GREAT LAKES FISH
MONITORING AND
SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
TECHNICAL
REPORT
Status and Trends of Contaminants in Whole Fish through 2019
with Special Studies in Lakes Ontario and Erie
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
July 2024
EPA 950-R-23-002
Great Lakes
RESTORATION
ft"
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,;
2) EPA Contract No. EP-C-15-012, Water Security Division Mission Support, with CSRA LLC, a
General Dynamics Information Technology company (now General Dynamics Information Technology
[GDIT]) under the direction of Louis Blume from EPA Laboratory Services and Applied Science
Division (LSASD), Contracting Officer's Representative, 3) a CSRA LLC 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 Station, 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.
We gratefully acknowledge the support of the following team members in the preparation of this
Technical Report:
Affiliation
Team Members
EPA GLNPO
Brian Lenell, Kenneth Klewin
EPA LSASD
Louis Blume
Clarkson University
Thomas Holsen
AEACS, LLC
Bernard Crimmins
GDIT
Marian Smith, Kenneth Miller
Cover Photo Credits: NYSDEC (Left); EPA GLNPO (Top Right); Ryan Lepak, EPA (Middle Right);
Michael Milligan, SUNY Fredonia (Bottom Right)
Citation: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2024. Great Lakes Fish Monitoring and Surveillance
Program Technical Report: Status and Trends through 2019. Publication No. EPA # 905-R-23-002
CONTACT INFORMATION
For additional information, questions, or comments about this document, please contact Brian Lenell
(EPA GLNPO) using the 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
JULY 2024
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 3
3.1.1 Base Monitoring Program 3
3.1.2 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 CSMI / Special Studies 8
5.2 Biological Data Collection and Homogenization 10
5.3 Analysis 12
5.3.1 PCBs 13
5.3.2 PBDEs 16
5.3.3 Mercury 19
5.3.4 HBCDD 21
5.3.5 PFAS 23
5.3.6 CECs 25
6 Summary 27
References 28
Appendix A - List of Recent GLFMSP Reports A-l
JULY 2024
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/Walleye 1991-2019 (even and odd-
year sites) 15
Figure 3. Mean total PBDE (5 congeners) concentration (ppb) in Lake Trout/Walleye 2001-2019
(even and odd-year sites) 18
Figure 4. Mean total Mercury concentration (ppb) in Lake Trout/Walleye 1999-2019 (even and
odd-year sites) 20
Figure 5: HBCDD concentration (ppb) in Lake Trout/Walleye 2010-2019 (even and odd-year
sites) 22
Figure 6: PFOS concentration (ppb) in Lake Trout/Walleye 2011-2019 (even and odd-year sites) 24
Figure 7. Concentrations of halogenated compounds and PCBs in GLFMSP mega-composite samples
from 2018 25
Figure 8. Concentrations of halogenated compounds and PCBs in GLFMSP mega-composite samples
from 2019 26
Table 1: 2018 and 2019 Base Monitoring Program Analytical Data Sets 6
Table 2: 2018 and 2019 Base Monitoring Program Field Data 7
Table 3: 2018 and 2019 CSMI Lake Trout Field Data 8
Table 4: 2018 and 2019 CSMI Forage Fish Field Data 8
Table 5: 2018 and 2019 CSMI R/VLake Guardian Collected Field Data 9
Table 6: 2018 and 2019 Base Monitoring Program Biological Data 10
Table 7: 2018 and 2019 CSMI/Special Studies Lake Trout/Walleye Biological Data 11
Table 8: 2018 and 2019 Age Data (Base Monitoring Program and CSMI/Special Studies Lake
Trout/Walleye) 12
Table 9: Summary of 2018 and 2019 Total PCB Site Means and Temporal Trends 14
Table 10: Summary of 2018 and 2019 Total PBDE (5 congeners) Site Means and Temporal
Trends 17
Table 11: Summary of 2018 and 2019 Total Mercury Site Means and Temporal Trends 19
Table 12: Summary of 2018 and 2019 Total HBCDD Mega-composite Means 21
Table 13: Summary of 2018 and 2019 PFOS Composite Means 23
JULY 2024
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 [Salvelimis namaycush] and Walleye [Sander vitreus]), 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, polychlorinated naphthalene (PCN) congeners, dioxins/furans, and other organochlorine
pesticides (OCPs).
This report presents summarized data and trends for PCBs, PBDEs, mercury, HBCDD, and PFAS in Lake
Trout and Walleye and contaminants of emerging concern (CEC) screening analyses in Lake Trout and
Walleye for the five GLFMSP sites sampled in odd years and the five GLFMSP sites sampled in even years.
The analytical results from 2018 and 2019 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 2008-2018 and 2009-2019 are reported for Lake Erie. Trends in this report may be different for even-
year sites and odd-year sites within each lake due to local factors at the sampling sites.
An assessment of data through 2018 at even-year sampling sites and 2019 at odd-year sampling sites
shows that various legacy contaminant concentrations are decreasing in Great Lakes top predator fish.
Key highlights of concentration trends include:
• Mean total PCB concentrations in Lake Trout at all even-year and odd-year sampling sites have
declined significantly since 1991/1992 in Lakes Huron (Port Austin: 81%; Rockport: 84%),
Michigan (Sturgeon Bay: 78%; Saugatuck 83%), Superior (Keweenaw Point: 92%; Apostle
Islands 82%), and Ontario (North Hamlin: 86%; Oswego 83%). Mean total PCB concentrations
in Walleye at the Middle Bass Island sampling site in Lake Erie have also declined significantly
since 1991/1992 (71%). Concentrations have significantly declined at the Dunkirk sampling site
in the eastern basin of Lake Erie over the past ten years (37%, ten-year trend estimated using
2008-2019 data).
• Mean total PBDE concentrations in Lake Trout at even-year sampling sites declined significantly
since 2002 in Lakes Huron (59%), Michigan (74%), Superior (47%), and Ontario (61%). Mean
total PBDE concentrations in Walleye at the Middle Bass Island site in Lake Erie also have
declined significantly since 2002 (40%). Mean total PBDE concentrations in Lake Trout have
declined significantly at odd-year sampling sites since 2001 in Lakes Michigan (75%), Ontario
(56%), and Superior (40%). No statistically significant changes in concentrations were found at
the Port Austin sampling site in Lake Huron since 2001, or at the Dunkirk sampling site in Lake
Erie since monitoring of Lake Trout began in 2008.
• Mercury concentrations in Lake Trout have exhibited a statistically significant decline since 2000
at the Apostle Islands sampling site in Lake Superior (50%). Mercury concentrations in Walleye
at the Middle Bass Island sampling site in Lake Erie also have exhibited a statistically significant
decline since 2000 (23%). No statistically significant changes have occurred at any other
sampling sites since 1999/2000. Mercury concentrations in Lake Trout at the Sturgeon Bay
sampling site in Lake Michigan have increased since 2009 (19%). The mercury concentrations in
fish do not show a statistically significant change in the 1999-2019 period at this site.
The most abundant CEC compound class detected in Lake Trout and Walleye in 2018 at even-year
sampling sites, and in Lake Trout in 2019 at odd-year sampling sites in all Lakes was
JULY 2024
PAGE | 1
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
halomethoxyphenols. Only 2018 and 2019 CEC screening results are presented, as there are currently not
enough years of data to evaluate temporal trends for CECs. In 2018, mean total HBCDD was highest in
Lake Trout at the Apostle Islands sampling site in Lake Superior and lowest in Walleye at the Middle
Bass Island sampling site in Lake Erie. In 2019, mean total HBCDD in Lake Trout was highest at the Port
Austin sampling site in Lake Huron and lowest at the Dunkirk sampling site in Lake Erie. In 2018, mean
concentrations of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) were highest at the Oswego sampling site in Lake
Ontario and lowest at the Apostle Islands sampling site in Lake Superior. In 2019, mean concentrations of
PFOS were highest at the Dunkirk sampling site in the eastern basin of Lake Erie and lowest at the
Keweenaw Point sampling site in Lake Superior.
Field and biological data collection results for these Lake Trout and Walleye are presented in this report as
well, along with field and biological data collection results for Lake Trout, Walleye, forage fish, and
invertebrates that were collected by the GLFMSP in support of the 2018 Lake Ontario and 2019 Lake Erie
Cooperative Science and Monitoring Initiative (CSMI) studies of contaminant cycling in the Lake Ontario
and Lake Erie food webs. Analytical results of the CSMI studies will be presented in future reports.
2 INTRODUCTION
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 [Salvelinus namaycush] and Walleye [Sander vitreus]), 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) 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 2018 and 2019 Base
Monitoring Program and CSMI/Special Studies collection efforts. Long-term trends (ranging from 10
years to 28 years) for Base Monitoring Program analytical results are presented.
3 DESCRIPTION OF METHODS
This section summarizes methods for sample collection, biological data collection, homogenization,
and analysis.
JULY 2024
PAGE | 2
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
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 eight sampling teams collected fish for the Base
Monitoring Program and CSMI/Special Studies components in 2018 and 2019:
• Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
• Michigan Department of Natural Resources Alpena Fisheries Research Station
• Michigan Department of Natural Resources Charlevoix Fisheries Research Station
• New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Lake Erie Fisheries Research Unit
• Ohio Department of Natural Resources Sandusky Fisheries Research Unit
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Green Bay Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Lake Ontario Biological Station
• Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Detailed information on collection methods can be found in the subsections below.
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 are collected in all lakes and Walleye are
collected at one site located in the western basin of Lake Erie, which is too shallow to support Lake Trout.
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 report. Lake Trout in the size range of 600-
700 mm 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 represent 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 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 2018 and 2019, the CSMI lakes were Lake Ontario and Lake Erie,
respectively. 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, Mysis, 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).
JULY 2024
PAGE | 3
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
Keweenaw
Point
Apostle Islands
Rockport
Sturgeon Bay
Port Austin
Oswego
Lake Ontario
Lake
Michigan
North Hamlin
Saugatuck
Dunkirk
Middle Bass Island
-------
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 2018 and 2019, 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 2018 and 2019, Lake Trout age was determined
based on CWTs where available and based on annuli enumeration of maxillae if no CWT was present.
For Walleye, final age was determined based on dorsal spine, or if not available, enumeration of maxillae.
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 of Contaminants in
Whole Fish through 2016 (EPA 2021a). EPA reviewed the ages for 2018 and 2019 Lake Trout and
Walleye 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 in 2019, a total of 43
Lake Trout were collected, so seven composites of five fish and two composites of four fish were created.
After grouping fish into composites based on the EPA 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 (CECs). Other additional compound classes are also measured in
the mega-composite samples. This list is noted in Table 1 below. 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 2018 and 2019 collected fish tissue were Clarkson University, State University of New York (SUNY)
Oswego, SUNY Fredonia, and AEACS, LLC. The 2018 and 2019 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 polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers
(PBDEs), mercury, hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD), per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS),
toxaphene, chlordanes, polychlorinated naphthalene (PCN) congeners, dioxins/furans, 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).
JULY 2024
PAGE | 5
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
Table 1: 2018 and 2019 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 & Co planar PCB congeners
• PCN 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 2018 and 2019 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 is 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 the GLFMSP are reported as contaminant
concentrations for each composite for a given sampling year at each collection site. Age-corrected data
from the 2018 and 2019 GLFMSP collected fish are presented in 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.
No major QA/QC issues have been identified through 2019.
JULY 2024
PAGE | 6
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
5 RESULTS
This section summarizes results from 2018 and 2019 sample collection, biological data collection, and
analysis, and presents the 2018 and 2019 Base Monitoring Program analytical results in context with
long-term (10-year to 28-year) trends. Lake Ontario (2018) and Lake Erie (2019) CSMI analytical results
could not be evaluated for long-term trends given the limited temporal data for these studies.
5.1 SAMPLE COLLECTION
5.1.1 Base Monitoring Program
In 2018, a total of 200 Lake Trout were collected in Lakes Huron, Michigan, Ontario, and Superior and 50
Walleye were collected in Lake Erie. In 2019, a total of 243 Lake Trout were collected in Lakes Erie, Huron,
Michigan, Ontario, and Superior (Table 2). In 2019, due to low availability of Lake Trout in the target size
range at the Keweenaw Point collection site, a total of 43 Lake Trout were collected instead of the target 50.
Table 2: 2018 and 2019 Base Monitoring Program Field Data
Lake
Year
Site
Species
Date
Sampling
Depth (m)a
Collection
Method
Field
Length
Range (mm)
Field
Weight
Range (g)
Superior
(n=50)
2018
Apostle
Islands
October
2018
6-15
605-742
1788-3862
Superior
(n=43)
2019
Keweenaw
Point
Lake Trout
October,
November
2019
6-9
Gill Net
472-790
831-4009
Michigan
(n=50)
2018
Saugatuck
Lake Trout
September
2018
30
Gill Net
536-775
1520-4770
Michigan
(n=50)
2019
Sturgeon
Bay
October
2019
8-13
580-746
1695-4470
Huron
(n=50)
2018
Rockport
Lake Trout
October
2018
4
Gill Net
538-872
1401-7852
Huron
(n=50)
2019
Port Austin
September
2019
24-46
Trap Net
520-900
1226-6790
Erie
(n=50)
2018
Middle Bass
Island
Walleye
October
2018
7-15
Gill Net
400-499
538-1164
Erie
(n=50)
2019
Dunkirk
Lake Trout
August
2019
Not Reported
557-747
1982-5250
Ontario
(n=50)
2018
Oswego
Lake Trout
October
2018
48
Gill Net
563-802
1642-5996
Ontario
(n=50)
2019
North
Hamlin
September
2019
25
565-747
2035-5332
a Sampling depth was not recorded for Lake Trout collected from Dunkirk in 2019.
JULY 2024
PAGE | 7
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
5.1.2 CSMI / Special Studies
In 2018, 27 additional Lake Trout were collected in Lake Ontario, from North Hamlin and Oswego (Table
3). In 2019, 15 additional Lake Trout were collected in Lake Erie from Dunkirk and 10 additional
Walleye were collected in Lake Erie from Middle Bass Island. A total of 211 forage fish were collected
from both Lake Ontario sites in 2018 and a total of 1,089 forage fish were collected from both Lake Erie
sites in 2019 (Table 4). Sediment, benthic invertebrates, zooplankton, and Mysis samples were collected
from both Lake Ontario sites in 2018 and both Lake Erie Sites in 2019 during dedicated R/V Lake
Guardian CSMI surveys (Table 5). Water samples were also collected during these surveys from North
Hamlin in 2018 and from both Lake Erie sites in 2019.
Table 3: 2018 and 2019 CSMI Lake Trout Field Data
Lake
Year
Site
Species
Date
Samling
Depth (m)a
Collection
Method
Field
Length
Range (mm)
Field Weight
Range (g)
Ontario
(n=10)
2018
North
Hamlin
Lake Trout
September 2018
45
Gill Net
555-745
1605-4578
Ontario
(n=17)
Oswego
Lake Trout
October 2018
48
Gill Net
470-615
1069-2401
Erie
(n=15)
2019
Dunkirk
Lake Trout
August 2019
Not
Reported
Gill Net
533-740
1694-5276
Erie
(n=10)
Middle
Bass Island
Walleye
October 2019
8
Gill Net
429-491
718-1138
a Sampling depth was not recorded for Lake Trout collected from Dunkirk in 2019.
Table 4: 2018 and 2019 CSMI Forage Fish Field Data
Lake Year
Site
Species Collected
Date
Sampling
Depth (m)a
Collection Method
Alewife (n=34)
45-170
North
Deepwater Sculpin (n=12)
October
45-170
Hamlin
Rainbow Smelt (n=ll)
2018
45-170
Ontario 2018
Round Goby (n=33)
45-170
Bottom Trawl
Alewife (n=30)
60-220
Oswego
Deepwater Sculpin (n=31)
November
60-220
Rainbow Smelt (n=30)
2018
60-220
Round Goby (n=30)
60-220
JULY 2024
PAGE | 8
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
Lake
Year
Site
Species Collected
Date
Sampling
Depth (m)a
Collection Method
Emerald Shiner (n=l 16)
Not Reported
Rainbow Smelt (n=434)
Not Reported
Dunkirk
Round Goby (n=234)
October
2019
Not Reported
Bottom Trawl
White Perch (n=85)
Not Reported
Erie
2019
Y ellow Perch (n= 111)
Not Reported
Freshwater Drum (n=8)
8.5
Middle
Bass
Island
Gizzard Shad (n=10)
8.5
Trout-Perch (n=30)
September
2019
8.5
Trawl
White Perch (n=31)
8.5
Yellow Perch (n=30)
8.5
a Sampling depth was not recorded for forage fish collected from Dunkirk in 2019.
Table 5: 2018 and 2019 CSMI R/V Lake Guardian Collected Field Data
Lake Site
Date
Sample Type and
Sampling Depth (m)
Collection Method
Mussels (144 m)
Benthic Sled (500 pm net)
Mysis (144 m)
Vertical Tow (500 pm net and 250 pm cod end)
North
June
Water (3 m)
Submersible Pump/Dip Pole
Hamlin
Ontario
2018
Zooplankton (20 m for
Tucker Trawl, 144 mfor
Vertical Tow)
Vertical and Horizontal (Tucker Trawl) Tow: Bulk
material was size fractionated on the boat using different
mesh size screens (63, 118, 243 and 500 pm). All
samples from vertical and horizontal tows for a specific
size class were combined to maximize the mass for
analysis.
Benthic Invertebrates (40-45
m)
Benthic Sled (500 pm net)
Oswego a
July
2018
Mysis (26-30 m for Tucker
Trawl, 40-45 m for Vertical
Tow)
Tucker Trawl (500 pm)/Vertical Tow (500 pm net and
250 pm cod end)
Sediment (40-45 m)
Ponar Dredge
Zooplankton (40-45 m)
Vertical Tow (500 pm net and 250 pm cod end)
JULY 2024
PAGE | 9
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
Lake
Site
Date
Sample Type and
Sampling Depth (m)
Collection Method
Oligochaetes (30 m)
Benthic Sled (500 |im net) and Ponar Dredge
Sediment (30 m)
Ponar Dredge
June
2019
Water (3 m)
Submersible Pump/Dip Pole
Dunkirk
Zooplankton (46 m for
Tucker Trawl, 29 m for
Vertical Tow)
Vertical and Horizontal (Tucker Trawl) Tow: Bulk
material was size fractionated on the boat using different
mesh size screens (63, 118, 243 and 500 jim). All
samples from vertical and horizontal tows for a specific
size class were combined to maximize the mass for
analysis.
Benthic Invertebrates and
general forage fish (5 m)
Benthic Sled (500 urn net)
and Ponar Dredge
Erie
Oligochaetes
(5-6 m)
Benthic Sled (500 |im net)
and Ponar Dredge
Sediment (6 m)
Ponar Dredge
Middle
June
Water (3 m)
Submersible Pump/Dip Pole
Bass
Island
2019
Zooplankton
(6 m)
Vertical Tow (500 |im net and 250 |im cod end)
Zooplankton
(5 m)
Vertical and Horizontal (Tucker Trawl) Tow: Bulk
material was size fractionated on the boat using different
mesh size screens (63, 118, 243 and 500 jim). All
samples from vertical and horizontal tows for a specific
size class were combined to maximize the mass for
analysis.
a Water samples were not collected from Oswego in 2018.
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 2018 and 2019 Base
Monitoring Program and CSMI/Special Studies samples.
Table 6: 2018 and 2019 Base Monitoring Program Biological Data
Lake
Year
Site
Species
Date
Lab Length
Range (mm)
Lab
Weight
Range (g)
Gender
Count
(M,F)
Dominant
Maturity
Stagea' "b
Superior Apostle
(n=50) Islands
October
2018
584-726 1748-3840 39,11 Mature (78%)
Superior Keweenaw
(n=43) Point
Lake Trout 0ctober
November
2019
413-779 811-3901 42,1 Mature (86%)
JULY 2024
PAGE | 10
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
Lake
Year
Site
Species
Date
Lab Length
Range (mm)
Lab
Weight
Range (g)
Gender
Count
(M,F)
Dominant
Maturity
Stagea'b
Michigan
(n=50)
2018
Saugatuck
September
2018
506-760
1492-4702
33, 17
Mature (66%)
Michigan
(n=50)
2019
Sturgeon Bay
Lake Trout
October
2019
558-721
1678-4447
39, 11
Mature (78%)
Huron
(n=50)
2018
Rockport
Lake Trout
October
2018
533-870
1380-7747
39, 11
Mature (78%)
Huron
(n=50)
2019
Port Austin
September
2019
521-899
1194-6627
29,21
Mature (56%)
Gravid (36%)
Erie
(n=50)
2018
Middle Bass
Island
Walleye
October
2018
378-486
501-1132
49, 1
Mature (98%)
Erie
(n=50)
2019
Dunkirk
Lake Trout
August 2019
525-725
1953-5663
28, 22
Mature (56%)
Gravid (44%)
Ontario
(n=50)
2018
Oswego
Lake Trout
October
2018
489-760
1616-5898
33, 17
Mature (66%)
Ontario
(n=50)
2019
North Hamlin
September
2019
546-729
2015-5229
37, 13
Mature (72%)
a 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).
b % = percentage out of total number offish collected at each site.
Table 7: 2018 and 2019 CSMI/Special Studies Lake Trout/Walleye Biological Data
Lake
Year
Site
Species
Lab Length
Range (mm)
Lab Weight
Range (g)
Gender
Count (M, F)
Dominant
Maturity Stagea'b
Ontario
(n=10)
2018
North Hamlin
Lake Trout
500-724
1575-4468
6,4
Mature (60%)
Ontario
(n=17)
Oswego
454-590
1045-2375
13,4
Mature (76%)
Erie
(n=15)
2019
Dunkirk
Lake Trout
515-697
1668-5152
12,3
Mature (80%)
Erie
(n=10)
Middle Bass
Island
Walleye
414-482
704-1106
6,4
Mature (90%)
a 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).
h % = percentage out of total number offish collected at each site.
Table 8 provides a summary of age data for 2018 and 2019 Base Monitoring Program and CSMI/Special
Studies Lake Trout and Walleye samples. Age results included in the table were determined based on
annuli enumeration of maxillae, dorsal spines, and CWTs. The dominant aging method used to obtain the
final age for each fish is listed. For Lake Trout, final age was determined based on CWT where available
JULY 2024
PAGE | 11
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
and based on annuli enumeration of maxilla if no CWT was present. For Walleye, final age was
determined based on dorsal spines, or if not available, enumeration of maxilla. In 2018, the majority of
Lake Trout exceeded the target age range of 6-8 years at Rockport (66%) and Apostle Islands (66%),
while Saugatuck, North Hamlin (CSMI Lake Trout only), and Oswego exceeded the age range by 12%,
10%, and 6%, respectively. In 2019, the majority of Lake Trout exceeded the target age range of 6-8 years
at Keweenaw Point (67%) and Port Austin (64%), while Dunkirk and Sturgeon Bay exceeded the age
range by 31%, and 8%, respectively, and no Lake Trout exceeded the target age range at North Hamlin.
No Walleye exceeded the target age range at Middle Bass Island in 2018 or 2019. It would be expected
that fish exceeding the age range may have higher contaminant concentrations due to longer exposure
times (i.e., bioaccumulation) of the environmental contaminants.
Table 8: 2018 and 2019 Age Data
(Base Monitoring Program and CSMI/Special Studies Lake Trout/Walleye)
Lake
Year
Site
Species
Age Range
(years)
Dominant
Aging Method
% Fish Exceeding
Target Age Range
Superior (n=50)
2018
Apostle Islands
Lake Trout
7-19
Maxilla
66%
Superior (n=43)
2019
Keweenaw Point
6-14
67%
Michigan (n=50)
2018
Saugatuck
Lake Trout
4-12
CWT
12%
Michigan (n=50)
2019
Sturgeon Bay
4-10
Maxilla
8%
Huron (n=50)
2018
Rockport
Lake Trout
7-22
Maxilla
66%
Huron (n=50)
2019
Port Austin
Lake Trout
4-22
CWT
64%
Erie (n=50)
2018
Middle Bass
Island
Walleye
2-4
Dorsal Spine
0%
Erie (n=10 °)
2019
Middle Bass
Island
3-7
0%
Erie (n=65")
Dunkirk
Lake Trout
3-12
CWT
31%
Ontario (n=67 b)
2018
Oswego
3-12
6%
Ontario (n=10'')
North Hamlin
Lake Trout
3-10
CWT
10%
Ontario (n=50)
2019
North Hamlin
4-7
0%
a Lake Erie was the 2019 CSMI lake. 10 Walleye were collected from Middle Bass Island and 15 Lake Trout were
collected from Dunkirk for CSMI/Special Studies.
h Lake Ontario was the 2018 CSMI lake. 17 Lake Trout were collected from Oswego and 10 Lake Trout were
collected from North Hamlin for CSMI/Special Studies.
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 2018 and 2019, place these results in context
with long-term trends where feasible, and present results from the CEC screening analyses performed on
these samples. Sample collection site locations for 2018 (even-year sites) and 2019 (odd-year sites) can be
viewed in Figure 1 in Section 3.1. The 2018 and 2019 CSMI/Special Studies Program analytical results
will be presented in future GLFMSP reports.
JULY 2024
PAGE | 12
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
For PCBs, PBDEs, and mercury, trends over time were evaluated using linear regression models between
the sampling year and natural log-transformed composite sample results. The fitted models were used to
estimate the change over two distinct time periods: 1) the last ten years (i.e., 2008-2018 for even-year
sites and 2009-2019 for odd-year sites) and 2) a longer-term period starting when routine monitoring first
began for each contaminant. Additionally, 95% confidence bounds for the estimated decline were
calculated for each time period, site, and contaminant. The width of each confidence bound is a function
of the overall model variability, amount of data in the model, and the estimated decline of the given
period. Because the evaluations in this report focus on estimated changes over specified time periods
rather than year-to-year changes, statistical significance was determined based on confidence intervals
instead of a hypothesis test for statistically significant slope. These particular confidence intervals provide
inference regarding the mean change over the time period at the 95% probability, and whether or not
those bounds include a value of 0 can be used to evaluate whether the change is statistically significant or
not. For example, if an estimated decline over ten years is 81%, with 95% confidence bounds of 73% and
86%, the fact that those bounds do not contain 0 allows one to conclude that the probability of observing
a decline this large over ten years due to chance (i.e., if the contaminant was not in fact changing) is
minimal enough to be rejected. Temporal trends for HBCDD and PFAS are not presented because
comparable data currently available for these contaminants does not cover the ten-year time period used
for trend evaluations in this report. Trends for HBCDD and PFAS will be evaluated in future GLFMSP
technical reports once 10 years of comparable data are available.
Ten-year 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
a ten-year trend estimated using the 2008-2019 Lake Trout data from Dunkirk. Even though there were no
Lake Trout data from 2009 from Dunkirk, a ten-year trend was estimated from this site so that the trend
evaluation would be consistent with those from the other sites. A separate full time series 2008-2019
trend was not evaluated because it would provide similar information to the ten-year trend and would not
be comparable to long-term trends from the other sites.
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 1991-2019 (at all sites except Dunkirk, for which trends are presented from 2008-2019, as
explained in Section 5.3) and even-year sites from 1992-2018 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 182 to 464 ng/g across the five sites in 2018 and
ranged from 98.8 to 414 ng/g across the five sites in 2019 (Table 9). 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.
Mean total PCB concentrations have exhibited a statistically significant decreasing trend at all sites
over the ten-year (2008-2018 or 2009-2019) time series (2008-2019 time series for Dunkirk) (Table 9).
The 2008-2018 declines ranged from 42% at Oswego to 75% from Apostle Islands. The 2009-2019
JULY 2024
PAGE | 13
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
declines ranged from 37% at Dunkirk (ten-year trend calculated using 2008-2019 data as noted in
section 5.3) to 73% at Port Austin. Mean total PCB concentrations have also exhibited a statistically
significant decreasing trend at all sites over the larger 1991-2019 or 1992-2018 (Table 9 and Figure 2)
time series, excluding Dunkirk for which we do not have Lake Trout data prior to 2008. Estimated PCB
declines since 1991 at all non-Dunkirk sites range from 71% at Middle Bass Island to 92% at
Keweenaw Point.
Table 9: Summary of 2018 and 2019 Total PCB Site Means and Temporal Trends
2018/2019
Estimated
Estimated %
Decline
Over Ten
Years
(95% CI LL-
UL)
Total PCB Site
% Decline
#
Composites
Mean
1992-2018
Lake
Year
Site
Species
Concentration
(standard
error)
(ng/g)
or 1991-
2019 (95%
CI LL- UL)
a
Superior
2018
Apostle Islands
10
Lake Trout
182 (28.06)
81 (73 to 86)
75 (65 to 83)
2019
Keweenaw Point
10
98.8 (22.27)
92 (89 to 94)
54 (30 to 69)
Michigan
2018
Saugatuck
10
Lake Trout
464 (53.51)
83 (80 to 86)
52 (35 to 65)
2019
Sturgeon Bay
10
402 (21.11)
78 (73 to 81)
51 (37 to 62)
Huron
2018
Rockport
10
Lake Trout
296 (66.90)
84 (80 to 87)
49 (24 to 66)
2019
Port Austin
10
336 (105.6)
81 (77 to 85)
73 (61 to 81)
Erie
2018
Middle Bass Island
10
Walleye
344 (32.06)
71 (64 to 76)
57 (48 to 64)
2019
Dunkirk
10
Lake Trout
379 (50.21)
N/A b
37 (27 to 46)c
Ontario
2018
Oswego
10
Lake Trout
432 (50.44)
83 (80 to 85)
42 (26 to 55)
2019
North Hamlin
9
414(26.91)
86 (84 to 88)
44 (31 to 55)
"CILL-UL indicates confidence interval lower level-upper level.
b Lake Trout were not collected at Dunkirk until 2008.
c Dunkirk estimated % decline is for the 2008-2019 period.
JULY 2024
PAGE | 14
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
LAKE SUPERIOR
LAKE MICHIGAN
LAKE HURON
£ I
$
• Keweenaw Point (Lake Trout)
O Apostle Islands (Lake Trout)
31
HI
• •
2E 31 ^ m
"T"
t—r
4000-
S 3000-
Q.
Q.
(J)
GG
U 2000-
3
£
1000-
5
• Sturgeon Bay (Lake Trout)
O Saugatuck (Lake Trout)
J
T
\
~r
4000"
2" 3000-
Q_
Q_
CO
CO
U 2000
ro
|2
1000
m:
• Port Austin (Lake Trout)
O Rockport (Lake Trout)
3E
n
n • u "j"
m 31 $ ar ^eoS:
~r
&<$¦><$><&<&<&<&<&
i r
£> c&>
A
^
4000"
2 3000-
o.
CL
CO -,-
m cp
" 2000-
ro
£
1000-
LAKE ERIE
• Dunkirk (Lake Trout)
O Middle Bass Island (Walleye)
5
* XD-
3XT
$
3B;
m
~i r
c£>_c^
~i—r
r$
4000n
S~ 3000-
Q.
Q.
m
u 2000-
is
£
loooH
LAKE ONTARIO
• North Hamlin (Lake Trout)
O Oswego (Lake Trout)
$
£
¦"nr
c
3*
T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-
oP oS # c\^ c?5 lN^* *0* 'v^
Figure 2. Mean total PCB concentration
(ppb) in Lake Trout/Walleye 1991-2019
(even and odd-year sites).
Notes: 1) Stations are not representative of
entire lake; 2) Missing dot = samples not
collected for that site/year; 3) Asterisk (*)
indicates less than 5 composites are included
in the sampling period. 4) Error bars
represent standard error.
JULY 2024
PAGE | 15
-------
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. Figure 3 shows changes in mean total PBDE
concentrations over time at collection sites for all years where PBDEs were analyzed. This includes data
from 2001-2019 for odd-year sites except Dunkirk, for which data are presented from 2008-2019 as
explained in Section 5.3. and data from 2002-2018 for even-year sites.
Site mean total PBDE concentrations ranged from 6.33 to 51.6 ng/g across the five sites (Table 10) in
2018 and ranged from 16.7 to 44.0 ng/g across the five sites in 2019. 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. Mean total PBDE concentrations showed a statistically significant decline at all
even-year sites other than Rockport over the 2008-2018 time series (Table 10). with ten-year declines
ranging from 0% at Rockport to 54% at Apostle Islands. Two of the five odd-year sites exhibited a
statistically significant decline over the 2009-2019 time series (Table 10). with a ten-year decline of 52%
at North Hamlin and a ten-year decline of 47% at Port Austin.
Estimated total PBDE concentration declines over the 2002-2018 time series for even-year sites (Table 10
and Figure 3) are statistically significant at all five sites, and range between 40% at Middle Bass Island
and 74% at Saugatuck. Estimated total PBDE concentration declines over the 2001-2019 time series for
odd-year sites (Table 10 and Figure 3) are statistically significant at the Sturgeon Bay, North Hamlin and
Keweenaw Point sites, with estimated declines ranging between 40% and 75%.
JULY 2024
PAGE | 16
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
Table 10: Summary of 2018 and 2019 Total PBDE (5 congeners) Site Means and Temporal Trends
Lake
Year
Site
#
Composites
Species
2018/2019
Total PBDE
Site Mean
Concentration
(standard
error)
(ng/g)
Estimated %
Decline
2002-2018 or
2001-2019
(95% CI
LL- UL)a
Estimated %
Decline
Over Ten
Years
(95% CI LL-
UL)
Superior
2018
Apostle Islands
10
Lake Trout
51.6(6.79)
47 (26 to 62)
54 (32 to 69)
2019
Keweenaw Point
10
26.1 (6.22)
40 (14 to 59)
27 (-10 to 52)
Michigan
2018
Saugatuck
10
Lake Trout
30.4 (3.28)
74 (64 to 81)
51 (32 to 65)
2019
Sturgeon Bay
10
32.7 (1.86)
75 (68 to 80)
12 (-9 to 30)
Huron
2018
Rockport
10
Lake Trout
33.1 (6.65)
59 (41 to 71)
0 (-55 to 36)
2019
Port Austin
10
44.0 (8.53)
14 (-17 to 37)
47 (26 to 61)
2018
Middle Bass Island
10
Walleye
6.33 (0.411)
40 (25 to 51)
52 (42 to 60)
Erie
2019
Dunkirk
10
Lake Trout
16.7 (2.20)
N/A b
4 (-12 to 18)c
Ontario
2018
Oswego
10
T ake Trnnl
27.9 (4.62)
61 (47 to 71)
36 (12 to 53)
2019
North Hamlin
9
26.5 (1.19)
56 (40 to 68)
52 (38 to 64)
"CILL-UL indicates confidence interval lower level-upper level.
b Lake Trout were not collected at Dunkirk until 2008.
c Dunkirk estimated % decline is for the 2008-2019 period.
JULY 2024
PAGE | 17
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
LAKE SUPERIOR
LAKE MICHIGAN
LAKE HURON
2501
„ 200-
.Q
Q_
Q.
LU 1 50 -
Q
GO
CL
a 100-
,o
50-
i
• Keweenaw Point (Lake Trout)
O Apostle Islands (Lake Trout)
I
5 1 I
L . I
5
3E
1*1
$
I
cA
-r~
I
r\N <%-> r>.\ rv) ^ A N1- \~
_q
Q.
o.
LU
O
~~
CL
£
,o
250
20CH
150
100-
50
0
rl
• Sturgeon Bay (Lake Trout)
O Saugatuck (Lake Trout)
5® 3)
$1
ura
~r~
rj\
rfT r£$
~i—
f f V f
~r~
N<0
r~
~r~
&
250
„ 200
_Q
Q.
a
LU 150
Q
00
CL
w 100
,o
50
• Port Austin (Lake Trout)
O Rockport (Lake Trout)
xi*1 ® i 5 i i
* 1 m ^ m
3Z
i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r~
Or* c? V5 'v*
# # # ^ ^ ^ <£>
LAKE ERIE
• Dunkirk (Lake Trout)
O Middle Bass Island (Walleye)
~T~
oN rCb ^
f f f ^ f f f ^
J
~r~
rs°>
-r~
A
2501
_ 200
.Q
Q.
Q.
LU 150
Q
CO
CL
50-
LAKE ONTARIO
• North Hamlin (Lake Trout)
O Oswego (Lake Trout)
is
m*.
rrJ
C1
:m=<
~i 1 1 r
i 1—
r$N <& c& r??
1 1—
a k\
Figure 3. Mean total PBDE (5 congeners)
concentration (ppb) in Lake Trout/Walleye
2001-2019 (even and odd-year sites).
Notes: 1) Stations are not representative of
entire lake; 2) Missing dot = samples not
collected for that site/year; 3) Asterisk (*)
indicates less than 5 composites are included in
the sampling period; 4) Total PBDE = sum of
congeners 47, 99, 100, 153, 154; 5) Data were
collected from both Lake Erie sites in 2008, but
values are approximately equal (Dunkirk; 15.0
ppb; Middle Bass Island: 15.8 ppb) and partially
overlap on the plot. 5) Error bars represent
standard error.
JULY 2024
PAGE | 18
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
5.3.3 Mercury
The GLFMSP began monitoring for total mercury in 1999. Figure 4 shows changes in mean total mercury
concentrations over time at collection sites for all years where mercury was analyzed. This includes data
from 1999-2019 for odd-year sites except Dunkirk, for which data are presented from 2008-2019 as
explained in Section 5.3. and data from 2000-2018 for even-year sites.
Site mean mercury concentrations ranged from 66 to 241 ng/g across the five sites in 2018 and ranged from
104 to 181 ng/g across the five sites in 2019 (Table 11). Mean mercury concentrations showed a statistically
significant decline over the 2008-2018 time series at the Middle Bass Island and Apostle Islands sites, with
estimated ten-year declines of 34% and 33%, respectively. In 2019, no site showed a statistically significant
decrease over the 2009-2019 time series (Table 11). However, the mean mercury concentration showed a
statistically significant increase of 19% at the Sturgeon Bay site over this time period.
Since 1999 at odd-year sites and 2000 at even-year sites, statistically significant decreases in mercury
concentrations were detected at the Middle Bass Island and Apostle Islands sites only. While six of the
other sites did exhibit an estimated increase over this period, with the largest increase of 14% at the Port
Austin and Keweenaw Point sites (Table 11). none were statistically significant.
Table 11: Summary of 2018 and 2019 Total Mercury Site Means and Temporal Trends
Lake
Year
Site
#
Composites
Species
2018/2019
Total Mercury
Site Mean
Concentration
(standard
error)
(ng/g)
Estimated %
Decline3 2000-
2018 or 1999-
2019 (95% CI
LL- UL) b
Estimated %
Decline
Over Ten
Years
(95% CI LL-
UL)
Superior
2018
Apostle Islands
10
Lake Trout
241 (24.63)
50 (38 to 60)
33 (15 to 48)
2019
Keweenaw Point
9
181 (33.3)
-14 (-43 to 9)
-19 (-59 to 10)
Michigan
2018
Saugatuck
10
Lake Trout
123 (9.82)
11 (-5 to 25)
9 (-9 to 25)
2019
Sturgeon Bay
10
136 (7.84)
-4 (-21 to 10)
-19 (-38 to -2)
Huron
2018
Rockport
10
Lake Trout
199 (22.37)
-6 (-31 to 14)
16 (-9 to 35)
2019
Port Austin
10
177 (15.08)
-14 (-33 to 3)
15 (-5 to 31)
Erie
2018
Middle Bass Island
10
Walleye
66 (3.11)
23 (10 to 34)
34 (22 to 44)
2019
Dunkirk
10
Lake Trout
104 (9.84)
N/A 0
-5 (-17 to 5) d
Ontario
2018
Oswego
10
Lake Trout
108 (9.66)
-2 (-14 to 16)
-13 (-38 to 7)
2019
North Hamlin
10
120 (3.91)
2 (-8 to 11)
-7 (-20 to 5)
"A negative percent decline of—X% corresponds to a percent increase ofX%.
h CILL-UL indicates confidence interval lower level-upper level.
c Lake Trout were not collected at Dunkirk until 2008.
d Dunkirk estimated % decline is for the 2008-2019 period.
JULY 2024
PAGE | 19
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
LAKE SUPERIOR
LAKE MICHIGAN
LAKE HURON
5 ;
*
• s
• Keweenaw Point (Lake Trout)
O Apostle Islands (Lake Trout)
^ I $ o
*,5
5 •
m-
~~r
c®
f ^ f f f V f f f f
_o
Q.
Q.
re
o
500
400
300-
200
100-
*
• Sturgeon Bay (Lake Trout)
O Saugatuck (Lake Trout)
TIT ^SCj
&
<$L 31 3JJ
oJ
c®
A r«>
~~r~
A
_Q
CL
Q.
3
,o
500-
400
300
200-
100
• Port Austin (Lake Trout)
O Rockport (Lake Trout)
EElm*
5
IE
c$J r$>J cs<3J _rS?
~~i r~
& kO
LAKE ERIE
• Dunkirk (Lake Trout)
O Middle Bass Island (Walleye)
IE
t« o
"i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r
d3> cy> oN <© Np ~A ^
500n
S- 400
Q.
Q.
^ 300
o
re
o
200-
100-
LAKE ONTARIO
• North Hamlin (Lake Trout)
O Oswego (Lake Trout)
'-m.]
t"nr.
t!3I 3SC
^ ^ ^ qnn qV3 ^ ^ -J?
Figure 4. Mean total Mercury concentration
(ppb) in Lake Trout/Walleye 1999-2019 (even
and odd-year sites).
Notes: 1) Stations are not representative of
entire lake; 2) Missing dot = samples not
collected for that site/year; 3) Asterisk (*)
indicates less than 5 composites are included in
the sampling period; 4) Data were collected
from both Lake Erie sites in 2010, but values
are approximately equal (Dunkirk: 94.5 ppb;
Middle Bass Island: 90.4 ppb) and partially
overlap on the plot. 5) Error bars represent
standard error.
JULY 2024
PAGE | 20
-------
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. Five years of data are available for
each even-year (2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018) and odd-year (2011, 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2019)
site, each include five data points per site. 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. 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.
Total HBCDD mega-composite means across the 2018-2019 period range from 1.58 ng/g at Middle Bass
Island to 9.33 ng/g at Port Austin (Table 12). Total HBCDD concentrations were highest at Apostle Islands
and lowest at Middle Bass Island in 2018. Total HBCDD concentrations were highest at Port Austin and
lowest at Dunkirk in 2019. Variation among the two sampling sites was greatest in Lake Superior, with a mean
concentration from Apostle Islands more than two times greater than samples from Keweenaw Point.
Figure 5 shows changes in HBCDD concentration overtime at collection sites for all years where
HBCDD was analyzed. Because only five years of data covering only an eight-year period are available
for each site, temporal trends were not evaluated statistically, and the data are only presented over time
for illustrative purposes.
Table 12: Summary of 2018 and 2019 Total HBCDD Mega-composite Means
Lake
Year
Site
# Replicatesa
Species
Total HBCDD
Mega-composite
Mean
Concentration
(standard error)
(ng/g)
Superior
2018
Apostle Islands
3
Lake Trout
9.12(0.21)
2019
Keweenaw Point
3
4.12(0.28)
Michigan
2018
Saugatuck
3
Lake Trout
6.26 (0.30)
2019
Sturgeon Bay
3
7.12(0.10)
Huron
2018
Rockport
3
Lake Trout
7.39(0.13)
2019
Port Austin
3
9.33 (0.22)
Erie
2018
Middle Bass Island
3
Walleye
1.58 (0.20)
2019
Dunkirk
3
Lake Trout
1.86 (0.07)
Ontario
2018
Oswego
3
Lake Trout
4.22 (0.09)
2019
North Hamlin
3
3.4 (0.14)
a 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).
JULY 2024
PAGE | 21
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
$
LAKE SUPERIOR
0 Keweenaw Point (Lake Trout)
O Apostle Islands (Lake Trout)
5
2E
I
\V K^>
<£> <£> <£> ^ <£> -V -V V
15
12
_Q
D.
a.
Q
Q
O
CO
TO
,o
9
LAKE MICHIGAN
©Sturgeon Bay (Lake Trout)
QSaugatuck (Lake Trout)
5
$
I
I
\V rfp
V V r$ rf rf ^ rf ^ rf
LAKE HURON
15 i
12
.Q
Q.
a.
Q
Q
0
CO
1
TO
,o
9
6
3
I
I
1
I
0 Port Austin (Lake Trout)
O Rockport (Lake Trout)
V V V rf rf rf rf
LAKE ERIE
O Dunkirk (Lake Trout)
O Middle Bass Island (Walleye)
1
IE
^ \V \3 ^0 rs^> ^
V <£> ^ ^ ^ ^
15
12
J2
Q.
Q.
Q £
Q
O
CD
E 6 i
.2
,o
3
LAKE ONTARIO
# North Hamlin (Lake Trout)
O Oswego (Lake Trout)
5 j w
I
5
\U ^ f^>
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ <£> #
Figure 5: HBCDD concentration (ppb) in
Lake Trout/Walleye 2010-2019 (even and
odd-year sites)
Notes: 1) Stations are not representative of
entire lake; 2) Error bars represent stand
error. 3) 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).
JULY 2024
PAGE | 22
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
5.3.5 PFAS
The GLFMSP began monitoring PFAS compounds in 2011. The list of analyzed PFAS compounds has
varied since 2011. In 2018 and 2019, monitored PFAS compounds included 26 perfluorinated carboxylic
acids and sulfonates with 4 to 13 carbons, including 10 branched isomers. Starting with data collected in
2013, the analytical 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) to analyze for the targeted PFAS compounds. There
have also been changes to the number and type (e.g., age-based versus size-based, changes in median age)
of composites analyzed over the years. All composites for each site were analyzed in 2011 and 2012, and
after 2012, the data only include five composites per site. In most cases, the first five composites (i.e., the
youngest fish based on age-compositing) were used, but in 2013, a different subset of five composites
was used (i.e., not only the youngest five) for each site.
The analyses presented in this report focus on Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), which is one of the
most widely used and studied chemicals in the PFAS group (EPA 2022). is frequently detected in
GLFMSP fish samples, and has the highest concentration among the PFAS compounds in GLFMSP fish
samples on average. Table 13 shows PFOS site mean concentrations and their associated standard errors
for the composites that were analyzed from each site sampled in 2018 and 2019. Because the PFAS
analysis scheme was generally consistent across sites, the mean PFOS concentrations can be compared to
each other. As seen in Table 13. PFOS concentrations across the 2018-2019 period range from 3.6 ng/g at
Keweenaw Point to 66.8 ng/g at Dunkirk. PFOS concentrations were highest at Oswego and lowest at
Apostle Islands in 2018, and highest at Dunkirk and lowest at Keweenaw Point in 2019.
Figure 6 shows changes in PFOS concentration over time at collection sites for all years where PFOS was
analyzed. Due to the evolving analytical methodology and differences in composites analyzed over the
years, temporal trends were not evaluated statistically, and the data are only presented over time for
illustrative purposes. The current scheme of analyzing only the first five composites for PFAS compounds
was not fully implemented until 2014, and therefore, only the three most recent sampling years per site
can be considered fully comparable.
Table 13: Summary of 2018 and 2019 PFOS Composite Means
Lake
Year
Site
# Composites
Species
2018 and 2019 PFOS
Composite Mean
(standard error)
(ng/g)
Superior
2018
Apostle Islands
5
Lake Trout
5.3 (2.1)
2019
Keweenaw Point
5
3.6 (0.85)
Michigan
2018
Saugatuck
5
Lake Trout
25.7 (2.4)
2019
Sturgeon Bay
5
17 (2.7)
Huron
2018
Rockport
5
Lake Trout
10.8(4.3)
2019
Port Austin
5
12.1 (1.3)
Erie
2018
Middle Bass Island
5
Walleye
19.4 (5.6)
2019
Dunkirk
5
Lake Trout
66.8(14.1)
Ontario
2018
Oswego
5
Lake Trout
49.3 (8.8)
2019
North Hamlin
5
52 (31.5)
JULY 2024
PAGE | 23
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
LAKE SUPERIOR
9 Keweenaw Point (Lake Trout)
OApostle Islands (Lake Trout)
is|b ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ n?
-O
Q_
Q.
CO
o
180
150
120-
90-
60
30-
LAKE MICHIGAN
9Sturgeon Bay (Lake Trout)
OSaugatuck (Lake Trout)
tfo h*0 ^ ^
V ^ ^ ^ ^
-Q
Q.
3
co
o
180
150
120-
90
60
30-
LAKE HURON
9 Port Austin (Lake Trout)
O Rockport (Lake Trout)
31
3E
A ^ ^
a? ^ ^ ^ ^ <£> a? ^
LAKE ERIE
9 Dunkirk (Lake Trout)
O Middle Bass Island (Walleye)
^
^ rf ^ ^ rf f>N rf rf ^
-Q
Q.
Q_
CO
o
180
150
120
90-
60
30
LAKE ONTARIO
9 North Hamlin (Lake Trout)
O Oswego (Lake Trout)
I
J_ 3E
\V tfp n^5 ^ ^
V <£> <£> V n?
Figure 6: PFOS concentration (ppb) in
Lake Trout/Walleye 2011-2019 (even and
odd-year sites)
Notes: 1) Stations are not representative of
entire lake; 2) 2011 and 2012 data include
all composites for each site and a different
analytical method was used, which is not
comparable to the current method;
3) After 2012, data only include 5
composites per site. Since 2014, the first
five composites (the youngest fish based on
age-compositing) were used. In 2013, a
different subset of five composites was used
(not only the youngest five) for each site. 4)
Error bars represent standard error.
JULY 2024
PAGE | 24
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
5.3.6 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 atoms. 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 7 summarizes the total concentration of all halogenated organic chemicals observed in fish
collected from even-year sites in 2018. Middle Bass Island exhibited the highest total concentration
followed by Apostle Islands, Rockport, with Saugatuck, and Oswego exhibiting similar concentrations.
Figure 8 summarizes the total concentration of all halogenated organic chemicals observed in fish
collected from odd-year sites sampled in 2019. The highest total concentration of halogenated compounds
was observed at North Hamlin, followed by Port Austin and Sturgeon Bay which exhibited similar
concentrations, followed by Dunkirk and Keweenaw Point, which exhibited similar concentrations.
Similar to observations in the Great Lakes Fish Monitoring and Surveillance Program Technical Report:
Status and Trends of Contaminants in Whole Fish through 2016 (EPA 2021a) and the Great Lakes Fish
Monitoring and Surveillance Program Technical Report: Status and Trends of Contaminants in Whole
Fish through 2017 (EPA 2021b), 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).
7000
6000
I Other Halo Organics (non-monitored)
Halo MeOPs (non-monitored)**
Other Halo Organics (monitored)*
I PCBs (monitored)
4000
3000
2000
1000
Apostle Islands
LS
Saugatuck
LM
Rockport
LH
Middle Bass Island
LE
Oswego
LO
Figure 7. Concentrations of halogenated compounds and PCBs in GLFMSP mega-composite samples from 2018.
* Includes PBDEs and OCPs.
** Concentrations were determined using reference standards where available or structurally similar compound.
JULY 2024
PAGE | 25
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
¦ Other Halo Organics (non-monitored)
¦ Halo MeOPs (non-monitored)**
¦ Other Halo Organics (monitored)*
¦ PCBs (monitored)
Keweenaw Point Sturgeon Bay Port Austin Dunkirk North Hamlin
LS LM LH LE LO
Figure 8. Concentrations of halogenated compounds and PCBs in GLFMSP mega-composite samples from 2019.
* Includes PBDEs and OCPs.
** Concentrations were determined using reference standards where available or structurally similar compound.
JULY 2024
PAGE | 26
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
6 SUMMARY
The 2019 GLFMSP Technical Report details sampling information for the Base Monitoring Program and
CSMI/Special Studies, assesses Base Monitoring Program trends through 2018 for even-year sites and
2019 for odd-year sites, 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 at all sampling sites including Rockport and Port
Austin (Lake Huron), Saugatuck and Sturgeon Bay (Lake Michigan), Apostle Islands and
Keweenaw Point (Lake Superior), and Oswego and North Hamlin (Lake Ontario), and in Walleye
at Middle Bass Island (Lake Erie), have declined significantly since 1991/1992. Concentrations
have also significantly declined at the Dunkirk sampling site in eastern basin of Lake Erie since
monitoring of Lake Trout began in 2008.
• Mean total PCB concentrations have exhibited a statistically significant decreasing trend at all
sites over the ten-year (2008-2018 or 2009-2019) timeframe (2008-2019 for Dunkirk).
• Mean total PBDE concentrations in Lake Trout at Rockport (Lake Huron), Saugatuck (Lake
Michigan), Apostle Islands (Lake Superior), and Oswego (Lake Ontario), and in Walleye at
Middle Bass Island (Lake Erie), have declined significantly since 2002. Mean Total PBDE
concentrations in Lake Trout have also declined significantly at Sturgeon Bay (Lake Michigan),
North Hamlin (Lake Ontario), and Keweenaw Point (Lake Superior) since 2001.
• Mean total PBDE concentrations showed a statistically significant decline at Apostle Islands
(Lake Superior), Saugatuck (Lake Michigan), Middle Bass Island (Lake Erie), and Oswego (Lake
Ontario) over the 2008-2018 timeframe. Mean total PBDE concentrations also showed a
statistically significant decline at the North Hamlin (Lake Ontario) and Port Austin (Lake Huron)
sites over the 2009-2019 time frame.
• Mean mercury concentrations in Lake Trout at Apostle Islands (Lake Superior) and Walleye at
Middle Bass Island (Lake Erie) have declined significantly since 2000.
• Mean mercury concentrations showed a statistically significant decline over the 2008-2018
timeframe at Middle Bass Island (Lake Erie) and Apostle Islands (Lake Superior). At Sturgeon
Bay (Lake Michigan), a statistically significant increase in mean mercury concentration was
exhibited from 2009-2019.
JULY 2024
PAGE | 27
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
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.
Clean Water Act, Section 118 Great Lakes; (33 U.S.C. § 1268; added by the Water Quality Act of 1987,
PL 100-4; amended by PL 100-688). https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-
08/documents/federal-water-pollution-control-act-508full.pdf. 31-41.
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) Action Plan III, Fiscal Year 2020 - Fiscal Year 2024. October
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-USA-GLWQA- e.pdf. p. 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.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es9Q3383a
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.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/i.envpol.2015.12.019
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. DOI:
https://doi.Org/10.1016/i.iglr.2018.05.006
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.
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.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05568
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/i.jglr.2019.09.023
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. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0cQ7507
JULY 2024
PAGE | 28
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
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.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0cQ0605
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. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9EW0Q765B
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/documents/glfmsp 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), 2021a Great Lakes Fish Monitoring and Surveillance
Program Technical Report: Status and Trends of Contaminants in Whole Fish through 2016.
Publication No. EPA # 905-R-20-002. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2Q21-
02/documents/glfmsp technical report 2016.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2021b. 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. https://www.epa.gov/svstem/files/documents/2021 -
1 l/glfmsp-technical-report-2017 O.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2022, March 16). Our Current Understanding of the
Human Health and Environmental Risks of PFAS. EPA.gov. https ://www. epa. gov/pfas/our-
current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas
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. https://doi.Org/10.1016/i.iglr.2018.03.007
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.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b0Q933
JULY 2024
PAGE | 29
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX A - LIST OF RECENT GLFMSP REPORTS
The following is a list of GLFMSP publications produced between 2018 and 2022.
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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-1595Q-4 43
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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/i.iglr.2018.07.011
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. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-15950-4 22
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
Environment and Climate Change Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2021. 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-20-044. Available at binational.net.
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.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.9b03335
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. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.0c03825
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 Mass Spectrometry. Environmental Science and
Technology. 52, 2909-2917. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05999
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. DOI: 10.1016/i.envpol.2019.01.117
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.
http s://doi.org/10.1016/i.scitotenv.2018.07.351
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.19Q7484116
JULY 2024
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.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b0612Q
Muir, D.C.G., Evans, M.S., Murphy, E.W., McGoldrick, D.J. 2021. Contaminants and Ecotoxicology. In:
Muir, A.M., Krueger, C.C., Hansen, M.J., Riley, S.C. (eds) The Lake Charr Salvelinus
namaycush: Biology, Ecology, Distribution, and Management. Fish & Fisheries Series. 39.
Springer, Cham. DPI: 10.1007/978-3-030-62259-6.
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. DOI:
10.1016/i.iglr.2018.05.006
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.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05568
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. https://doi.Org/10.1016/i.iglr.2019.09.023
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. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0cQ7507
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.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0cQ0605
Point, A., 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. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9EW0Q765B
Point, A.D., Holsen, T.M., Fernando, S., Hopke, P.K., Crimmins, B.S. 2021. Trends (2005-2016) of
perfluoroalkyl acids in top predator fish of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Science of the Total
Environment. 778: 146151. https://doi.Org/10.1016/i.scitotenv.2021.146151
Ren, J., Point, A., Fakouri Baygi, S., Fernando, S., Hopke, P.K., Holsen, T.M., Lantry, B., Weidel, B.,
Crimmins, B.S. 2021. Bioaccumulation of perfluoroalkyl substances in a Lake Ontario food web,
Journal of Great Lakes Research. 819, 152974. https://doi.Org/10.1016/i.iglr.2021.08.013
Ren, J., Point, A., Fakouri Baygi, S., Fernando, S., Hopke, P.K., Holsen, T.M., Crimmins, B.S. 2022
Bioaccumulation of polyfluoroalkyl substances in the Lake Huron aquatic food web. Science of
the Total Environment. https://doi.Org/10.1016/i.scitotenv.2022.152974
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. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b0Q427
JULY 2024
PAGE | A-2
-------
GREAT LAKES FISH MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL REPORT
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. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b0530Q
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/i.jglr.2018.03.007
Zhou, C., Pagano, J. McGoldrick, D., Chen, D., Crimmins, B., Hopke, P., Milligan, M., Murphy, E.,
Holsen, T., 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.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b0Q933
JULY 2024
PAGE | A-3
------- |