for contaminants at each collection site are
presented in the sections below, with the exception of the Dunkirk collection site in Lake Erie. When the
GLFMSP was designed, Walleye were selected to be collected in Lake Erie due to limited availability of
Lake Trout at both collection sites (EPA 2012a). Walleye were collected exclusively at both collection
sites through 2007. The abundance of Lake Trout in the eastern basin of Lake Erie (where the Dunkirk
site is located) slowly began to increase starting in 2000 (NYSDEC 2009) and increased dramatically in
2011 (NYSDEC 2012). The GLFMSP had Lake Trout collected at Dunkirk in 2008 and 2010, and then
switched to collecting Lake Trout at Dunkirk in odd years starting in 2011 (EPA 2012a). The GLFMSP
has Dunkirk Lake Trout data from 2008, 2010, and odd years 2011-present; therefore, the sections below
only present data from the 2008-2017 time frames for Dunkirk. Because Dunkirk trends are only
summarized over this nine-year period, these estimated changes are not directly comparable to those from
the other sites for which the change is summarized over a ten-year period.
As stated in Section 3.2. one homogenate from Keweenaw Point contained only one fish instead of the
target of five fish per composite sample. This single fish homogenate was analyzed for all contaminants
but was not included in site means or mega-composite presented in this report.
NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE | 10
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
5.3.1 PCBs
The GLFMSP provides long-term data trends for PCBs in Lake Trout and Walleye from the 1970s -
present. Prior to 1991, methods and target congeners varied. In this report, PCB trends for odd-year sites
from 1991-2017 (at all sites except Dunkirk as explained in Section 5.3) are presented as these are the
date ranges for which the current sampling design (i.e., 10 composites of five fish with sites alternating
within each lake annually) has been implemented.
Site mean total PCB concentrations ranged from 109 to 885 ng/g across the five sites (Table 9) in 2017.
Mean total PCB concentrations were calculated based on 142 out of 209 individual PCB congeners.
Measured results were not censored based on reporting or detection limits and all reported results were
included in the totals. In general, mean total PCB concentrations have exhibited a decreasing trend at all
sites over the 2007-2017 time frame (2008-2017 time frame for Dunkirk) (Table 9). Mean total PCB
concentrations have also exhibited a decreasing trend at all sites over the 1991-2017 (Table 9 and Figure
2) time series, excluding Dunkirk for which we do not have Lake Trout data prior to 2008.
Estimated declines since 2007 (2008 for Dunkirk) are statistically significant at all sites. The 2007-2017
declines range from 24% at Sturgeon Bay to 59% at Port Austin, and the 2008-2017 decline for Dunkirk
was 28%. Estimated PCB declines since 1991 at all non-Lake Erie sites are statistically significant and
range from 72% at Sturgeon Bay to 91% at Keweenaw Point.
Table 9: Summary of 2017 Total PCB Site Means and Temporal Trends
Lake
Site
#
Composites
Species
2017 Site
Means
Total PCB
Concentration
(standard
error)
(ng/g)
Estimated
% Decline
1991-2017
(95% CI
LL- UL)°
Estimated
% Decline
2007-2017
(95% CI
LL-UL)
Erie
Dunkirk
10
Lake Trout
450 (32.8)
N/Ad
28 (18 - 36)e
Huron
Port Austin
10
Lake Trout
278 (24.0)
76 (71-81)
59 (41 -72)
Michigan
Sturgeon Bay
10 a
Lake Trout
885(114)
72 (66 - 76)
24 (3 - 40)
Ontario
North Hamlin
10
Lake Trout
491 (57.2)
85 (82 - 87)
39 (24 -51)
Superior
Keweenaw Point
8 b
Lake Trout
109 (38.3)
91 (88 -93)
58 (38 -72)
a Based on 9 composites of 5 fish and 1 composite of 4 fish
h Based on 8 composites of 5 fish (single fish homogenate not included)
c CILL-UL indicates confidence inten'al lower level-upper level
d Lake Trout were not collected at the Dunkirk collection site until 2008
e Dunkirk estimated % decline is for the 2008-2017period
NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE | 11
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
•fc GLFMSP Collection Site
Keweenaw Po
Port Austin
North Hamlin
Dunkirk
Figure 2. Mean Total PCB Concentration (ppb) in Lake Trout 1991-2017.
Motes: 1) Stations are not representative of the entire lake.
2) A missing bar = samples not collected for that site year.
3) An asterisk (*) indicates less than 5 composites are included in the sampling period.
4) The last two digits of collection years are displayed above corresponding bars as 'XX.
5) The Dunkirk bar graph is not directly comparable to those from other sites because there is one year of consecutive data for Dunkirk, while all other
sites include data for odd years only (every other year).
NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE j 12
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
5.3.2 PBDEs
The GLFMSP began monitoring for PBDEs using congener-specific analyses in 2000, with a complete
set of analyses for most lakes available beginning in 2001. Lake Trout were not collected at the Dunkirk
collection site until 2008 as explained in Section 5.3. so PBDE trends are only presented for the 2008-
2017 time period for Dunkirk.
Site mean total PBDE concentrations ranged from 15.3 to 42.9 ng/g across the five sites (Table 10) in
2017. Mean total PBDE concentrations were calculated based on five congeners (47, 99, 100, 153, and
154) that have been analyzed consistently across all years. These are the only PBDE congeners that have
been consistently measured by GLFMSP and are the PBDE congeners found in the highest concentrations
in Great Lakes fish (Zhou et al. 2018). Measured results were not censored based on reporting or
detection limits and all reported results were included in the totals. In general, mean total PBDE
concentrations showed a statistically significant decline at Sturgeon Bay, North Hamlin, and Keweenaw
Point over the 2007-2017 time series (Table 10). with ten-year declines ranging from 24% at Sturgeon
Bay to 43% at Keweenaw Point. While Dunkirk and Port Austin also exhibited a decrease in mean total
PBDE concentrations since 2008 and 2007 respectively, neither were statistically significant.
Estimated total PBDE concentration declines over the 2001-2017 time series (Table 10 and Figure 3) are
statistically significant at Sturgeon Bay, North Hamlin, and Keweenaw Point, and range from 44% at
Keweenaw Point to 76% at Sturgeon Bay. The 5% decline in PBDE concentration at Port Austin since
2001 is not statistically significant.
Table 10: Summary of 2017 Total PBDE (5 congeners) Site Means and Temporal Trends
Lake
Site
#
Composites
Species
2017 Total PBDE
Site Mean
Concentration
(standard error)
(ng/g)
Estimated %
Declinec
2001-2017
(95% CI LL-
UL)"
Estimated %
Declinec
2007-2017
(95% CI LL-
UL)
Erie
Dunkirk
10
Lake
Trout
15.3 (1.32)
N/Ae
3 (-13 - 17)f
Huron
Port Austin
10
Lake
Trout
30.2 (2.78)
5 (-32 - 32)
21 (-12-45)
Michigan
Sturgeon Bay
10 a
Lake
Trout
42.9 (5.56)
76 (68 -81)
24 (3-41)
Ontario
North Hamlin
10
Lake
Trout
29.9 (3.95)
47 (26 - 62)
40 (20 - 54)
Superior
Keweenaw
Point
8 b
Lake
Trout
20.0 (4.35)
44(17 -62)
43 (15-61)
° Based on 9 composites of 5 fish and 1 composite of 4 fish
b Based on 8 composites of 5 fish (single fish homogenate not included)
CA negative percent decline ofi-X%> corresponds to a percent increase ofiX%
dCILL-UL indicates confidence interval lower level-upper level
e Lake Trout were not collected at the Dunkirk collection site until 2008
-fDunkirk estimated % decline is for the 2008-2017 period
NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE | 13
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
200
150 -
^ GLFMSP Collection Site
100
200 i
•09
200 -I
•05
'01
150 -
150 H
100 -
Keweenaw Point
'09
>01
•01
100 -
'09
'05
200
¦17
'05
'01
'17
150
Austin
200 -i
North Hamlin
100 -
'05
'09
'17
150 -
50 -
,'13
100 -
rgeon Bay
50
08 '11 '13 ^ '17
¦ n-rm
Dunkirk
300 Km
150
Figure 3. Mean Total PBDE (5 Congeners) Concentration (ppb) in Lake Trout 2001-2017.
Motes: 1) Stations are not representative of the entire lake.
2) A missing bar = samples not collected for that site year.
3) An asterisk (*) indicates less than 5 composites are included in the sampling period.
4) The last two digits of collection years are displayed above corresponding bars as 'XX-
5) Total PBDE = sum of congeners 47, 99, 100, 153, and 154.
6) The Dunkirk bar graph is not directly comparable to those from other sites because there is one year of consecutive data for Dunkirk, while all other
sites include data for odd years only (every other year).
NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE j 14
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
5.3.3 Mercury
The GLFMSP began monitoring for total mercury in 1999. Mean total mercury concentrations are shown
at all odd-year sampling sites from 1999-2017 (except Dunkirk as explained in Section 5.3) in Figure 4.
Site mean mercury concentrations ranged from 110 to 180 ng/g across the five sites (Table 11) in 2017.
Mean mercury concentrations showed a statistically significant decline over the 2007-2017 time series
(Table 11) at Port Austin. Keweenaw Point exhibited a decrease in mean mercury concentrations since
2007 as well, although it was not statistically significant. At North Hamlin, a statistically significant
increase of 15% was shown from 2007-2017 and at Dunkirk, a statistically significant increase of 13%
was exhibited from 2008-2017. The increasing age of the Lake Trout collected at Dunkirk in 2015 and
2017 could explain the increasing trend observed at Dunkirk for the 2008-2017 time series. Sturgeon Bay
also exhibited an increase in mean mercury concentrations since 2007, although it was not statistically
significant.
Since 1999, no statistically significant changes in mercury concentrations have been detected at any of the
non-Lake Erie sites. While North Hamlin did exhibit a decrease in mercury concentrations (4%), it was
not statistically significant. The other three non-Lake Erie sites exhibited an increase in mercury
concentrations (ranging from 3% at Keweenaw Point to 16% at Port Austin), although none of these
increases were statistically significant (Table 11).
Table 11: Summary of 2017 Total Mercury Site Means and Temporal Trends
Lake
Site
#
Composites
Species
2017 Total
Mercury Site
Mean
Concentration
(standard
error)
(ng/g)
Estimated %
Declinec
1999-2017
(95% CI LL-
UL)"
Estimated %
Declinec
2007-2017
(95% CI LL-
UL)
Erie
Dunkirk
10
Lake Trout
111 (5.28)
N/Ae
-13 (-23 to -3)
Huron
Port Austin
10
Lake Trout
180 (9.78)
-16 (-36 to 2)
26 (9 to 40)
Michigan
Sturgeon Bay
10 a
Lake Trout
177 (9.91)
-8 (-27 to 8)
-8 (-28 to 8)
Ontario
North Hamlin
10
Lake Trout
110(7.59)
4 (-6 to 14)
-15 (-29 to -2)
Superior
Keweenaw Point
8 b
Lake Trout
155 (26.5)
-3 (-29 to 17)
11 (-16 to 32)
a Based on 9 composites of 5 fish and 1 composite of 4 fish
b Based on 8 composites of 5 fish (single fish homogenate not included)
CA negative percent decline ofi-X%> corresponds to a percent increase ofiX%
dCILL-UL indicates confidence interval lower level-upper level
e Lake Trout were not collected at the Dunkirk collection site until 2008
-fDunkirk estimated % decline is for the 2008-2017 period
NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE | 15
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
350
300 -
'15
250
•fa GLFMSP Collection Site
200
'11
150
100
350 -
50
"07
250-
Keweenaw Poin
350
•15
300
•03
•99
150 -
250
350
100
200
300 -
50
150
•99
'07
250 -
•03
100
200
Port Austin
•07;
'15
50
150 -
•99
•03
North Harhli
100
350
50 -
300
rgeon Bay
250
150
100
50 -
Dunkirk
150
300 km
Figure 4. Mean Total Mercury Concentration (ppb) in Lake Trout 1999-2017.
Notes: 1) Stations are not representative of the entire lake.
2) A missing bar = samples not collected for that site year.
3) An asterisk (*) indicates less than 5 composites are included in the sampling period.
4) The last two digits of collection years are displayed above corresponding bars as 'XX.
5) The Dunkirk bar graph is not directly comparable to those from other sites because there is one year of consecutive data for Dunkirk, while all other
sites include data for odd years only (every other year).
NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE j 16
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
5.3.4 HBCDD
The GLFMSP added analysis of three HBCDD isomers in mega-composite samples to the program in
2012, beginning with analysis of samples collected in 2010. HBCDD was added to the GLFMSP due to
its designation as a chemical of mutual concern under the GLWQA. Four years of data (2011, 2013, 2015,
and 2017) are available for odd-year sites. Because this time period is not sufficient to allow for a
meaningful evaluation of trends, temporal trends for total HBCDD concentration are not evaluated in this
report. However, each mega-composite sample was analyzed for three HBCDD isomers in triplicate, such
that site means and associated analytical variability could be calculated. Total HBCDD mega-composite
means range from 3.48 ng/g at Dunkirk to 8.63 ng/g at Port Austin (Table 12) in 2017. Mean total
HBCDD concentrations were calculated based on the three analyzed HBCDD isomers. Measured results
were not censored based on reporting or detection limits and all reported results were included in the
totals.
Table 12: Summary of 2017 Total HBCDD Mega-composite Means
Lake
Site
# Replicatesa
Species
2017 Total HBCDD
Mega-composite Mean
Concentration
(standard error)
(ng/g)
Erie
Dunkirk
3
Lake Trout
3.48 (0.49)
Huron
Port Austin
3
Lake Trout
8.63 (0.79)
Michigan
Sturgeon Bay
3
Lake Trout
7.46 (0.05)
Ontario
North Hamlin
3
Lake Trout
3.65 (0.04)
Superior
Keweenaw Point
3
Lake Trout
4.83 (0.11)
° Single mega-composite samples were analyzed in triplicate (so variability estimates include analytical variability
but not sampling variability, which is included in the calculated standard errors for other analyte classes
presented in this report)
5.3.5 PFAS
The GLFMSP began monitoring PFAS compounds in 2011. The list of analyzed PFAS compounds has
varied since 2011. In 2017, monitored PFAS compounds included 26 perfluorinated carboxylic acids and
sulfonates with 4 to 13 carbons, including 10 branched isomers. In recent years, including 2017, the
method used to quantify PFAS was modified to improve reproducibility in complex biological tissues
(Point et al. 2019). This method utilizes ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem
mass spectrometry (UPLC-MSMS). Due to the evolving analytical methodology and smaller number of
composites analyzed, it is not appropriate at this time to assess temporal trends for PFAS compounds.
Table 13 and Figure 5 show total PFAS and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) site mean
concentrations and their associated standard errors for the composites that were analyzed at each site.
Because the PFAS analysis scheme was generally consistent across sites, the mean concentrations can be
compared to each other. As seen in Table 13 and Figure 5, total PFAS and PFOS concentrations are
generally highest at Dunkirk and lowest at Keweenaw Point. Mean total PFAS concentrations were
calculated based on the 16 PFAS compounds that were analyzed, excluding branched isomers. Measured
results were not censored based on reporting or detection limits and all reported results were included in
the totals.
NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE | 17
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
Table 13: Summary of 2017 Total PFAS and PFOS Composite Means
Lake
Site
#
Composites
Species
2017 Total PFAS
Composite Mean
(standard error)
(ng/g)
2017 PFOS
Composite Mean
(standard error)
(ng/g)
Erie
Dunkirk
5
Lake Trout
96.5 (8.2)
84.3 (7.5)
Huron
Port Austin
5
Lake Trout
35.3 (1.1)
23.5 (0.79)
Michigan
Sturgeon Bay
5
Lake Trout
44.3 (3.2)
37.5 (2.9)
Ontario
North Hamlin
5
Lake Trout
52.0 (4.2)
47.3 (3.9)
Superior
Keweenaw Point
5
Lake Trout
15.0 (0.94)
6.1 (0.40)
i
i
I
Variable
• Total PFAS (ppb)
A PFOS (ppb)
4
A
Dunkirk Port Austin Sturgeon Bay North Hamlin Keweenaw Pt.
Lake Erie Lake Huron Lake Michigan Lake Ontario Lake Superior
Figure 5. 2017 Mean Total PFAS and PFOS Concentrations Per Site (±1 standard error).
NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE | 18
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
5.3.6 Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CECs)
Since 2014, Base Monitoring Program mega-composites samples have been screened for CECs. Initial
screening studies have been focused on detecting organic compounds that contain one or more chlorine or
bromine atom. Historically, organic chemicals containing carbon bonded to chlorine or bromine have
been found to be bioaccumulative and potentially exhibit adverse effects on lake biota (e.g., PCBs, OCPs,
PBDEs) (Howard and Muir 2010).
Figure 6 summarizes the total concentration of halogenated organic chemicals observed in Lake Trout
collected from Lakes Superior (Keweenaw Point), Huron (Port Austin), Erie (Dunkirk), Michigan
(Sturgeon Bay), and Ontario (North Hamlin). Sturgeon Bay exhibited the highest total concentration
followed by North Hamlin, Dunkirk, and Keweenaw Point, respectively. Port Austin exhibited the lowest
total concentration of halogenated chemicals. Similar to observations in the Great Lakes Fish Monitoring
and Surveillance Program Technical Report: Status and Trends through 2016 (EPA 2020) for even year
GLFMSP collection sites, halomethoxyphenols were the dominant class of compounds observed in all of
the lakes, followed by PCBs and other halogenated components on the routine monitoring schedule (i.e.,
organochlorine pesticides).
4000
3500
3000
"5)2500
£
C
o
]S 2000
*-»
c
0)
C 1500
o
o
1000
500
0
I PCBs (monitored)
I Other Halo-orgariics (monitored)*
~ Halomethoxyphenols(not-monitored)*°
I Other Halo-organics (not-monitored)**
Figure 6. Concentrations of Halogenated Compounds and PCBs in GLFMSP Mega-composite
Samples from 2017. * Includes PBDEs and OCPs. ** Concentrations were determined using
reference standards where available or structurally similar compound.
NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE | 19
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
6 SUMMARY
The 2017 GLFMSP Technical Report details sampling information of the Base Monitoring Program and
CSMI, assesses data and trends through 2017, and shows that various legacy contaminant concentrations
are decreasing in Great Lakes top predator fish. Key highlights include:
• Mean total PCB concentrations in Lake Trout have declined at the odd-year sampling sites at Port
Austin (Lake Huron), Sturgeon Bay (Lake Michigan), Keweenaw Point (Lake Superior), and
North Hamlin (Lake Ontario) from 1991 to 2017. Concentrations have also declined in the
eastern basin of Lake Erie since monitoring of Lake Trout began in 2008 at the Dunkirk site.
• Mean total PBDE concentrations in Lake Trout have declined at the odd-year sampling sites in
Lakes Michigan, Ontario, and Superior since 2001. No significant changes in Lake Trout at the
Port Austin sampling site were found in this timeframe. Concentrations have also declined in the
eastern basin of Lake Erie since monitoring of Lake Trout began in 2008.
• Mercury concentrations in Lake Trout have declined at the Port Austin sampling site in Lake
Huron since 2007 and increased at the odd-year sampling sites in North Hamlin (Lake Ontario)
and Dunkirk (Lake Erie) since 2007 and 2008, respectively. Lake Trout collected at the odd-year
sampling sites in lakes Superior and Michigan did not show statistically significant changes in
mercury concentrations from 1999 to 2017. No statistically significant changes occurred at any
sampling site since 1999.
REFERENCES
Aquatec Biological Sciences, Inc., 2016. Great Lakes Fish Monitoring and Surveillance Program
Standard Operating Procedure.
Clarkson University, 2016. Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Great Lakes Fish Monitoring and
Surveillance Program (GLFMSP): Expanding the Boundaries.
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) Action Plan III, 2019.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-10/documents/glri-action-plan-3-201910-
30pp.pdf.
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), 2012. Canada-United States.
https://binational .net//wp-content/uploads/2014/05/1094_Canada-U SA-GLW QA-_e .pdf, 1-56.
Howard, P.H., Muir, D.C.G., 2010. Identifying new persistent and bioaccumulative organics among
chemicals in commerce. Environmental Science and Technology. 44 (7), 2277-2285.
McGoldrick, D.J., Murphy, E.W., 2016. Concentration and distribution of contaminants in lake trout and
walleye from the Laurentian Great Lakes (2008-2012). Environmental Pollution. 217, 85-96.
Murphy, E.W., Smith, M.L., He, J.X., Wellenkamp, W., Barr, E., Downey, P.C., Miller, K.M., Meyer,
K.A., 2018. Revised fish aging techniques improve fish contaminant trend analyses in the face of
changing Great Lakes food webs. Journal of Great Lakes Research. 44, 725-734.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Bureau of Fisheries, 2009.
2008-2009 Annual Report.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Bureau of Fisheries, 2012.
2011-2012 Annual Report.
NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE | 20
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
Pagano, J.J, Garner, A.J., McGoldrick, D.J., Crimmins, B.S., Hopke, P.K., Milligan, M.S., Holsen, T.M.,
2018. Age corrected trends and toxic equivalence of PCDD/F and CP-PCBs in Lake Trout from
the Great Lakes: 2004-2014. Environmental Science and Technology. 52, 712-721.
Pagano, J.J., Garner, A.J. 2019. Comprehensive assessment of legacy organic contaminants and trends in
Lake Trout from Cayuga Lake, New York: 2011-2017. Journal of Great Lakes Research 45:6,
1290-1298.
Pagano, J.J., Garner, A.J. 2020. Polychlorinated naphthalenes across the Great Lakes: Lake Trout and
Walleye concentrations, trends, and TEQ assessment: 2004 - 2018. Environmental Science and
Technology. 55:4, 2411-2421.
Parvizian, B.A., Zhou, C., Fernando, S., Crimmins, B.S., Hopke, P.K., Holsen, T.M., 2020.
Concentrations and long-term temporal trends of hexabromocyclododecanes (HBCDD) in lake
trout and walleye from the Great Lakes. Environmental Science and Technology. 54, 6134-6141.
Point, A.D., Holsen, T.M., Fernando, S., Hopke, P.K., Crimmins, B.S., 2019. Towards the development
of a standardized method for extraction and analysis of PFAS in biological tissues. Environmental
Science: Water Research and Technology. 5, 1876-1886.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), 2012a. Great Lakes Fish Monitoring and Surveillance Program (GLFMSP): Quality
Assurance Project Plan for Sample Collection Activities.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-
02/documcnts/g 1 fmsp qapp version 2 111312 merged 508 O.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2012b. Great Lakes Fish Monitoring and Surveillance
Program (GLFMSP): Quality Management Plan.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-
02/documents/glfmsp amp version 2 final 111312 508.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2020. Great Lakes Fish Monitoring and Surveillance
Program Technical Report: Status and Trends through 2016. Publication No. EPA # 905-R-20-
002.
Zhou, C., Pagano, J., Crimmins, B.A., Hopke, P.K., Milligan, M.S., Murphy, E.W., Holsen, T.M., 2018.
Polychlorinated biphenyls and organochlorine pesticides concentration patterns and trends in top
predator fish of Laurentian Great Lakes from 1999-2014. Journal of Great Lakes Research. 44,
716-724.
Zhou, C., Pagano, J. McGoldrick, D.J., Chen, D., Crimmins, B.S., Hopke, P.K., Milligan, M.S., Murphy,
E.W., Holsen, T.M., 2019. Legacy Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs) trends in top
predator fish of the Laurentian Great Lakes (GL) from 1979 to 2016: Will concentrations
continue to decrease? Environmental Science and Technology. 53, 6650-6659.
NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE | 21
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX A - LIST OF RECENT GLFMSP PUBLICATIONS
The following is a list of GLFMSP publications produced between 2017 and 2021.
Crimmins, B.S., Holsen, T.M., 2019. Non-targeted Screening in Environmental Monitoring Programs.
Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology: Advancements of Mass Spectrometry in
Biomedical Research. 1140, 731-741.
Crimmins, B.S., McCarty, H.B., Fernando, S., Milligan, M.S., Pagano, J.J., Holsen, T.M., Hopke, P.K.,
2018. Commentary: Integrating Non-targeted and Targeted Screening in Great Lakes Fish
Monitoring Programs. Journal of Great Lakes Research. 44, 1127-1135.
Dupree, E.J., Crimmins, B.S., Holsen, T.M., Darie, C.C., 2019. Developing Well-Annotated Species-
Specific Protein Databases Using Comparative Proteogenomics. Advances in Experimental
Medicine and Biology: Advancements of Mass Spectrometry in Biomedical Research. 1140, 389-
400.
Dupree, E.J., Crimmins, B.S., Holsen, T.M., Darie, C.C., 2019. Proteomic analysis of the lake trout
(Salvelinus namaycush) liver identifies proteins from evolutionarily-close and -distant fish
relatives. Proteomics. DOI: 10.1002/pmic.201800429
ECCC and U.S. EPA. 2019. Toxic Chemicals in Whole Fish. In: State of the Great Lakes. 2019.
Technical Report. Cat. No.: Enl61-3/IE-PDF (Online). ISSN 2292-1222 (Online). EPA 905-R-
20-004.
ECCC and U.S. EPA. 2017. Toxic Chemicals in Great Lakes Whole Fish Lake Trout/Walleye. In: Sate of
the Great Lakes 2017 Technical Report. Cat. No. Enl61-3/IE-PDF. EPA 905-R17-001.
Fakouri Baygi, S., Fernando, S., Hopke, P.K., Holsen, T.M., Crimmins, B.S. 2020. Decadal Differences
in Emerging Halogenated Contaminant Profiles in Great Lakes Top Predator Fish. Environmental
Science & Technology. 54, 14352-14360.
Fakouri Baygi., S., Fernando, S., Hopke, P.K, Holsen, T.M, Crimmins, B.S, 2019. Automated Isotopic
Profile Deconvolution for High Resolution Mass Spectrometric Data (APGC-QToF) from
Biological Matrices. Anal. Chem. 91 (24), 15509-15517.
Fernando, S., Renaguli, A., Milligan, M.S., Pagano, J.J., Hopke, P.K., Holsen, T.M., Crimmins, B.S.,
2018. Comprehensive Analysis of the Great Lakes Top Predator Fish for Novel Halogenated
Organic Contaminants by GCxGC-HR-ToF. Environmental Science and Technology. 52, 2909-
2917.
Garner, A.J., Pagano, J.J., 2019. Trends of polychlorinated dioxins, polychlorinated furans, and dioxin-
like polychlorinated biphenyls in Chinook and Coho salmonid eggs from a Great Lakes tributary.
Environmental Pollution. 247, 1039-1045.
Hites, R.A., Holsen, T.M., 2019. Temporal trends of PCBs and DDTs in Great Lakes fish compared to
those in air. Science of the Total Environment. 646, 1413-1418.
Lepak, R.F., Hoffman, J.C., Janssen, S.E., Krabbenhoft, D.P., Ogorek, J.M., DeWild, J.F., Tate, M.T.,
Babiarz, C.L., Yin, R., Murphy, E.W., Engstrom, D.R., Hurley, J.P. 2019. Mercury source
changes and food web shifts alter contamination signatures of predatory fish from Lake
Michigan. PNAS 116 (47) 23600-23608; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1907484116
NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE | A-l
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
Lepak, R.F., Janssen, S.E., Yin, R., Krabbenhoft, D.P., Ogorek, J.M., DeWild, J.F., Tate, M.T., Holsen,
T.M., Hurley, J.P. 2018. Factors Affecting Mercury Stable Isotopic Distribution is Piscivorous
Fish of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Environmental Science and Technology. 52, 2768-2776.
Muir, D.C.G., Evans, M.S., Murphy, E.W., McGoldrick, D.J. 2020. Contaminants and Ecotoxicology.
Chapter 11. The Lake Charr Salvelinus namaycush: Biology, Ecology, Distribution, and
Management. Springer. Muir, A.M., Krueger, C.C., Hansen, M.J., Riley, S.C. (Eds.)
10.1007/978-3-030-62259-6. In press.
Murphy, E.W., Smith, M.L., He, J.X., Wellenkamp, W., Barr, E., Downey, P.C., Miller, K.M., Meyer,
K.A., 2018. Revised fish aging techniques improve fish contaminant trend analyses in the face of
changing Great Lakes food webs. Journal of Great Lakes Research. 44, 725-734.
Pagano, J.J, Garner, A.J., McGoldrick, D.J., Crimmins, B.S., Hopke, P.K., Milligan, M.S., Holsen, T.,
2018. Age Corrected Trends and Toxic Equivalence of PCDD/F and CP-PCBs in Lake Trout
from the Great Lakes: 2004-2014. Environmental Science and Technology. 52, 712-721.
Parvizian, B.A., Zhou, C., Fernando, S., Crimmins, B.S., Hopke, P.K., Holsen, T.M., 2020.
Concentrations and long-term temporal trends of hexabromocyclododecanes (HBCDD) in lake
trout and walleye from the Great Lakes. Environmental Science and Technology. 54, 6134-6141.
Point, A.D., Holsen, T.M., Fernando, S., Hopke, P.K., Crimmins, B.S., 2019. Towards the development
of a standardized method for extraction and analysis of PFAS in biological tissues. Environmental
Science: Water Research and Technology. 5, 1876-1886.
Williams, M.C.W., Murphy, E.W., McCarty, H.B., Snyder, B.D., Schrank, C.S., McCann, P.J., Crimmins,
B.S., 2017. Variation in essential fatty acids EPA and DHA in fish fillets of fish from the Great
Lakes region. Journal of Great Lakes Research. 43, 150-160.
Wu, Y., Tan, H., Zhou, C., Crimmins, B.S., Holsen, T.M., Chen, D., 2018. Bioaccumulation and
Spatiotemporal Trends of Polyhalogenated Carbazoles in Great Lakes Fish from 2004 to 2016.
Environmental Science and Technology. 52, 4536-4545.
Wu, Y., Tan, H., Zhou, C., Crimmins, B.S., Holsen, T.M., Chen, D., 2019. Spatial and Temporal Trends
(2004 - 2016) of Alternative Flame Retardants in Great Lakes Fish - A Story After the
Discontinuation of PBDEs for More Than A Decade. Environmental Science and Technology.
53, 1786-1796.
Zhou, C., Cohen, M., Crimmins, B., Zhou, H., Johnson, T., Hopke, P., Holsen, T., 2017. Mercury
Temporal Trends in Top Predator Fish of the Laurentian Great Lakes from 2004 to 2015: Are
Concentrations Still Decreasing? Environmental Science and Technology. DOI:
10.1021/acs.est.7b00982
Zhou, C., Pagano, J., Crimmins, B.A., Hopke, P.K., Milligan, M.S., Murphy, E.W., Holsen, T.M., 2018.
Polychlorinated biphenyls and organochlorine pesticides concentration patterns and trends in top
predator fish of Laurentian Great Lakes from 1999-2014. Journal of Great Lakes Research. 44,
716-724.
NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE | A-2
------- |